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

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You interpret it as derision. It's really just pointing out where your arguments fail. We disagree with you, explain why, but you think it's derision. Yeah.

You interpret it as misconception. It's really just you claiming to be skeptical of the science. The problem with this is that skepticism shouldn't sit on a fence the way you do. A true skeptic questions, then finds out what the best explanation is, and goes with that. They get off the damn fence, but you seem to be sitting up there eternally, claiming since there are things we don't know that we should assume we're wrong about what we do know.

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.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

What's wrong with staying intellectually honest, keeping an open mind, and not closing off avenues of exploration?

Nothing, what's wrong is assuming you're either, despite the evidence...

[Phi for All]

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Check back several pages. The labels didn't start until you kept ignoring the input from other members. In other words, you started acting like the stereotypical crackpot and creationist so you got labeled. And still you want to put the blame everywhere except on the person who is criticizing something they haven't studied very well.

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

And when it was explained to you that many of these aspects are either being currently explored or met with failure, you continue with your vague admonitions about how science isn't critically examined. Honestly, this is the most hypocritical part, where you criticize people who've studied this for being uncritical. It's rather anti-science to NOT study science.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Unfortunately, whenever I bring this up, it’s often met with derision and misconception that I’m anti-science or trying to dismantle everything.

Perhaps because none of your posts go beyond saying "science is hard".

No shit. Maybe if you'd move beyond that you'd get the "meaningful discussion" you'd like to see.

You seem to think 'life' is some magical quality bestowed on us. It's not. Life is just one of the many configurations that are possible with the physics of the universe, along with stars, galaxy clusters, rocks and rotten eggs.

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

Your arguments lack substance. Pointing out that there are gaps in knowledge and unanswered questions doesn’t reveal anything that’s unknown, and your tone suggests you think this is some kind of crisis. But, if you went back ten years, there would be even more unanswered questions in science. Tens years before that, even more. So “unanswered questions in science” has never been a red flag and nothing has made it one.

”ignorant” isn’t inherently a term of derision; we’re all ignorant on some topics. It simply means you lack some knowledge, which you’ve admitted. But the information you have presented was gathered from somewhere, and since we’ve seen similar objections in other discussions, there is a strong suspicion that you’re getting your information from less-than-reliable sources (which you don’t share, so how can we tell?) and are simply parroting what you’ve read rather than formulating your own thoughts.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Well we can certainly do that, if you are prepared to take on board some of what you have been told by me and others.  

1) Do you for example now agree that abiogenesis is an objective fact?

2) Are you also willing to agree that to challenge the science, you need to challenge specific hypotheses about the origin of particular elements of what seems needed for life, rather than just saying it's all terribly difficult?  

3) Do you also further recognise that simply referring to "the holographic principle", or to "quantum biology", without specifying how and where you think these ideas may help, is not useful?  

If you can agree these points and take them on board going forward, we can leave arguments borrowed (whether inadvertently or not) from creationism behind and be more constructive.  You must understand  that I and others here have had a bellyful of creationist crap over the years, so we have very short fuses when we see these arguments coming up yet again, whatever the reason. Your experience here is a direct result of that.  

I look forward to your responses on items 1-3.  

[Luc Turpin]

On 1/24/2025 at 1:24 PM, exchemist said:

Well we can certainly do that, if you are prepared to take on board some of what you have been told by me and others.  

1) Do you for example now agree that abiogenesis is an objective fact?

2) Are you also willing to agree that to challenge the science, you need to challenge specific hypotheses about the origin of particular elements of what seems needed for life, rather than just saying it's all terribly difficult?  

3) Do you also further recognise that simply referring to "the holographic principle", or to "quantum biology", without specifying how and where you think these ideas may help, is not useful?  

If you can agree these points and take them on board going forward, we can leave arguments borrowed (whether inadvertently or not) from creationism behind and be more constructive.  You must understand  that I and others here have had a bellyful of creationist crap over the years, so we have very short fuses when we see these arguments coming up yet again, whatever the reason. Your experience here is a direct result of that.  

I look forward to your responses on items 1-3.  

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Edited January 25 by Luc Turpin

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

To effectively challenge abiogenesis

Abiogenesis involves the search for a 'scientific' explanation for how life may have begun. If you 'challenge' it, you are suggesting an explanation other than one that is 'scientific'. If the mechanism is not natural, supernatural seems to be the only alternative. That is why you are getting so much pushback, despite your claims you are not suggesting some supernatural mechanism.

[Luc Turpin]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Abiogenesis involves the search for a 'scientific' explanation for how life may have begun. If you 'challenge' it, you are suggesting an explanation other than one that is 'scientific'. If the mechanism is not natural, supernatural seems to be the only alternative. That is why you are getting so much pushback, despite your claims you are not suggesting some supernatural mechanism.

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.

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

So you are not questioning abiogenesis, you are wondering how it works, just like everyone else. 

Yet the language you continually use suggests otherwise. You need to pick a side and use the appropriate language if you want this conversation to go anywhere.

[exchemist]

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

Abiogenesis involves the search for a 'scientific' explanation for how life may have begun. If you 'challenge' it, you are suggesting an explanation other than one that is 'scientific'. If the mechanism is not natural, supernatural seems to be the only alternative. That is why you are getting so much pushback, despite your claims you are not suggesting some supernatural mechanism.

EXACTLY! 

The continued refusal to accept abiogenesis as an objective fact implies @Luc Turpin wants to leave the door open to processes other than natural ones, i.e. magic poofing. 

13 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

I note you cannot agree to my point 1. I regard that as a warning light that you may be a creationist, perhaps of the cdesign proponentsist variety. So I'm afraid I continue to suspect you may not be what you say you are. 

Regarding this "encoding information" tosh, it is still just as meaningless as it was when I criticised you for it before. What are you talking about? How would "information" be transmitted to molecules so as to react them together and organise them into the structures we think are important for biological processes. This is just Chopra-esque hand waving woo. 

[exchemist]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

This is begging the question, again. Who says there is “information” that “guides the emergence of life”?

Why should life’s emergence be “guided”?

And if so, how could that possibly work? How could “information” , whatever you mean by that, physically affect pre-biotic chemistry? 

How does “information” “flow”, in your opinion? 

This all sounds as if you are trying the edge the discussion towards “intelligent design” without admitting it. 

[Genady]

Saying that the emergence of life was "guided" puts them squarely into the "divine intervention" camp.

[Gees]

On 1/24/2025 at 9:56 AM, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Luc Turpin,

I have very much enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, and find it amazing that you have managed to receive only 13 down votes in nine pages of comments. You actually seem to understand that there is a difference between spirituality and religion, and yet know that these concepts are related. You have been very tactful and very careful to try to gain information without implying that science may not have the ability to know all of the answers. I would never be able to accomplish that as I have a tendency to tell people exactly what I think.

Everybody here knows that science does not study the "God" concept, so they are generally clueless about it. Mostly the science members will call it imagination or nonsense or something similar, and yet there are hundreds of posts in this thread, many of which are from science people, who are obviously relaying the information they received in childhood regarding the subject matter. Go figure!

As far as people calling you "crackpot", etc., do not take it personally and use the brain in your head. This is a science forum. It's purpose is to promote science. So if member (a) comes to the Religion/Philosophy section and finds a comment that is not 100% pro science, they can make a derisive comment and down vote that person, which is quite likely to cause someone to up vote member (a). Am I saying that this is a game for the purpose of establishing reputation? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You are not going to learn much about the "God" concept, religion, or spirituality from these people, as they do not know and are not teaching -- this is about training, like Pavlov's dogs, only they use rep points instead of treats.

A "willingness to reconsider ideas" is not fundamental to science -- it is fundamental to philosophy. Science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, religion studies the spiritual (emotion). We are physical, mental, and spiritual beings so we need all three disciplines to understand ourselves. Do you think I will get a downvote or two for this post? Maybe.

Gee

 

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

Luc Turpin,

I have very much enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, and find it amazing that you have managed to receive only 13 down votes in nine pages of comments. You actually seem to understand that there is a difference between spirituality and religion, and yet know that these concepts are related. You have been very tactful and very careful to try to gain information without implying that science may not have the ability to know all of the answers. I would never be able to accomplish that as I have a tendency to tell people exactly what I think.

Everybody here knows that science does not study the "God" concept, so they are generally clueless about it. Mostly the science members will call it imagination or nonsense or something similar, and yet there are hundreds of posts in this thread, many of which are from science people, who are obviously relaying the information they received in childhood regarding the subject matter. Go figure!

As far as people calling you "crackpot", etc., do not take it personally and use the brain in your head. This is a science forum. It's purpose is to promote science. So if member (a) comes to the Religion/Philosophy section and finds a comment that is not 100% pro science, they can make a derisive comment and down vote that person, which is quite likely to cause someone to up vote member (a). Am I saying that this is a game for the purpose of establishing reputation? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You are not going to learn much about the "God" concept, religion, or spirituality from these people, as they do not know and are not teaching -- this is about training, like Pavlov's dogs, only they use rep points instead of treats.

A "willingness to reconsider ideas" is not fundamental to science -- it is fundamental to philosophy. Science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, religion studies the spiritual (emotion). We are physical, mental, and spiritual beings so we need all three disciplines to understand ourselves. Do you think I will get a downvote or two for this post? Maybe.

Gee

 

 

Yes indeed, my pleasure! Your remarks about childhood ideas about God and Pavlov's dogs are uncalled for. (I can't speak for other contributors but I happen to be a practising Catholic.😊)  

What I and others have been objecting to is that @Luc Turpin has been firstly misrepresenting abiogenesis research and secondly using that misrepresentation as an excuse to introduce very ill-defined concepts, without any indication of how they could be relevant to scientific study of abiogenesis.

In one of my posts on this thread I took the trouble to say I see value in considering aspects of human experience beyond the  physical world. What I object to - in line with Cardinal Newman's sound advice from over a century ago - is the attempt to look to things in nature that science currently can't explain as evidence that only something beyond science can explain it. That is bad logic, because science progresses.  

Furthermore, it is utterly pointless to witter on about "the holographic principle" and suggesting "complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" without explaining WTF that means, what evidence for it might look like and how it could actually be applied in abiogenesis research.  

Science works by clarifying  - demystifying - what seems to be going on in natural processes. Trying to get all mystical, woolly and vague in a discussion about abiogenesis is the polar opposite of a scientific approach.   

[Luc Turpin]

•  

•  

• 5 hours ago, Gees said:

  Luc Turpin,

  I have very much enjoyed reading your posts in this thread, and find it amazing that you have managed to receive only 13 down votes in nine pages of comments. You actually seem to understand that there is a difference between spirituality and religion, and yet know that these concepts are related. You have been very tactful and very careful to try to gain information without implying that science may not have the ability to know all of the answers. I would never be able to accomplish that as I have a tendency to tell people exactly what I think.

  Everybody here knows that science does not study the "God" concept, so they are generally clueless about it. Mostly the science members will call it imagination or nonsense or something similar, and yet there are hundreds of posts in this thread, many of which are from science people, who are obviously relaying the information they received in childhood regarding the subject matter. Go figure!

  As far as people calling you "crackpot", etc., do not take it personally and use the brain in your head. This is a science forum. It's purpose is to promote science. So if member (a) comes to the Religion/Philosophy section and finds a comment that is not 100% pro science, they can make a derisive comment and down vote that person, which is quite likely to cause someone to up vote member (a). Am I saying that this is a game for the purpose of establishing reputation? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You are not going to learn much about the "God" concept, religion, or spirituality from these people, as they do not know and are not teaching -- this is about training, like Pavlov's dogs, only they use rep points instead of treats.

  A "willingness to reconsider ideas" is not fundamental to science -- it is fundamental to philosophy. Science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, religion studies the spiritual (emotion). We are physical, mental, and spiritual beings so we need all three disciplines to understand ourselves. Do you think I will get a downvote or two for this post? Maybe.

  Gee

   

   

  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.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Furthermore, it is utterly pointless to witter on about "the holographic principle" and suggesting "complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" without explaining WTF that means, what evidence for it might look like and how it could actually be applied in abiogenesis research.   

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!

Edited Monday at 01:23 PM by Luc Turpin

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

•  

•  

• 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!

You have not demonstrated any relevance of this highly speculative notion to abiogenesis.
 

And it is not a “model”. There is no tested scientific theory that makes any use of this idea. It is an entirely speculative idea that some string theorists play with. String theory itself is not, so far at least, a scientific theory, as it makes no testable predictions about observations. These mathematical conjectures are related to attempts, so far  unsuccessful, to develop a theory of quantum gravity. In fact, some well informed people, like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, think it has become a self-sustaining cottage industry going nowhere: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

There is absolutely no reason whatever to think this idea can be fruitfully applied to the study of abiogenesis. It is a useless suggestion.
 

 

Edited Monday at 02:32 PM by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

39 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You have not demonstrated any relevance of this highly speculative notion to abiogenesis.
 

And it is not a “model”. There is no tested scientific theory that makes any use of this idea. It is an entirely speculative idea that some string theorists play with. String theory itself is not, so far at least, a scientific theory, as it makes no testable predictions about observations. These mathematical conjectures are related to attempts, so far  unsuccessful, to develop a theory of quantum gravity. In fact, some well informed people, like Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder, think it has become a self-sustaining cottage industry going nowhere: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

There is absolutely no reason whatever to think this idea can be fruitfully applied to the study of abiogenesis. It is a useless suggestion.
 

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.

Edited Monday at 02:58 PM by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

No wonder you and @Gees get on so well, you both use a lot of word's to say absolutely nothing of meaning; I smell an AI bot, learning how to troll more efficiently, rather than a serious search for truth, knowledge or understanding.

I look forward to your proof... 😉

 

 

[exchemist]

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Let's get real here. You are in no position to "remind" me - from your position of almost total ignorance - of approaches to abiogenesis that do not exist. Nobody, I mean nobody sane, is trying to apply string theory, let alone the holographic principle, to abiogenesis. That's because neither has anything to offer. I have just told you what string theory is concerned with:   attempts to develop a mathematical structure to support a theory of quantum gravity. It is obvious that a theory of quantum gravity (if it is ever developed) has no bearing on the study of abiogenesis.

Nor are you in a position to make judgements about the likelihood of success of abiogenesis research. You do not acknowledge the very simple reason why it is a hard problem, even though I have explained it to you. And you seem determined to ignore or belittle the progress that has been made, preferring instead to sit on the sidelines and whine stupidly about nobody having made life in a test tube. 

But I think you are now reaching the stage of just repeating these empty assertions of yours. I for one have had enough of your stubbornly ill-informed opinions on abiogenesis.  We'll see what others think.    

Edited Monday at 03:38 PM by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Let's get real here. You are in no position to "remind" me - from your position of almost total ignorance - of approaches to abiogenesis that do not exist. Nobody, I mean nobody sane, is trying to apply string theory, let alone the holographic principle, to abiogenesis. That's because neither has anything to offer. I have just told you what string theory is concerned with:   attempts to develop a mathematical structure to support a theory of quantum gravity. It is obvious that a theory of quantum gravity (if it is ever developed) has no bearing on the study of abiogenesis.

Nor are you in a position to make judgements about the likelihood of success of abiogenesis research. You do not acknowledge the very simple reason why it is a hard problem, even though I have explained it to you. And you seem determined to ignore or belittle the progress that has been made, preferring instead to sit on the sidelines and whine stupidly about nobody having made life in a test tube. 

But I think you are now reaching the stage of just repeating these empty assertions of yours. I for one have had enough of your stubbornly ill-informed opinions on abiogenesis.  We'll see what others think.    

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.

 

Edited Monday at 06:24 PM by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I smell an AI bot, learning how to troll more efficiently

English is not his mother tongue. He’s obstinate, ignores totally valid criticisms, and only digs in his heels and repeats himself in response to every counterpoint, but being long winded shouldn’t IMO be a reason to assert he’s a bot. He’d likely do better en francais. 

[Gees]

On 1/27/2025 at 5:22 AM, exchemist said:

Yes indeed, my pleasure! Your remarks about childhood ideas about God and Pavlov's dogs are uncalled for. (I can't speak for other contributors but I happen to be a practising Catholic.😊)  

I know a lot of Catholics, so if you are indeed a practicing Catholic, then you know a lot more about Catholicism than you do about the "God" concept. It is also likely that you have been trained in your beliefs since childhood, as that is a policy of the Catholic church. Thank you for going out of your way to prove my point.

As far as the Pavlov's dogs comment. I would like to thank the members who went out of their way to repeatedly downvote my post and provide evidence for my guess that rep points are used to discourage opposition to the science forum's agenda. 

On 1/27/2025 at 5:22 AM, exchemist said:

What I and others have been objecting to is that @Luc Turpin has been firstly misrepresenting abiogenesis research and secondly using that misrepresentation as an excuse to introduce very ill-defined concepts, without any indication of how they could be relevant to scientific study of abiogenesis.

I went back and looked. I did not see where Luc Turpin misrepresented abiogenesis. I did see where he questioned it, but that is not misrepresenting. The only thing that I could find him guilty of is intelligence as he would not accept as fact something that has not been proven as factual. You, on the other hand, may have misrepresented the worth of the abiogenesis methodology? process? hypothesis? Please provide evidence of Luc Turpin's misrepresentation.

So you think that he used misrepresentation in order to introduce "very ill-defined concepts"? Do you know what this thread is about? One could honestly state that the "God" concept is the big daddy of "very ill-defined concepts". Is it your intent to be humorous? You can't honestly believe that you or science have an answer to the concept of "God".

On 1/27/2025 at 5:22 AM, exchemist said:

In one of my posts on this thread I took the trouble to say I see value in considering aspects of human experience beyond the  physical world. What I object to - in line with Cardinal Newman's sound advice from over a century ago - is the attempt to look to things in nature that science currently can't explain as evidence that only something beyond science can explain it. That is bad logic, because science progresses.  

There is nothing wrong with that logic. Yes, science progresses, but science can not progress beyond science because then it would stop being science. Science uses a methodology that tests the physical -- that is science!!! Science can not use that methodology on the spiritual or even on the mental. You can't slap god down on a lab table to study, so you either have to use philosophy or you have to use religion or you have to be clueless.

Just like we can not use religion to study the physical as there is no way to validate and test what we think we know using the methodology of religion. The same is true for philosophy, which is why we created science in the first place. This is what is called a no-brainer.

On 1/27/2025 at 5:22 AM, exchemist said:

Furthermore, it is utterly pointless to witter on about "the holographic principle" and suggesting "complexity emerges from information encoded in the universe" without explaining WTF that means, what evidence for it might look like and how it could actually be applied in abiogenesis research.  

Luc Turpin was not the only one that brought up alternate hypothesis, so your complaint seems excessive. I will tell you that I bought the book, The Holographic Universe, read it, and still can't explain "WTF that means", so I don't know why you would complain that Luc can not explain it fully in a post in this thread. I can tell you that in the back of that book are hundreds of references from page 303 to page 327 -- way too much information for me to absorb.

On 1/27/2025 at 5:22 AM, exchemist said:

Science works by clarifying  - demystifying - what seems to be going on in natural processes. Trying to get all mystical, woolly and vague in a discussion about abiogenesis is the polar opposite of a scientific approach.   

Science can't do it alone. Some of life gets kind of "wooly and vague". Years ago, I looked up the posts and comments that were made when this forum was creating, or maybe recreating, itself. A lot of the members did not want to have a philosophy section or a religion section, so why is there one here? Because it was discovered that it was needed. No matter why it was needed, it became clear that it was needed. Science can't do it all alone.

Gee

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I know a lot of Catholics, so if you are indeed a practicing Catholic, then you know a lot more about Catholicism than you do about the "God" concept. It is also likely that you have been trained in your beliefs since childhood, as that is a policy of the Catholic church. Thank you for going out of your way to prove my point.

As far as the Pavlov's dogs comment. I would like to thank the members who went out of their way to repeatedly downvote my post and provide evidence for my guess that rep points are used to discourage opposition to the science forum's agenda. 

I went back and looked. I did not see where Luc Turpin misrepresented abiogenesis. I did see where he questioned it, but that is not misrepresenting. The only thing that I could find him guilty of is intelligence as he would not accept as fact something that has not been proven as factual. You, on the other hand, may have misrepresented the worth of the abiogenesis methodology? process? hypothesis? Please provide evidence of Luc Turpin's misrepresentation.

So you think that he used misrepresentation in order to introduce "very ill-defined concepts"? Do you know what this thread is about? One could honestly state that the "God" concept is the big daddy of "very ill-defined concepts". Is it your intent to be humorous? You can't honestly believe that you or science have an answer to the concept of "God".

There is nothing wrong with that logic. Yes, science progresses, but science can not progress beyond science because then it would stop being science. Science uses a methodology that tests the physical -- that is science!!! Science can not use that methodology on the spiritual or even on the mental. You can't slap god down on a lab table to study, so you either have to use philosophy or you have to use religion or you have to be clueless.

Just like we can not use religion to study the physical as there is no way to validate and test what we think we know using the methodology of religion. The same is true for philosophy, which is why we created science in the first place. This is what is called a no-brainer.

Luc Turpin was not the only one that brought up alternate hypothesis, so your complaint seems excessive. I will tell you that I bought the book, The Holographic Universe, read it, and still can't explain "WTF that means", so I don't know why you would complain that Luc can not explain it fully in a post in this thread. I can tell you that in the back of that book are hundreds of references from page 303 to page 327 -- way too much information for me to absorb.

Science can't do it alone. Some of life gets kind of "wooly and vague". Years ago, I looked up the posts and comments that were made when this forum was creating, or maybe recreating, itself. A lot of the members did not want to have a philosophy section or a religion section, so why is there one here? Because it was discovered that it was needed. No matter why it was needed, it became clear that it was needed. Science can't do it all alone.

Gee

This adds nothing indicating any level of understanding on your part, so I have no further comment to make to you, either.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Gees said:

I know a lot of Catholics, so if you are indeed a practicing Catholic, then you know a lot more about Catholicism than you do about the "God" concept. It is also likely that you have been trained in your beliefs since childhood, as that is a policy of the Catholic church. Thank you for going out of your way to prove my point.

As far as the Pavlov's dogs comment. I would like to thank the members who went out of their way to repeatedly downvote my post and provide evidence for my guess that rep points are used to discourage opposition to the science forum's agenda. 

I didn't downvote you, I assumed that you'd eat that red shit right up and lick your lips, like a ravenous wolf.

4 hours ago, Gees said:

I went back and looked. I did not see where Luc Turpin misrepresented abiogenesis.

Snap, I did the same and guess what? I did not see anything where either of you represented anything remotely close to actual understanding of the subject.

Hmmm, I wonder would a green +1 weaken them???

God knows, I wanna try, but it's tooo risky,,,

Edited Wednesday at 12:45 PM by dimreepr