I doesn't have to. I view life as generative and evolvative. All it needs is a hospitable environment, the right chemistry and time for innumerable iterations of the chemical combinations, maybe with an electrial booster shot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. My view is as I said to DRZ earlier in the thread:
In other words it starts from nothing in each case. All you have is multiple instances of the Big Bang and emerging life.
Yes, that is my view. But instead of phrasing it, "it starts from nothing", I would say, "it starts from the right combination of environment and chemistry". It starts from "nothing living" but is generated by the hospitable environment that evolves within each new arena during the expansion phase. Knowing our Pseudoscience forum history, our polite discussion is about to be inturrupted. No one ever talks to me about this stuff without someone inturrupting and pointing out that I am an idiot :bugeye:.
Um, okay. Terminology apart (and I agree that yours is "more" correct, although its still springs up where there was none before) how is that any different from ONE Big Bang? (For each individual start?)
If there were other Big Bangs, and each generated life within its own expanding arena, then it would be no different from one arena to the next. The problem is, if there is only one Big Bang, where did it come from. Did it come from nothing?
Really? You mean life would be no different? Or the mechanism? To reiterate, you said Post # 17. With the implication that somehow the rise of life in a single Big Bang universe is different from that in your "multiple version". How is it different? Why? It still has to arise independently in both cases. Tch, we can't know if there were others. In other words it COULD be your "multiple" but with each and every one causally separated from each and every other one.
That is not where I was going with those statements, but you see an implication so I will address it. The mechanics of the generation of life, i.e. the hospitable environment and the chemistry would be all that is needed. If you look just as carefully to my previous posts you should see the implication that the life forms themselves could take on many forms and could arise from many different environments. Different environments could be "hospitable" to different forms of life. Mine are causally connected. And if there were others I agree we couldn't know about them under normal circumstances. But if there were just one you didn't say where it came from.
No, an arena generated life, not a universe. And the arena evolved to the point that it provided hospitable environments and life was generated in that arena based on the environment and chemistry. As for the connection that you gather I invoke, there was a history before the big bang, and before all big bangs if there are others, that caused the initial expansion of the arena. In the past history of a given arena there was galactic material, remnants of galaxies that themselves could have hosted life. The remnants of those galaxies collapsed into a big crunch, one for each arena as the scenario goes, that lead to each individual expanding arena which then evolved to the point that life could be generated.
Yup, terminology. Life is still arising from a previously "dead" (i.e. non-living until the conditions are right) arena/ universe.
