What if god...

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways.

Not really. You have to include the statement it’s denying, which was that quantum biology being considered an alternative to abiogenesis. There’s really only one way to negate a statement if the form “A is B” 

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

 

Chemistry includes quantum effects - a degree in chemistry would include a course on physical chemistry, which includes QM. Quantum chemistry is a branch of p-chem. Quantum effects were never excluded. 

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

No part of science would be an alternative to abiogenesis.

 

Quote

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.

Since we don’t actually know the process, how can anything be an alternative? If it’s correct, it would simply be the explanation.

[Luc Turpin]

55 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is simply a term meaning the natural processes by which biochemistry and thus life arose from pre-biotic chemistry. Quantum biology is just one, existing, small subset of the biochemical processes that science already considers, when investigating the chemical processes within cells. Quantum biology is not some magical extra alternative to biochemistry: it's part of it.  

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.

Edited 15 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[exchemist]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Yes, quantum mechanics certainly influences biochemical processes, but quantum biology is 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’s 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 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.

You are making this up and it is ballocks. There is no dividing line, as you seem to imagine, between chemistry and quantum processes. All of chemistry consists of quantum processes at the "atomic and quantum levels". Tunnelling phenomena have been a part of chemistry for decades, e.g. the inversion spectrum of ammonia.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that QM tunnelling or entanglement can shed any light at all on abiogenesis. 

When you say" 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." this is just quantum woo. It is meaningless.

I repeat: show me please a citation, by any of the researchers you mention, that proposes a specific role for quantum biological processes at some stage in the chain of processes involved in abiogenesis. I bet you can't, because you have made it up.

You have no understanding of quantum mechanics or biochemistry and because you don't understand either you are trying to make a religion out of them. This is cargo cult stuff. 

 

[dimreepr]

49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I might also add that we are getting further and further away from the original religious intention of this thread.

Indeed, but your arguments have been on topic throughout; quantum is the latest god you've chosen to hide behind... 🙄

[Luc Turpin]

45 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You are making this up and it is ballocks. There is no dividing line, as you seem to imagine, between chemistry and quantum processes. All of chemistry consists of quantum processes at the "atomic and quantum levels". Tunnelling phenomena have been a part of chemistry for decades, e.g. the inversion spectrum of ammonia.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that QM tunnelling or entanglement can shed any light at all on abiogenesis. 

When you say" 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." this is just quantum woo. It is meaningless.

I repeat: show me please a citation, by any of the researchers you mention, that proposes a specific role for quantum biological processes at some stage in the chain of processes involved in abiogenesis. I bet you can't, because you have made it up.

You have no understanding of quantum mechanics or biochemistry and because you don't understand either you are trying to make a religion out of them. This is cargo cult stuff. 

 

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.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but your arguments have been on topic throughout; quantum is the latest god you've chosen to hide behind... 🙄

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.

 

Edited 15 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’m not sure where the answer lies at this point in time.

What if god did it, is cleary not one of the option's, if you want to make sense...

[Luc Turpin]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if god did it, is cleary not one of the option's, if you want to make sense...

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

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

You might think you are,  but time passes differently here... 🤓 

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Anticipated by whom? I’d like to know who thought it would be simple.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

 

You have offered no reason why we should "look beyond traditional chemical reactions" (whatever you mean by "traditional" - it seems to me to be a meaningless distinction). You offer no example of how the "more" you speak of solves any problem in abiogenesis.

You seem to imagine there is some fundamental stumbling block to understanding. There isn't. As @swansont points out, nobody in the world of biochemistry has come to the conclusion life is "more complex than initially anticipated".  You have made that up. It is just a very complex issue, involving a lot of subsystems of chemical processes and physical structures. There is no special missing piece. 

I ask you again: can you cite any specific role, or hypothetical role, in abiogenesis that quantum processes like tunnelling or entanglement can play, which would overcome a difficulty puzzling those working in the field?  How can such processes help in the mechanism for forming the first bilipid membrane, for example? Or the process by which the ATP,<-> ADP interconversion became adopted as the energy transport method for cellular processes? Or the process by which chirality in saccharides and proteins became established?  You have no idea. 

[Luc Turpin]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Anticipated by whom? I’d like to know who thought it would be simple.

I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them.

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You have offered no reason why we should "look beyond traditional chemical reactions" (whatever you mean by "traditional" - it seems to me to be a meaningless distinction). You offer no example of how the "more" you speak of solves any problem in abiogenesis.

You seem to imagine there is some fundamental stumbling block to understanding. There isn't. As @swansont points out, nobody in the world of biochemistry has come to the conclusion life is "more complex than initially anticipated".  You have made that up. It is just a very complex issue, involving a lot of subsystems of chemical processes and physical structures. There is no special missing piece. 

I ask you again: can you cite any specific role, or hypothetical role, in abiogenesis that quantum processes like tunnelling or entanglement can play, which would overcome a difficulty puzzling those working in the field?  How can such processes help in the mechanism for forming the first bilipid membrane, for example? Or the process by which the ATP,<-> ADP interconversion became adopted as the energy transport method for cellular processes? Or the process by which chirality in saccharides and proteins became established?  You have no idea. 

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.

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer

Quantum entanglement does not involve information transfer in any way.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have already provided several names (Klyce, Davis, Deamer, etc.) in a previous post with quotes from some of them.

How in the world do any of those quotes suggest that anyone thought figuring out abiogenesis would be simple? (The only one that might lean in that direction is from Popper, who was not a biologist.)

You might be able to get a little traction if you dig for quotes from before DNA was discovered, in the realization of just how difficult the difficult problem was. 

 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Quantum entanglement does not involve information transfer in any way.

That’s not really accurate. The limitation is on superluminal information transfer. Information transfer is part of teleportation, which uses entanglement. So it’s involved.

That said, I’ve never seen a clear explanation of the role of entanglement in biology in articles that tout it (but those are pop-sci articles that often get entanglement details wrong anyway)

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

No you certainly are not! And the accusations will keep coming unless you raise your game and stop misrepresenting abiogenesis research - see below for the many ways in which you are doing that.

You list these ideas as if they are alternative attempts that have all failed in some way, to be discarded in favour of some other approach. This is an absurd misreading of how the science is done. Lipid membranes are one part of the puzzle. RNA, or some other replication system, is another, different one.  The Miller Urey "primordial soup" experiment was done in the 1950s, 70 years ago now, and it was very informative at the time. These are not failed alternatives but different pieces of the jigsaw, being pursued concurrently, or which (like the Miller Urey experiment) served a purpose in advancing knowledge many years ago, to be followed up by newer approaches built on those foundations. 

And none of this research has the goal of generating life artificially. That is a complete red herring. So for you to say "despite these efforts" we have not succeeded in generating artificial life is a ridiculously false characterisation of what abiogenesis research is about. Of course we haven't: that has never been the goal.  

At every stage in this discussion you sound more and more like a creationist. This is the sort of nonsense I have become used to from them. 

"Quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions" is just meaningless waffle unless you specify what information transfer you are referring to and in what chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not as a rule result in "information transfer" at all. What are you talking about? Do you even know?

"The holographic principle might  offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" is even worse. That is utter, question-begging  gibberish. What do you mean by "information" being "encoded in the universe"? Who says it is? And what relevance does this woolly notion have to abiogenesis? 

As for complexity, that emerges all the time in nature and there is no mystery at all about how that happens. So there is no problem of principle to solve there. 

You are completely misrepresenting the science, and then offering pseudo-mystical woolly nonsense as a solution to problems you cannot even define.  

 

Edited 9 hours ago by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No you certainly are not! And the accusations will keep coming unless you raise your game and stop misrepresenting abiogenesis research - see below for the many ways in which you are doing that.

You list these ideas as if they are alternative attempts that have all failed in some way, to be discarded in favour of some other approach. This is an absurd misreading of how the science is done. Lipid membranes are one part of the puzzle. RNA, or some other replication system, is another, different one.  The Miller Urey "primordial soup" experiment was done in the 1950s, 70 years ago now, and it was very informative at the time. These are not failed alternatives but different pieces of the jigsaw, being pursued concurrently, or which (like the Miller Urey experiment) served a purpose in advancing knowledge many years ago, to be followed up by newer approaches built on those foundations. 

And none of this research has the goal of generating life artificially. That is a complete red herring. So for you to say "despite these efforts" we have not succeeded in generating artificial life is a ridiculously false characterisation of what abiogenesis research is about. Of course we haven't: that has never been the goal.  

At every stage in this discussion you sound more and more like a creationist. This is the sort of nonsense I have become used to from them. 

"Quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions" is just meaningless waffle unless you specify what information transfer you are referring to and in what chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not as a rule result in "information transfer" at all. What are you talking about? Do you even know?

"The holographic principle might  offer insight into how complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" is even worse. That is utter question-begging  gibberish. What do you mean by "information" being "encoded in the universe"? Who says it is? And what relevance does this woolly notion have to abiogenesis? 

As for complexity, that emerges all the time in nature and there is no mystery at all about how that happens. So there is no problem of principle to solve there. 

You are completely misrepresenting the science, and then offering nonsense as a solution to problems you cannot even define.  

 

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.

[m_m]

Just now, exchemist said:

You are completely misrepresenting the science, and then offering pseudo-mystical woolly nonsense as a solution to problems you cannot even define.  

 

I want to agree with you this time. 

Poor Luc Turpin  doesn't know what he believes in ( and it's important) and wants to sit on two chairs.  It's impossible. 

He doesn't understand, that scientists have verified everything to the inch, and one small change will ruin this verified system. Like in dominoes.

But our modern world is build on this verification!!

12 hours ago, exchemist said:

Consciousness ≠ life

How do you know this? Is there any SCIENTIFIC definition of consciousness??

Edited 9 hours ago by m_m

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Then why do you say things like "Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter"? Eh?     

You are now simply stating the obvious- that the problem is not solved - and insinuating that is evidence that a new approach, of some ill-defined sort, is needed. That does not follow at all. It is just a complex problem that will probably, I suspect, take another half century or so before we have a coherent model, or models. That is not a surprise to anyone with relevant biochemical knowledge. Obviously the full resources of the sciences will continue to be brought to bear on the topic, no doubt including quantum biology if and when appropriate.  

By the way, you have, I now notice, quite a track record on this forum of using creationist-style talking points as arguments.  I am by no means the first to criticise you for it, it turns out. I find that interesting. 

 

[Luc Turpin]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Then why do you say things like "Despite these efforts, we’ve yet to successfully generate life from non-living matter"? Eh?       

By the way, you have, I now notice, quite a track record on this forum of using creationist-style talking points as arguments.  I am by no means the first to criticise you for it, it turns out. I find that interesting. 

 

You are right! I was not attentive and precise in my meaning.

You are wrong! I am not a creationist.

[m_m]

If you are not creationist, you HAVE to accept what science tells you, or you don't understand modern science.

Edited 8 hours ago by m_m

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You are now simply stating the obvious- that the problem is not solved - and insinuating that is evidence that a new approach, of some ill-defined sort, is needed.

And is a common theme across multiple topics, followed by insisting that this new approach incorporate methods beyond science. 

[Luc Turpin]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

And is a common theme across multiple topics, followed by insisting that this new approach incorporate methods beyond science. 

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

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

You excel at stating the obvious but are less successful at selling a pig in a poke.

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

"Quantum entanglement could play a role in information transfer during chemical reactions" is just meaningless waffle unless you specify what information transfer you are referring to and in what chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not as a rule result in "information transfer" at all. What are you talking about? Do you even know?

Let's be grateful he hasn't delved into cytoskeleton microtubules and their tubulin dimers as potentially containing qubits.  Because bumbling down that rabbit burrow could mean never grasping the quantum decoherence problem and wandering for eternity in QM confusion. (like you know who, at you know where dot com) I compare it to continually checking Schrodinger's litter box and hoping it cleaned itself.  

[iNow]

It’s more Deepak Chopra than creationist IMO, but po-tay-toe po-tah-toe… six to one, half dozen to another. 

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Let's be grateful he hasn't delved into cytoskeleton microtubules and their tubulin dimers as potentially containing qubits.  Because bumbling down that rabbit burrow could mean never grasping the quantum decoherence problem and wandering for eternity in QM confusion. (like you know who, at you know where dot com) I compare it to continually checking Schrodinger's litter box and hoping it cleaned itself.  

Yes, the similarity to you know who had not escaped me.A feature they seem to have in common is this cargo cult attitude of elevating things they don’t understand into mysteries to justify some sort of obscurantist, cod-metaphysical construction, instead of putting in the hard yards of actually learning about the topic and applying an analytical, scientific approach to it. 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s more Deepak Chopra than creationist IMO, but po-tay-toe po-tah-toe… six to one, half dozen to another. 

Fair point, though it is notable that the mischaracterisation of abiogenesis research is almost identical to the way the creationists do it. I was wondering if this quantum woo approach might be a Trojan Horse for ID, actually. Part of the ID shtick is to pretend it’s not about God, just something “intelligent”. This stuff about the  holographic principle encoding information from the universe seemed to be edging in that direction.