Luc Turpin

Based on the available evidence, the leading hypothesis is that life originated from matter. However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter. While it is not the leading theory, it remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed at this point in time.

I have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact before we could even begin discussing the topic, while another argument suggests that because life didn’t exist at the Big Bang, it must have emerged later in this very particular way and in only this particular way. However, I do agree that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation we have at this time. My main point is this: treating it as a demonstrated fact, without inquiry into other possible areas of inquiry, could limit scientific progress. This is a concern I have, and it’s the only point I’m trying to make at this stage. To me, it feels like the conclusion of abiogenesis is being accepted prematurely, without a clear mechanism in place, and then framed as the only viable explanation. While we can make similar leaps in other areas—like star formation, where we have a strong understanding of the process—this is not yet the case with abiogenesis. Lastly, I do not believe my argument constitutes a strawman. I’m simply asking for a more open approach to exploring and questioning the evidence. Before attempting to explain how something happened, it's essential to first establish that it actually did happen. How about we focus instead on discussing the limitations set forth by abiogenesis on scientific inquiry?

The point I wanted to make is the fact that abiogenesis hasn't been fully demonstrated and is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research. That said, this conversation seems to be veering toward 'gotcha' moments, which isn't the type of discussion I had in mind. I also take some responsibility for not presenting my arguments more convincingly. I should have referred to force as electromagnetic force, which acts as an information carrier.

You have an unconventional way of getting your point across, so in a way, that makes us even.

Some physicists, including Penrose, Smolin, and Hawking, have explored the idea that the initial conditions of the universe were set from the very beginning. The more speculative point I’m raising is that, in addition to these conditions, the potential for information and the prerequisites for life might have also been embedded in the universe’s origins. With this, I’m using an example to suggest that a narrow focus on abiogenesis might limit our exploration of life. To be clear, I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but rather highlighting how it might shape our approach to understanding life.

The basic information needed to form atoms, galaxies, and life was already encoded at the time of the Big Bang. This "information" refers to the fundamental patterns and laws that govern matter and energy, shaping the universe’s development. These non-physical patterns guided everything, including the evolution of life. As an implication, the precursor to life may have been non-physical, with information being carried by energy without matter. When specifically applied to the origins of life, this idea offers a new perspective: rather than life emerging solely from chemical reactions, it might have arisen from an informational structure that controlled how atoms and molecules interacted. In this view, life’s key components are the informational patterns that organize molecules, rather than the molecules themselves. While speculative, this challenges the traditional materialistic view, suggesting that life and the universe are shaped by non-physical informational patterns that direct the evolution of matter and life.

Your statement overlooks the possibility that life could have originated without matter, with a non-physical state—such as information—playing a key role instead.

I agree that it pushes the issue further in time, and still falls under the umbrella of abiogenesis. I should have clarified that I meant all scientific possibilities. While unfalsifiable claims can be dismissed by science, they don't necessarily eliminate other avenues of investigation. As for 'inane,' it doesn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion. Pre-biotic or post-biotic? Some even contend of fossilized magnetotactic bacteria in Orgueil meteorite. https://www.panspermia.org/magneto.htm

Abiogenesis—the origin of life—remains unproven, including when it comes to understanding its mechanisms and the steps involved. We should allow evidence to guide our exploration, rather than making assumptions or working backward from predetermined conclusions. Restricting ourselves to "acceptable" outcomes that fit a predefined narrative distorts the scientific process and invites confirmation bias. One possibility is that life may have originated elsewhere in the universe, a theory that remains plausible given the current lack of conclusive evidence. Furthermore, if life emerged from the information embedded in molecules rather than solely from physical matter, we may need to reconsider whether it originated from matter or a non-physical state. This suggests the answer could lie in a nuanced grey area, rather than a clear-cut binary choice. Science must remain open to exploring all possibilities.

Disagreeing with a statement doesn’t mean I’m not listening. In fact, I have the distinct impression that I’m not being listened to, which feels a bit ironic, doesn’t it?

Would this contribute anything to the conversation?

Apparently I am!

I revisited my earlier comments on abiogenesis to assess where I may have misrepresented the concept, and I reached the same conclusion as you. I would ask exchemist to clarify where the misrepresentation occurred, but unfortunately, as others, he has withdrawn from the discussion. Additionally, my statement that 'although there is strong evidence suggesting life could have originated from simple molecules under specific conditions, it remains a plausible concept rather than an established fact' more accurately reflects the current state of scientific understanding, as opposed to claiming that 'abiogenesis is an objective fact.'" Science can study the mental indirectly, but not directly. That's an overly categorical statement to be accurate. I'd likely get downvoted for backing out of a discussion in that way. In French, we might call this a classic example of 'deux poids, deux mesures,' which loosely translates to judging two similar things with partiality, using different standards for each. In fact, this entire conversation seems to be marked by inconsistent standards, applied differently depending on the speaker and on what is being said. And how does such a statement contribute to the discussion? I'll reiterate: that's an overly categorical statement to be accurate. Many of my posts are based on the perspectives of those more knowledgeable about the subject than I am.

I did not intend to be disrespectful in "reminding you." Indeed, only a few researchers are exploring the connections between the origin of life (though not necessarily abiogenesis) and concepts tied to the holographic principle. For instance, Lee Smolin, in his work on cosmology and the origins of life in the universe, frequently gravitates toward ideas that align with the holographic principle. Others, such as Hameroff, also touch on similar themes, but I agree, this remains a relatively small group. In contrast, quantum biology is a more active field, with researchers like Ray, Vedral, Fleming, and Aspect making notable contributions. You are right in pointing out that string theory is primarily concerned with developing a mathematical framework to support quantum gravity. However, I’m not sure if David Bohm or Gerard 't Hooft had string theory specifically in mind when they were one of the firsts to venture into the realm of holography, as string theory, in its current form, didn’t fully develop until later than when both Bohm or Hooft were researching the matter of holography. They might have been focused more on quantum gravity, but likely not string theory per se. I am in no way belittling the progress made in abiogenesis research. However, my point is that some researchers are looking beyond molecular interactions to explore broader mechanisms that could explain how life emerged from matter. Regarding your suggestion that I’m repeating myself, I actually believe I’m introducing new elements and additionnal information that could complement what I’ve previously mentioned, which may help to further our understanding of abiogenesis. Moreover, I think it would be valuable to either refocus our discussion around the divine, the main topic of this thread, or shift our focus to the molecular mechanisms that remain insufficiently explored in this conversation. Once we delve deeper into these mechanisms, we may be in a better position to determine whether a satisfactory explanation of abiogenesis lies within molecules, beyond them, or somewhere else entirely. Finally, I want to clarify that, upon reading more about the holographic principle, I see both challenges and potential for significant advancements. Its central idea—that information is the underlying, all-encompassing factor that shapes matter—strikes me as possibly key to understanding the complexity and organization we see throughout nature and the universe. Respectfully.

Indeed, this is a highly speculative notion regarding abiogenesis, and I think we can at least agree on that. I mentioned something along those lines at the beginning, and the topic of abiogenesis was raised by someone else, not me. I also made it clear that everything discussed on matters related to the holographic principle are purely theoretical, with no experimental evidence to support any of it at this point. Regarding strings theory, I'm aware that it is a highly contested field within scientific inquiry, with many differing opinions and many claiming that it is a false start. I want to remind you though that the main reason I brought up these ideas was to highlight that scientists are exploring various avenues to explain abiogenesis—not just through molecular processes but potentially through other frameworks. If the holographic principle were to be shown as relevant, it could have profound implications, not only for our understanding of abiogenesis but for science as a whole. It could dramatically shift our interpretation of reality. That said, I still maintain that a purely molecular explanation of abiogenesis hasn’t cracked the nut, and likely won’t without addressing deeper or more complex factors that might be involved in the transition from non-living matter to life. Quantum biology and the holographic principle were merely examples of areas where we might need to start looking for answers. The world is not only made of "stuff" and "stuff" does not capture the entirety of reality of the world as we experience it.

Thank you for this. I truly appreciate, as this is the first direct support I’ve received since I began posting on Science Forums. I couldn’t agree more with your point about the distinction between spirituality and religion, while also acknowledging their interconnectedness. As I’ve mentioned before, I sometimes get the sense that forum members reach conclusions without fully considering what I’ve actually said or meant. It’s frustrating when people don’t engage thoughtfully with the ideas being presented. In French, we have a saying: “La pluie de vos injures n'atteint point le parapluie de mon indifférence”. In other words, the term "crackpot" doesn't affect me much. I also agree with your description of some forum members' behavior. However, I think your example of Pavlov's dogs might be a bit too simple. The conditioning we encounter here is often much more deeply ingrained than that. I’ve already reversed the first downvote you received. As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, if we truly aim to understand reality, we need a more inclusive perspective—one that encompasses the physical, mental, and emotional aspects, whether or not a supreme being is involved. This is a prime example of the impression I sometimes get that forum members may be misinterpreting my points. I’ve mentioned multiple times that the "holographic principle" was merely given as an example of the various approaches scientists are exploring to understand how abiogenesis might have occurred—not just through molecular processes, but also through other avenues. I’ve never claimed to be a staunch advocate of this theory. Nevertheless, I’ve been seeking to understand what it truly means for complexity to emerge from information encoded in the universe. The holographic principle suggests that all the information within a 3D volume of space can be encoded on its 2D boundary, much like the way a hologram works. However, in this case, the entire universe functions as the hologram. In this holographic perspective, information is considered the fundamental building block of reality. Modern physics and cosmology align with this idea, proposing that the universe, at its core, is composed of information. As physicist John Archibald Wheeler famously put it, "It from Bit." In this framework, every particle, field, and interaction is viewed as data—pieces of a vast, information-processing system. The complexity of the universe, including phenomena like abiogenesis, doesn’t arise randomly, but rather from specific patterns of encoded information that interact and organize themselves. This model basically suggests that everything emerges from information encoded in the very fabric of existence. Essentially, the universe isn’t made of "stuff," but is instead a dynamic flow and organization of information. Like a hologram, where each part contains the whole, every piece of the universe reflects the larger system encoded within it. In summary, the concept challenges our conventional understanding: it’s not "stuff" that makes up reality, but information. Rather than being fundamental entities, particles, forces, physical phenomena, gravity, space, and time are emergent properties, encoded within a deeper, lower-dimensional structure that unfolds and organizes itself. And this would also apply to abiogenesis. Sounds out of this world? Indeed, it does!

Questioning abiogenesis in terms of its molecular composition and interactions, focusing not only on the individual molecules involved but also on the flow and organization of information that guides the emergence of life.

Abiogenesis: Abiogenesis does not require supernatural forces or miracles. While there are ongoing theories about how this happened, the main challenge is the lack of a clear, experimentally supported mechanism for life’s spontaneous emergence. Although there is strong evidence suggesting life could have originated from simple molecules under specific conditions, it remains a plausible theory rather than a determined fact. Addressing Abiogenesis: To effectively challenge abiogenesis, I agree that it's important to focus on specific hypotheses rather than just emphasizing the difficulty of the process. While I’ve raised challenges to its study, I recognize that being more precise in addressing particular molecular processes would move the discussion forward. However, it's also essential to maintain a balance between focusing on details and considering the broader context. The Holographic Principle and Quantum Biology: My intention in mentioning “the holographic principle” or “quantum biology” was to highlight alternative avenues being explored to explain abiogenesis, not to advocate for either as definitive answers. That said, I agree that for these concepts to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, we need to better understand how they apply to the origins of life. With that in mind, here is an example of what I could have included when referencing "the holographic principle": The connection between abiogenesis and the holographic principle is theoretical and indirect, with no experimental evidence. However, advocates of the Holographic Principle indicate that it may have implications in abiogenesis: Abiogenesis focuses on how life originated from non-living matter through chemical processes. It involves the formation of simple molecules that became more complex and capable of self-replication, driven by early Earth conditions. It emphasizes chemical evolution, metabolism, genetic information, and the development of cells. The Holographic Principle, often discussed in the context of quantum gravity and black hole thermodynamics, proposes that the universe’s physical 3D reality may be encoded as information on a 2D boundary, suggesting that complexity, including life, can emerge from simpler informational processes. Probable connections between the two ideas include: Information: Both abiogenesis and the holographic principle emphasize the role of information in shaping complexity. Abiogenesis involves the encoding of information in molecular interactions and genetic material, while the holographic principle proposes that the universe’s complexity arises from 2D information. Complexity: Both explore how complexity emerges from simplicity. Abiogenesis explains life’s emergence through chemical processes, and the holographic principle suggests that our entire complex 3D universe emerges from simpler 2D information. Quantum Biology: The link between the holographic principle and quantum biology in the context of abiogenesis lies in the shared focus on quantum processes. Both suggest that quantum information could play a key role in the emergence of life, potentially offering new insights into how complexity and life arise from simpler states. Connectedness: Abiogenesis would be connected to the holographic principle as the latter suggests that the universe is interconnected through information encoded on its boundaries, which would include abiogenesis and its molecular interactions and genetic information. New Models of Life: Again, and more importantly, if information is encoded at a deeper level, such as on a 2D boundary, it could lead to new models of life. This idea might reframe abiogenesis as not just a chemical process, but also an informational one, where life emerges from a simpler, possibly quantum-based informational system.

Many of the comments I've received haven’t actually addressed the specifics of my arguments but instead resorted to blanket labels like “crackpot,” “creationist,” or “ignorant.” If that's not derision, then the tone comes across as overtly dismissive. When it comes to the claim of misconception, I’m referring to how I’ve been painted as “anti-science,” when, in reality, I’m only suggesting that some aspects of science need to be revisited and critically examined. As for being accused of “sitting on the fence,” I fail to see what’s wrong with that. What's wrong with staying intellectually honest, keeping an open mind, and not closing off avenues of exploration? Healthy skepticism and a willingness to reconsider ideas are fundamental to the scientific process.

So far, not much! However, I do believe there’s value in discussing areas where science can improve. Unfortunately, whenever I bring this up, it’s often met with derision and misconception that I’m anti-science or trying to dismantle everything. This is just one aspect of what I meant when I said that meaningful discussion isn’t taking place.

I completely agree with this statement, though I’ll need you to be patient with me, as I don’t have as much knowledge as you.

No imagination needed in formulating the contention that we do not know how life originated from matter. And it is a real and viable area of scientific enquiry.

The results are intriguing, but they don’t tackle the fundamental question of how RNA molecules originated in the first place. How did RNA spontaneously form from non-living matter, without the aid of any biological systems? Given RNA's inherent instability, how could such molecules have survived long enough to evolve? While the ability of RNA to generate new variants is significant, it addresses only a small part of the larger challenge of understanding how life could arise from non-living substances. This discovery is a piece of the puzzle, but it’s not the entire solution. More empirical evidence is needed to fully support this hypothesis and demonstrate how it could have occurred in a real-world prebiotic environment.

Abiogenesis isn’t just an abstract concept; it’s a specific area of scientific study focused on understanding how life might have emerged from non-living matter. Criticisms of abiogenesis aren’t attacks on science, but an acknowledgment that we still lack a clear, well-supported explanation for how life began. Comparing it to the formation of the solar system isn’t valid, as the origin of life remains unresolved, while the solar system’s origins are better understood. When I mention "proof," I mean the need for evidence—evidence that builds over time, refining or strengthening theories while remaining open to revision. My concerns about the lack of evidence highlight gaps in our understanding, not an attack on science itself. Science doesn’t seek absolute proof, but there is still no universally accepted theory explaining how life emerged from non-living material, and the existing models have significant gaps. The central question remains: How did simple molecules evolve into complex, self-replicating systems? Many models suggest a gradual process, but they still need to explain how non-living molecules could form living systems. No model has yet provided a comprehensive pathway from simple molecules to living organisms. Furthermore, life forms that blur the boundary between life and non-life highlight the need for a clearer definition of life, without diverting from the core issues of abiogenesis. Regarding the claim that my questions echo creationism, I want to clarify that questioning abiogenesis theories is not rejecting science; it’s acknowledging the significant gaps in our understanding. Ultimately, while I don’t see abiogenesis as an "unsolvable mystery," I do view it as a major scientific challenge—one that requires more research, new ideas, and continued refinement of existing models.

Before deciding if a discussion is pointless, there actually needs to be a discussion in the first place—which isn’t happening right now.