Luc Turpin

Science excels at describing matter and energy, but it has been less successful in fully understanding life and consciousness.

You are right! I was not attentive and precise in my meaning. You are wrong! I am not a creationist.

The goal of abiogenesis research is not to create life, but rather to understand how life could have emerged from non-living matter. While various approaches represent complementary pieces of the puzzle rather than failed alternatives, this does not diminish the challenge of integrating them into a coherent model of abiogenesis. The fact remains that we still do not fully understand how life originated from matter. Regarding information transfer in terms of coherence or entanglement, it's about how particles can influence each other, affecting the outcome of chemical reactions. I am not an expert in this field, so I will refrain from delving deeper beyond my understanding of the research I've read. As for the holographic principle, it proposes that the universe might be described by information encoded in a two-dimensional surface, if I am correct. Thank you for the discussion.

I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them. We’ve examined various approaches to understanding abiogenesis: experiments with primordial soup, prebiotic chemistry such as the RNA world, self-replicating molecules, lipid membranes, and computational models designed to accelerate the evolutionary process. Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter. When it comes to quantum processes and their potential role in abiogenesis, my reading suggests that quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions while coherence might speed up these reactions. additionnaly, the holographic principle might offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe. I’m not a chemistry expert like you, but I’m starting to get a bit frustrated with the accusations.

I am more into processes for answers, than God did it!

I did not suggest that there is a clear dividing line between chemistry and quantum processes. To understand the process of life, we now need to be looking beyond traditional chemical reactions. That’s the point I’m making—not that the two processes are separate, but that "more" is needed to understand life. I don’t need to provide evidence for concepts like superposition, entanglement, or tunneling, as I’m not defending quantum biology. My point is simply that quantum biology is an active area of debate when it comes to the origin of life from non-living matter. Similarly, I’m not claiming that the holographic principle is necessarily involved in life’s origins, but rather that some researchers believe it might be. I’d encourage you to look into the principle further before dismissing it as “quantum woo.” Ultimately, my point is not to argue that the answer lies in chemicals, atoms, or information, but rather that the search for life’s origins has expanded because the transition from matter to life is more complex than initially anticipated. I was discussing spirituality before the conversation veered off course. I’m not hiding behind quantum theory, as I don’t believe the answer necessarily lies there. In fact, I’m not sure where the answer lies at this point in time.

Yes, quantum mechanics certainly influences biochemical processes, but quantum biology might be providing new insights into the mechanisms of life at the molecular and atomic levels. To explain the emergence of life from non-living matter, it could be that it is no longer enough to focus solely on chemical reactions; we may also need to consider processes at the atomic and quantum levels. To me, this represents a significant shift in at least where we are searching for answers. However, there’s no guarantee that the solution lies exclusively in either chemical or atomic explanations. Introducing concepts like the holographic principle takes us even further, suggesting that the key to understanding life may lie in the realm of information, beyond the atomic level. The question of how life arises from non-living matter remains an active area of research, and the scope of this search has broadened. Explaining life purely through chemistry appears increasingly insufficient; it seems that "something else" or "something more" (jury still out on this one) is required to fully uncover this fundamental mystery. That was the point that I was trying to make. I might also add that we are getting further and further away from the original religious intention of this thread.

'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways. Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes. Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter. While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred. Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life.

Substantiate

You seem to be reading more into what I said than I intended. My point was simply to highlight that quantum biology is not a "creationist claptrap," not that you considered it as such. The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis that does not carry a creationist agenda. Our communication difficulties seem to arise more from misunderstandings than from any intent on my part to misrepresent my interlocutors. Regarding your comment on the idea that "just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place," I want to reiterate my earlier point: the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter becomes living organisms, without the involvement of pre-existing life, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis, it simply makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation. As for quantum biology, several scientists, including Nicholas Gisin, Jim Al-Khalili, Vlatko Vedral, Michael Terry and Johnjoe McFadden have explored it as a potential avenue of research. Again, my intention is not to assert that quantum biology is a fully validated theory, but rather to point out that it is one of several alternative ideas being considered in place of abiogenesis. I am not advocating for it nor promoting any specific hypotheses from these scientists, so I will not be providing informaton on them. Similarly, I mention theories like the holographic principle and panspermia as other possible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, though I personally see panspermia as merely shifting the problem further down the timeline.

If there is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" in our understanding, then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Concepts like quantum superposition and entanglement have been proposed as possible influences on life. Again, speculative I concur. And quantum biology has nothing to do with creationist claptrap.

The lack of observed abiogenesis in both nature and the lab suggests that our understanding of how life arises from non-living matter may be incomplete. This gap implies that there might be key mechanisms we have yet to identify. One emerging possibility is quantum biology, which explores whether quantum mechanics could play a role in biological processes. While quantum effects may offer new insights, these ideas remain speculative. I beg to differ, the text is not preaching, but rather an expression of an opinion about the nature of scientific inquiry. I am not imparting a moral or doctrinal message. I am just conveying what reputable scientists have said about understanding reality. I am trying to share a perspective. I wouldn’t call myself intellectually lazy, though I may not be the sharpest, as I honestly don’t know where to begin with this.

Yup! And you complain about the internet age!

I agree, but that is not an excuse for unchecked or unrestrained commenting. Taking several days to prepare a single post is not lazy. Accompanying citations with arguments is not fallacious. I maintain that most scientists are driven by a genuine desire to understand how the world works, whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged in science is a matter for debate. When looking at science across various fields, it’s evident that we are making significant progress in deepening our understanding of the world. I’m not suggesting that our comprehension is complete, but that it is an ongoing process. Discovery is crucial, but without a general sense of intent, it becomes data without much meaning. The heart, lungs, and cells are undeniably alive, but proteins, despite being essential for bodily functions, are not considered "alive." Life is intricately linked to the body; more precicely to cells in the body. The question of how inert matter transforms into living cells remains unresolved, leaving us with two possibilities: either we have not yet uncovered the full mechanism, or there is something beyond our current scientific understanding that we have yet to identify. What this missing something might be remains unknown and speculative.

Using quotations to support an argument is a valid approach. However, you have extracted a single element from the broader context I’ve been presenting across several posts. That said, I acknowledge that I could have articulated my point more clearly. I maintain that the search for universal laws, among other things, is an integral part of understanding reality.

Science is partly rooted in skepticism, yes, but it should not be adversarial. Adversarial approaches often devolve into emotion rather than reasoned debate.

I do not contest the validity of your statement. However, are we merely seeking a conceptual fit to nature, or is science also attempting to explore and address the deeper questions of nature? To me, this equates to striving for a deeper understanding of reality. Many prominent scientists speak of "understanding" reality, and some even suggest that science plays a role in "shaping" it. That said, I acknowledge that I may have misinterpreted their ideas. Biology 101: "Once ingested, food is broken down by the digestive system into nutrients, such as proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals. These nutrients are then absorbed and used by the body to support various biological processes like energy production, cell growth, and tissue repair." However, I have not encountered any mention that the food itself becomes "alive" within the body. That said, my main contention remains: non-living matter turning into living matter has not yet been demonstrated without the involvement of living organisms. Does this mean it is impossible? No, it does not. But the statement remains valid. Yes, I am referring to abiogenesis. While we have not directly observed the Big Bang, we have compelling evidence supporting its occurrence. The lack of direct observation does not invalidate the theory; it simply makes it more open to scrutiny. Similarly, the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter turns into living organisms, without the presence of pre-existing life at the transition, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis. It merely makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation. I am not admonishing myself nor the OP, but long-term members have also contributed to making this science forum less welcoming through disrespectful behavior and pigeonholing some of us, often with the intent of fostering and maintaining an adversarial tone. The current environment is not conducive to rational discussion and frequently devolves into insinuations and outright hostility.

.1 to 4 - yes 5- Molecules that make up proteins in the body remain lifeless on their own, even though they are integral to a living organism. It is the body as a whole that is alive, not the individual molecules. However, the key point is that the transformation of matter into living organisms has neither been observed in nature nor replicated in the lab. Nonetheless, we continue striving to understand nature, a significant portion of reality, even if our understanding can only approach it asymptotically. +1 for the post. However, I am not implying that God transformed non-living matter into living organisms. What I am stating is that, as of now, we have not observed non-living matter turning into a living organism, either in nature or in the lab. This is a factual observation, not a matter of belief. Speaking of physics, Heisenberg emphasized how science (quantum mechanics) shapes our understanding of reality. Or more broadly, Kuhn exploring how science expands our understanding of reality by examining shifts in scientific paradigms. Numerous renowned scientists believe that science plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of reality.

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

Molecules, even within the body, are not alive on their own. If I were to remove one from the body, it would not be alive by itself. For now, I prefer to say that we have not yet discovered how molecules transform into life, or what causes an amalgamation of molecules to sometimes form a living entity and other times remain non-living.

There is a major difference to be made between non-living molecules being incorporated into a living organism and life emerging from non-living matter on its own. The first is common, while the second has, I believe, never been observed in nature or recreated in a lab. CO2 is used by living organisms but remains non-living. On the other hand, abiogenesis refers to the process where non-living matter transforms itself into living organisms without life being present. 1-I disagree. Science does more than simply describe how nature works; it seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms, and this brings us closer to understanding reality. Through theoretical models, for instance, science aims to explain and predict phenomena, which refines our understanding of the world. Ultimately, science’s goal is not just to describe nature, but to better comprehend the principles that govern reality. Beyond describing; understanding is the essence of science. 2- I do not see the relevance of bringing up "fantasy" in the discussion. Fantasy is separate from reality; it involves creating imagined thoughts that don’t align with the real world. In contrast, subjectivity starts with reality, interpreting and shaping it based on an individual’s experiences and perspectives. Subjectivity would not lead to the conclusion that a bicycle can fly, but it might influence how one perceives whether the rider is in control of the bicycle, based on observations and experiences. 3- I contend that it would bring science closer to undertanding reality in all of its's ramifications.

1- I have been saying that all along. 2- Relying on their own individual subjectivity, which is not very good. I am talking about collective subjectivity though.

A distinction must be made between individual subjective experiences and the collective patterns of those experiences that span across time and cultures. While science cannot and should not concern itself with individual preferences, as they are highly variable, it becomes significant when millions of people report similar subjective experiences. This suggests that there may be underlying forces at play in the nature of reality itself. By exploring these shared experiences, science can broaden its scope, bringing it closer to a deeper understanding of true reality. An approach that bridges the gap between objective and collective-subjective realities would greatly expand science’s exploration of the human condition.

Subjectivity is an inherent-integral part of the world we live in. So, do we simply choose to ignore it?

1-Science should engage with subjectivity if it seeks to truly understand the core of reality. 2- I wouldn't be trying to convince myself if it weren't for the fact that "bothersome" things tend to happen when the brain shuts down or is at rest. 3-It's the opposite — science is being hindered by a reluctance to engage with subjectivity. As for God, I’m uncertain of His existence.