Why do we exist so early?

[Anonymous No.10788597]

It's been 13.8 billion years since the big bang, but the universe will apparently keep existing for some ridiculous amounts of time. Shouldn't "right now" be somewhere in the middle of that time, rather than in the very beginning (relatively)? Seems absurdly unlikely, yet here we are.

[Anonymous No.10788599]

Why do we exist so late?

[Anonymous No.10788602]

>>10788597
QUIET ANON, THE EMPIRICIST HERE DONT LIKE IT WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS

hahaha what u mean anon the universe JUST IS, no rhyme or rhythm to it hahaha

[Anonymous No.10788603]

>>10788599
does it mean that our timeline has end?

[Orbulon, The Intellectual No.10788608]

Thou humans have been placed on this earth by the Ancients.

[Anonymous No.10788610]

>>10788597
>Shouldn't "right now" be somewhere in the middle of that time
I would really like you to reword that in a way that at least pretends to make actual sense

[Anonymous No.10788652]

>>10788610
He's asking why did intelligent life appear at 1/(1.4*10^90) of the estimated age of the Universe assuming the heat death scenario instead of, say, 1/2.

[Anonymous No.10788657]

>>10788652
Sorry, I meant lifespan, not age

[Anonymous No.10788692]

>>10788652
because the conditions allowed for it?
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the "shouldn't it be in the middle" part
where the fuck did that even come from?

[Anonymous No.10788698]

>>10788692
idk, i think op thinks that the largest probability of our ocurence would be later, not now. like in normal distribution, it's more probable you'll get the median value than the very low one. i don't know where he gets the distribution though

[Anonymous No.10788707]

>>10788692
I think I get him. Just from a statistics point of view, it seems unlikely for life to happen this early. Basically, the probability for it to happen in the short time interval up to now is almost zero.

I think the point is, compared with the really long lifetime of the universe, life is relatively easy.

[Anonymous No.10788711]

>>10788692
>where the fuck did that even come from?
Ask the OP. I assumed something like this anon >>10788698

I think the OP believes the fact that us being born early has some significant meaning.

[Anonymous No.10788715]

>>10788707
>Basically, the probability for it to happen in the short time interval up to now is almost zero.
No, it's literally 100% due to the fact that it did.

[Anonymous No.10788735]

>>10788698
I'm honestly struggling to understand where in the fuck does the probability even fits into this in that context.
The element that makes up 60% of atoms in your body (Hydrogen) existed before first stars formed. The element that makes up 65% of your body mass (Oxygen) was formed inside those first stars, along with the 3rd most abundant element in your body (Carbon), and pretty much every other prominent element inside your body was made in 1st gen stars, so we were pretty much ready to fucking roll billions of years before the stage was even set for us to crawl on.

[Anonymous No.10788783]

>>10788735
i think the logic is this. Imagine something lasts 100 instances of time. You know an event will happen in one of the instances with same probability of happening in any of them. Which one would you bet on? in the first instance you'd have 1% chance. In either first or second you'd have 2%. You could say "i'd bet on 100 instances", but chances are large that it would happen before so somewhere in the middle seems the most logical thing.

now i'm not op, nor do I think this. I'm just trying to understand op's logic and explain it to you

[Anonymous No.10788797]

>>10788597
>Shouldn't "right now" be somewhere in the middle of that time, rather than in the very beginning (relatively)?
You're assuming the conditions favorable to the emergence of biological organisms is the same throughout the entire lifespan of the universe. That's almost certainly nowhere close to true.

[Anonymous No.10788804]

>>10788602
anon are you ok

[Anonymous No.10788822]

>>10788597
We'd only expect to be in the middle if there really is a chance of being in the future, so the simplest explanation is that the future doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10788827]

>>10788783
>chances are large that it would happen before so somewhere in the middle seems the most logical thing
if you're doing a coin toss, maybe
not a chain of events with uncountable variables we barely comprehend that spanned billions of years
by the looks of things life in general pretty much emerged at the absolute earliest it could manage on this rock but, going from the primordial soup to the development of great ape intellect into what we brandish today was a long and perilous and almost certainly influenced by total freak occurrences, like the Permian-Triassic and Cretaceous–Paleogene extinctions, former of which allowed evolution of our very distant ancestors, and latter of which wiped out da leathery feathery reptile man who kept them down as dey were tryna get der lives back on track. Thank you based Chicxulub Asteroid.

[Anonymous No.10788828]

>>10788597
>>10788797
PS: Your use of "existing" for the universe is also maybe part of the problem here. Because of the analogy between a biological lifespan and the universe's "lifespan," we end up conflating how long the universe will be around with how long it'll be "alive." Really there's no actual well defined meaning to whether or not the universe is "alive." This is a problem when trying to make inferences like the one in the opening post for the same reason it would be a problem to think of a person as "alive" for centuries just because their dead body still exists.
The universe existing doesn't necessarily mean it's "alive" / in a working condition for producing significant amounts of biological organisms. Most of the time that constitutes the "lifespan" you have in mind for the universe might be dead time.
We see a similar deal with the Earth taken on its own. It was apparently able to produce life from nonlife in the distant past (barring theories of life being sent here from another source in the universe), but we see no instances of life being produced from the Earth itself today and I don't think there's any expectation there will ever be new life produced from the Earth itself at any point in the future.
You get your period of fertility followed by a long meandering stretch of dead time analogous to someone living, reproducing, dying, and then staying dead.

[Anonymous No.10788830]

>>10788597
Because they CLAMP.
VACCINATE.
FLUORIDATE.
CHLORIMATE.
BROMINATE.
IRRADIATE.

[Anonymous No.10788844]

>>10788830
and make the fucking frogs gay

[Anonymous No.10788847]

>>10788844
Atrazine. They need to cut that out too.

[Anonymous No.10788918]

>>10788783
I know that you aren't the one defending this idea, but it seems like a lot of people are very confused on the idea of probability. We don't know that the event has the same probability of happening at any point in time, and it's not like we've run a bunch of statistics on the matter. All of this, and the fact that we exist at this point, meaning the probability of us existing at this point is 100%, and this post makes absolutely no sense.

[Anonymous No.10789242]

>>10788597
The universe needed certain events to take place before it could become observable. So without us the universe cannot exist in this current form, we are the next stage of the universe.

[Anonymous No.10789524]

>>10788918
based and probabilitypilled

like on what grounds are people assigning probabilities to this question ...