Gap between life and non-life (split from What if god...)

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, science is not in search of understanding reality?

That's debatable. Science aims to understand how nature works, by making models that successfully predict what observations we can expect. Views vary as to the degree to which science tries to uncover "reality". After all, history shows us that our models tend to be imperfect, requiring periodic revision, sometimes radically so. It has been said that all scientific "truth" is merely provisional, pending some possible new development, requiring a better model. (In my own subject, it is commonplace to use different models for the same thing, depending on the problem at hand. This is done in the full knowledge that the models are approximations and not to be taken entirely literally. So what, in that case, is "reality"?) 

My personal view is that science seems to approach reality asymptotically, getting closer and closer but never quite definitively  getting there. 

Edited January 19 by exchemist

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, m_m said:

Why is that? 

Are you at all familiar with how the world works? People die. Every day. Often with no warning. That is why. Geez.

[m_m]

Just now, zapatos said:

Are you at all familiar with how the world works? People die. Every day. Often with no warning. That is why. Geez.

I know very well that people die every day. Some people die because of other people. Not because of God's Will, but because of other people's will. But everything happens according to His Plan. 

I don't know whether I will wake up tomorrow, because for me everything is in His power. 

And why are you not sure of one's longevity?

[Luc Turpin]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

1-But they are not on their own, right?

2-They are part of a larger structure?

3-And the larger structure is alive?

4-And the structure will not be alive without those molecules?

5-Sure we have. We eat the apple, the apple is digested, the molecules are used to build proteins, the proteins are incorporated into the body, the body is alive.

 

.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.

 

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

My personal view is that science seems to approach reality asymptotically, getting closer and closer but never quite definitively  getting there. 

Nonetheless, we continue striving to understand nature, a significant portion of reality, even if our understanding can only approach it asymptotically.

6 hours ago, Kassander said:

 

Therefore, modern theologians no longer try to use God as a hypothesis for scientific phenomena such as the phenomenon of the origin of life that you described.

+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.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

If science is trying to understand reality, why are there so many parts of physics just mathematical constructs, that are identified as not being real?

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.

Edited January 20 by Luc Turpin

[Genady]

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

we continue striving to understand nature

No, we do not. We rather continue modifying our concepts and models and inventing new ones striving to make them fit signals we get from nature.

One can call the latter, 'understanding' if one wishes so.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

I know very well that people die every day.

So I suppose you were lying when you indicated you didn't know about why we might not be here tomorrow. 

If you are not a troll you sure are doing a good imitation of one.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, the key point is that the transformation of matter into living organisms has neither been observed in nature nor replicated in the lab.

Of course it has. Do you think we've not observed people eating? Food being digested? Proteins being made? Where have you been the last 200 years? This is Biology 101.

[TheVat]

I think he means abiogenesis.  And he keeps ignoring that we also haven't observed the big bang or macroevolution.  

Bob and weave.  SSDD.

[MigL]

This is an observation, and while off-topic, it is related to the OP ...

We seem to be losing  ( interesting and knowledgeable ) members because of posts (OP ) of this type, where people present their beliefs ( which cannot be proven/disproven in any way ), and are therefore resistant to meaningful discussion.

This is not science.
( have we ceased to be a science forum ? )

[iNow]

The enshitification of the internet and online watering holes more broadly isn’t restricted to SFN nor caused solely by ridiculous rejects trying to shoehorn religious topics into every discussion 

[m_m]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

So I suppose you were lying when you indicated you didn't know about why we might not be here tomorrow. 

If you are not a troll you sure are doing a good imitation of one.

I don't like when people think for me. 

My question was to the young man, who wrote this:

Quote

I think it's absolutely possible to be grateful that a new day full of possibilities has dawned without God being responsible for the movement of the heavenly bodies.

...

But a God who is responsible for scientific phenomena doesn't seem necessary to me.

He is is sure the new day will come.

And then

Quote

Nobody knows whether he will live to see the next day or not, whether he believes in God or not.

So, why he doubts about the new day, if

Quote

In the course of the Enlightenment, the world was increasingly better understood and God was increasingly pushed back as an explanation. At first he was said to be responsible for the weather, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for health but also illness, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for natural disasters, today we know better. He was said to be responsible for the creation of the earth, today we know better. The more we discovered and the more we learned, the more God became superfluous and we began to understand that the universe functions without him

 

Edited January 20 by m_m

[Luc Turpin]

11 hours ago, Genady said:

No, we do not. We rather continue modifying our concepts and models and inventing new ones striving to make them fit signals we get from nature.

One can call the latter, 'understanding' if one wishes so.

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.

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Of course it has. Do you think we've not observed people eating? Food being digested? Proteins being made? Where have you been the last 200 years? This is Biology 101.

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.

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think he means abiogenesis.  And he keeps ignoring that we also haven't observed the big bang or macroevolution.  

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.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

This is an observation, and while off-topic, it is related to the OP ...

We seem to be losing  ( interesting and knowledgeable ) members because of posts (OP ) of this type, where people present their beliefs ( which cannot be proven/disproven in any way ), and are therefore resistant to meaningful discussion.

This is not science.
( have we ceased to be a science forum ? )

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. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Scientists say a lot of things, and it’s not always about science. Argument by quotation is pretty lame, as I think I’ve mentioned before (it’s the argument from authority fallacy) and it’s even worse when there’s no context or even an actual quote.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

maintaining an adversarial tone

That’s a feature of science, not a bug

[Phi for All]

15 hours ago, m_m said:

I know very well that people die every day. Some people die because of other people. Not because of God's Will, but because of other people's will. But everything happens according to His Plan. 

Ah, so your god has a Plan, but it's not aligned with its Will? People die because of other people, your god didn't will it, but it's part of its plan?! You've got this figured out where you never have to give a straight answer and you can always claim you're right!

[dimreepr]

On 1/19/2025 at 2:06 AM, Luc Turpin said:

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.

What does that even mean?

Mass hysteria?

I didn't vote for it... 😉

17 hours ago, m_m said:

You only confirm  that we are subjective. And there is no objectivity. My criteria could be wrong, so could yours. The only wisdom is objective.

Does that mean my kettle is wise?

[Luc Turpin]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s a feature of science, not a bug

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

[m_m]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Ah, so your god has a Plan, but it's not aligned with its Will? People die because of other people, your god didn't will it, but it's part of its plan?! You've got this figured out where you never have to give a straight answer and you can always claim you're right!

We are not robots, we have our free will. 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Scientists say a lot of things, and it’s not always about science. Argument by quotation is pretty lame, as I think I’ve mentioned before (it’s the argument from authority fallacy) and it’s even worse when there’s no context or even an actual quote.

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.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Adversarial approaches often devolve into emotion rather than reasoned debate.

That’s a fault of humans not of science 

21 minutes ago, m_m said:

We are not robots, we have our free will. 

Depends on how one defines free will. Also off-topic 

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Using quotations to support an argument is a valid approach

Not this kind of argument. It’s fallacious, and perhaps worse, it’s lazy. You can’t make the case yourself, so you find others who said something that has a keyword or two  in it, but if you don’t know the circumstances of their statement you don’t really know what point they were making. I’ve seen quotes pulled out of context that meant the opposite of what the poster implied. So color me unimpressed by quote-mining. If you’ve got an argument, learn the details yourself and make it.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have not encountered any mention that the food itself becomes "alive" within the body.

So you acknowledge that the body is alive, but cannot accept that any of the things that compose the body (heart, lung, cells) are alive. Again, you are only leaving the possibility that "life" has nothing to do with the actual body, and if that is the case, what option do you have but to believe that life is a non-physical entity floating around somewhere waiting to inhabit a physical body? 

Your argument is not convincing.

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

That’s a fault of humans not of science 

I agree, but that is not an excuse for unchecked or unrestrained commenting.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Not this kind of argument. It’s fallacious, and perhaps worse, it’s lazy. You can’t make the case yourself, so you find others who said something that has a keyword or two  in it, but if you don’t know the circumstances of their statement you don’t really know what point they were making. I’ve seen quotes pulled out of context that meant the opposite of what the poster implied. So color me unimpressed by quote-mining. If you’ve got an argument, learn the details yourself and make it.

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.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So you acknowledge that the body is alive, but cannot accept that any of the things that compose the body (heart, lung, cells) are alive. Again, you are only leaving the possibility that "life" has nothing to do with the actual body, and if that is the case, what option do you have but to believe that life is a non-physical entity floating around somewhere waiting to inhabit a physical body? 

Your argument is not convincing.

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. 

Edited January 20 by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

that is not an excuse for unchecked or unrestrained commenting.

No excuse required. I’ll comment wherever and however I please (until I’m restrained by group norms and enforcers of them)

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, iNow said:

No excuse required. I’ll comment wherever and however I please (until I’m restrained by group norms and enforcers of them)

Yup! And you complain about the internet age!

[exchemist]

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

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. 

It is not clear what you are talking about here. It is perfectly obvious how inanimate matter (e.g. food substances, oxygen) become incorporated into living tissue. Do you really think we don't know how that happens? 

Or are you saying we don't know how abiogenesis occurred?  That is undeniably true, since it is one of the hardest problems in modern science, due to the lack of direct evidence from almost 4bn years ago when it took place. However considerable progress has been made.

Contrary to what you seem to be trying to insinuate, there is no reason to think there is some special magic ingredient, beyond the scope of biochemistry, involved. Life is quite evidently a process of biochemical reactions and biophysical processes, occurring within cells. 

Can you clarify what it is you are suggesting is missing? 

Edited January 20 by exchemist