iNow Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: The basic information needed to form atoms, galaxies, and life was already encoded at the time of the Big Bang. Expand By what? By whom? Via what medium if even the universe itself didn't exist yet? You're making an argument for determinism and you're doing it poorly with obvious false premises and logical inconsistencies. On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: the precursor to life may have been non-physical, with information being carried by energy without matter. Expand Yeah, or maybe it came from a leprechaun fart which is basically equivalent to the claim you're making. On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: While speculative, this challenges the traditional materialistic view Expand What it "challenges" is credulity.
exchemist Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 1:39 PM, iNow said: By what? By whom? Via what medium if even the universe itself didn't exist yet? You're making an argument for determinism and you're doing it poorly with obvious false premises and logical inconsistencies. Yeah, or maybe it came from a leprechaun fart which is basically equivalent to the claim you're making. What it "challenges" is credulity. Expand Ah, but don’t forget, this is not creationism, no indeedy. 🤔 1
Luc Turpin Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 1:39 PM, iNow said: By what? By whom? Via what medium if even the universe itself didn't exist yet? You're making an argument for determinism and you're doing it poorly with obvious false premises and logical inconsistencies. Yeah, or maybe it came from a leprechaun fart which is basically equivalent to the claim you're making. What it "challenges" is credulity. Expand Some physicists, including Penrose, Smolin, and Hawking, have explored the idea that the initial conditions of the universe were set from the very beginning. The more speculative point I’m raising is that, in addition to these conditions, the potential for information and the prerequisites for life might have also been embedded in the universe’s origins. With this, I’m using an example to suggest that a narrow focus on abiogenesis might limit our exploration of life. To be clear, I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but rather highlighting how it might shape our approach to understanding life. -1
iNow Posted January 30 Posted January 30 You seem to be using words in ways they're not normally defined. I really wish you would CHAIR doing that. It makes your POTATO fail.
Luc Turpin Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 3:40 PM, iNow said: You seem to be using words in ways they're not normally defined. I really wish you would CHAIR doing that. It makes your POTATO fail. Expand You have an unconventional way of getting your point across, so in a way, that makes us even.
iNow Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 3:45 PM, Luc Turpin said: even Expand I do not think that word means what you think it means
Phi for All Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 2:42 PM, Luc Turpin said: To be clear, I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but rather highlighting how it might shape our approach to understanding life. Expand Sitting on the fence, shouting that something's wrong, not sure what. Not a skeptic's stance. How long are you going to stick with "might shape our approach"? It's pretty weak but you seem to think it's important.
zapatos Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 2:42 PM, Luc Turpin said: The more speculative point I’m raising is that, in addition to these conditions, the potential for information and the prerequisites for life might have also been embedded in the universe’s origins Expand Seems this discussion needs be moved to speculations where you are free to provide evidence that this is possible, and not just something you've pulled from the dark recesses behind you.
swansont Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 12:41 PM, dimreepr said: To be fair, the last time I explicitly called someone a troll I nearly got arrested, it's hard work to figure out a more subtle implication... Expand Or you could, you know, NOT DO IT AT ALL, since it’s off-topic. On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: The basic information needed to form atoms, galaxies, and life was already encoded at the time of the Big Bang. Expand I refer you to the cartoon iNow recently posted. You’re using “information” as a hand-wave, and it doesn’t actually change anything. But here you admit that life didn’t exist at the time of the big bang, so it arose later. Thus, abiogenesis happened. On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: This "information" refers to the fundamental patterns and laws that govern matter and energy, shaping the universe’s development. These non-physical patterns guided everything, including the evolution of life. Expand How can you demonstrate that? What is your evidence that anything was guided? On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: As an implication, the precursor to life may have been non-physical, with information being carried by energy without matter. Expand Energy is a property, not a substance. Energy can’t carry information. It’s whatever has that energy. On 1/30/2025 at 12:35 PM, Luc Turpin said: When specifically applied to the origins of life, this idea offers a new perspective: rather than life emerging solely from chemical reactions, it might have arisen from an informational structure that controlled how atoms and molecules interacted. In this view, life’s key components are the informational patterns that organize molecules, rather than the molecules themselves. Expand You’ve just described chemical reactions, and the laws that govern them On 1/30/2025 at 2:42 PM, Luc Turpin said: Some physicists, including Penrose, Smolin, and Hawking, have explored the idea that the initial conditions of the universe were set from the very beginning. The more speculative point I’m raising is that, in addition to these conditions, the potential for information and the prerequisites for life might have also been embedded in the universe’s origins. With this, I’m using an example to suggest that a narrow focus on abiogenesis might limit our exploration of life. To be clear, I’m not claiming that this hypothesis is correct, but rather highlighting how it might shape our approach to understanding life. Expand As you’ve done before, you’re asserting something without a solid definition, in this case of information, and trying to construct a nebulous argument based on it. You might as well call it magic. The notion that the laws of physics were put in place at the time of the big bang brings nothing new to the conversation, despite your attempts to sensationalize it.
Luc Turpin Posted January 30 Posted January 30 (edited) The point I wanted to make is the fact that abiogenesis hasn't been fully demonstrated and is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research. That said, this conversation seems to be veering toward 'gotcha' moments, which isn't the type of discussion I had in mind. I also take some responsibility for not presenting my arguments more convincingly. On 1/30/2025 at 3:52 PM, swansont said: Energy is a property, not a substance. Energy can’t carry information. It’s whatever has that energy. Expand I should have referred to force as electromagnetic force, which acts as an information carrier. Edited January 30 by Luc Turpin
CharonY Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, Luc Turpin said: The point I wanted to make is the fact that abiogenesis hasn't been fully demonstrated and is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research. Expand Except again, you are wrong. It is not widely accepted as a demonstrably fact, but at this juncture it is considered to be the most likely explanation. So far, there have been no real alternatives with better evidence. This is a very important distinction and it is unfortunately the first time that you are just assuming things as basis for your arguments. This is commonly referred to as strawman argument.
swansont Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, Luc Turpin said: The point I wanted to make is the fact that abiogenesis hasn't been fully demonstrated and is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research. Expand You again fail to distinguish whether something happened with how it happened. If you deny that it happened, that’s the act that limits research. If you acknowledge that it did happen, only then can you investigate how it happened. On 1/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, Luc Turpin said: That said, this conversation seems to be veering toward 'gotcha' moments, which isn't the type of discussion I had in mind. I also take some responsibility for not presenting my arguments more convincingly. Expand There’s no gotcha if you know what you’re talking about. On 1/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, Luc Turpin said: I should have referred to force as electromagnetic force, which acts as an information carrier. Expand Can you explain how, especially without defining what information is?
Luc Turpin Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 5:00 PM, CharonY said: Except again, you are wrong. It is not widely accepted as a demonstrably fact, but at this juncture it is considered to be the most likely explanation. So far, there have been no real alternatives with better evidence. This is a very important distinction and it is unfortunately the first time that you are just assuming things as basis for your arguments. This is commonly referred to as strawman argument. Expand I have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact before we could even begin discussing the topic, while another argument suggests that because life didn’t exist at the Big Bang, it must have emerged later in this very particular way and in only this particular way. However, I do agree that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation we have at this time. My main point is this: treating it as a demonstrated fact, without inquiry into other possible areas of inquiry, could limit scientific progress. This is a concern I have, and it’s the only point I’m trying to make at this stage. To me, it feels like the conclusion of abiogenesis is being accepted prematurely, without a clear mechanism in place, and then framed as the only viable explanation. While we can make similar leaps in other areas—like star formation, where we have a strong understanding of the process—this is not yet the case with abiogenesis. Lastly, I do not believe my argument constitutes a strawman. I’m simply asking for a more open approach to exploring and questioning the evidence. On 1/30/2025 at 6:05 PM, swansont said: You again fail to distinguish whether something happened with how it happened. If you deny that it happened, that’s the act that limits research. If you acknowledge that it did happen, only then can you investigate how it happened. Expand Before attempting to explain how something happened, it's essential to first establish that it actually did happen. On 1/30/2025 at 6:05 PM, swansont said: Can you explain how, especially without defining what information is? Expand How about we focus instead on discussing the limitations set forth by abiogenesis on scientific inquiry?
swansont Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 6:08 PM, Luc Turpin said: I have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact before we could even begin discussing the topic, while another argument suggests that because life didn’t exist at the Big Bang, it must have emerged later in this very particular way and in only this particular way. Expand Regarding that second argument - was that me? Because that’s not at all what I argued. I never insisted that it happened in a “very particular way”. Not even close.
Phi for All Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 6:08 PM, Luc Turpin said: My main point is this: treating it as a demonstrated fact, without inquiry into other possible areas of inquiry, could limit scientific progress. This is a concern I have, and it’s the only point I’m trying to make at this stage. Expand Still don't know why you insist nobody is enquiring about other areas. And abiogenesis is a process of development. We don't know exactly how it happened back then with primordial ingredients, but we know it's one of the strongest possibilities we have. Even if Earth was seeded from somewhere else with the building blocks for living organisms, those had to have come from inorganic matter at some point. We know the early universe was NOT hospitable to our kind of life.
CharonY Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 6:08 PM, Luc Turpin said: have difficulty expressing myself clearly, and I believe this may be contributing to misunderstandings. Regarding abiogenesis, I disagree with the claim that it is not widely accepted as a demonstrated fact. For example, one forum member insisted that I acknowledge it as a fact Expand I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it: On 1/30/2025 at 4:19 PM, Luc Turpin said: is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research Expand As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things. To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated.
Luc Turpin Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Based on the available evidence, the leading hypothesis is that life originated from matter. However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter. While it is not the leading theory, it remains a possibility that cannot be dismissed at this point in time. -1
exchemist Posted January 30 Posted January 30 (edited) On 1/30/2025 at 7:20 PM, CharonY said: I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it: As you refer to research, I assume you mean the scientific community. And your evidence is a post on an anonymous forum. This not a matter of expressing yourself, it is a matter of you assuming things. To put it differently, currently we do not have viable alternatives to abiogenesis (that I am aware of) but we have plenty of competing hypotheses within. And in the scientific community none of them are considered to be demonstrated. Expand It seems to me that since abiogenesis is merely a term for the emergence of life by natural means from prebiotic chemistry, however that may have occurred, the only alternative to abiogenesis would be emergence by non-natural means. In other words by some kind of intervention by a supernatural agency - which would be excluded from science on principle. That is why I asked @Luc Turpin to agree abiogenesis is a fact, something he refused to do. Edited January 30 by exchemist
CharonY Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 7:38 PM, exchemist said: It seems to me that since abiogenesis is merely a term for the emergence of life by natural means from prebiotic chemistry, however that may have occurred, the only alternative to abiogenesis would be emergence by non-natural means. In other words by some kind of intervention by a supernatural agency - which would be excluded from science on principle. Expand I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However, On 1/30/2025 at 7:34 PM, Luc Turpin said: However, even with this evidence, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter, despite the implications of this idea. Life as an event in of itself and not a consequence of matter. Expand this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.
exchemist Posted January 30 Posted January 30 On 1/30/2025 at 7:57 PM, CharonY said: I think that would be true for the most part. Especially form a biological and chemical perspective. I suspect that in some of the more abstract physics there might be an alternative way of thinking about it, but I honestly don't know and have never heard of an example of such thinking. However, this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be. Expand Agreed on the second part of course. Regarding the first, even if abstract physics were to come up with some new principle that could be shown to play a role, that would still be a natural principle, not a supernatural one. As such it would be a part of a model of abiogenesis, rather than anything beyond it.
Luc Turpin Posted January 31 Posted January 31 On 1/30/2025 at 8:45 PM, exchemist said: Agreed on the second part of course. Regarding the first, even if abstract physics were to come up with some new principle that could be shown to play a role, that would still be a natural principle, not a supernatural one. As such it would be a part of a model of abiogenesis, rather than anything beyond it. Expand Abiogenesis is not about life arising from natural principles, but rather life emerging from matter. Therefore, if a natural principle did not involve matter, it would not be considered abiogenesis." -3
zapatos Posted January 31 Posted January 31 On 1/30/2025 at 7:34 PM, Luc Turpin said: we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter Expand What in the fuck are you talking about? Look up the definition of 'life'. Any version of the definition you wish to use does not include the possibility that life can exist without matter. I cannot believe you are this clueless. Go peddle your shit elsewhere. 1
Genady Posted January 31 Posted January 31 On 1/31/2025 at 12:15 AM, Luc Turpin said: a natural principle [does] not involve matter Expand For example ...?
Gees Posted January 31 Posted January 31 On 1/29/2025 at 3:57 PM, swansont said: Put another way - we’ve seen this behavior long before ChatGPT came along. Blaming stuff on bots is kinda lazy. The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. Otherwise, life had to originate at some point, and that’s abiogenesis. Since science’s domain does not cover magic/mysticism, and that avenue was expressly rejected by the author, and also that we can pretty safely rule out life existing on the proto-earth, it’s what we’re left with. IOW, abiogenesis must be accepted. What’s not yet been shown are the mechanisms and steps of that process. Expand Swansont, Do you have any idea of how many times the words "supernatural", "magic", and "mysticism" have been used in this thread? The interesting part is that the words are always used by "science" people. So I guess the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? It is no wonder that Luc and I are having trouble in this thread, as we don't think either of those things happened. I didn't think this thread was about abiogenesis, but then maybe it is. Gee -3
iNow Posted January 31 Posted January 31 On 1/31/2025 at 1:08 AM, Gees said: the only options here are to conclude that religious people think "God" started life and the science people think that magic started life? Expand Another option is that you seem to struggle with reading comprehension
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now