Life was inevitable

[Max111]

If we asume that there was nothing that could chose between A or B before there was life on earth than nothing could have affected the series of events that occurd after the Big Bang took place. So the second after the the Big Bang took place life on earth was already determined.

 

 

[iNow]

Quantum uncertainty to me suggests determinism is at best an approximation of reality. Your view seems purely deterministic. That is why I can’t accept it as valid. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Max111 said:

If we asume that there was nothing that could chose between A or B before there was life on earth than nothing could have affected the series of events that occurd after the Big Bang took place. So the second after the the Big Bang took place life on earth was already determined.

I agree with the title, but not because of your assumption. Life was inevitable simply because organic life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing heat from the sun than inorganic matter is. 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I agree with the title, but not because of your assumption. Life was inevitable simply because organic life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing heat from the sun than inorganic matter is. 

Isn't this the Jeremy England hypothesis? 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Isn't this the Jeremy England hypothesis? 

I remember reading an article on dissipation-driven adaptation, and it seemed an excellent argument for abiogenesis.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I remember reading an article on dissipation-driven adaptation, and it seemed an excellent argument for abiogenesis.

Isn't an excellent argument, we are here to think about it?

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Isn't this the Jeremy England hypothesis? 

https://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/nnano.2015.250__1_.pdf

Thanks for putting the name to the hypothesis!

54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't an excellent argument, we are here to think about it?

It's not one I would expect to win any converts over with, especially those who believe you're here because you were put here.

[Sensei]

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I agree with the title, but not because of your assumption. Life was inevitable simply because organic life is more efficient at absorbing and distributing heat from the sun than inorganic matter is. 

Chemosynthesis doesn't require a light source such as the Sun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemosynthesis

Photosynthesis is not the only way an autotrophic organism can obtain fuel and energy.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Sensei

[exchemist]

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

https://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/nnano.2015.250__1_.pdf

Thanks for putting the name to the hypothesis!

It's not one I would expect to win any converts over with, especially those who believe you're here because you were put here.

I remember reading about this and find it highly ingenious and persuasive. It also has the beautiful paradox of entropy maximisation being the engine that drives the growth in order implicit in living organisms. Apart from its inherent appeal, it's a great one to tease creationists with! 

But it's all gone a bit quiet - at least, I have not seen any more articles developing the idea. I had wondered whether it had been shot down, on some grounds or other.

Edited June 6, 2021 by exchemist

[StringJunky]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Quantum uncertainty to me suggests determinism is at best an approximation of reality. Your view seems purely deterministic. That is why I can’t accept it as valid. 

Given sufficient time, I think, the probability of life tended towards certainty. The ingredients were there.

[iNow]

I tend to align with that perspective 

[Ken Fabian]

Not just those who think life was created have a problem with the idea Life exists in order to moderate planetary energy flows. It seems to presume a purpose. It looks more purposeless and opportunistic to me; energy differences made opportunities for chemical reactions. The just right combinations of chemical reactions. A long way from the Big Bang to a world with the just right non-biological chemicals (not quite the same as "inorganic").

It does sound like the Big Bang was when the potential for such worlds with such chemistry was set. We don't yet know if the emergence of life was inevitable; if we find other emergent examples of Life or, by indirect methods, show that the chemical pathways that would lead to life are likely to be common on worlds similar to Earth, it might be a reasonable conclusion that Life was inevitable all along.

[swansont]

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't an excellent argument, we are here to think about it?

That doesn’t tell you the likelihood of it happening.

[Anand_Haqq]

. You may not have thought about it at all. You have heard – the whole of science depends on it – that cause and effect is the base. You create the cause and the effect follows. Life is a causal link. You put the seed in the soil and it will sprout. If the cause is there, then the tree will follow. The fire is there: you put your hand in it and it will burn. The cause is there and the effect will follow. You take poison and you will die. You arrange for the cause and then the effect follows.

. This is one of the most basic scientific laws, that cause and effect is the innermost link of all processes of life. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Anand_Haqq

[Phi for All]

21 hours ago, Anand_Haqq said:

Life is a causal link. You put the seed in the soil and it will sprout.

But this thread is about inevitability, which implies non-life to start. A seed is already alive, so you're just moving through a process, an existing cycle.

[Sensei]

On 6/6/2021 at 3:36 PM, dimreepr said:

Isn't an excellent argument, we are here to think..

...unless somebody drunk too much Johnnie Walker (again!)..

..some gets "ape brain" (as we say) after drinking too much (which we can clearly see at the weekend)..