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

[KJW]

23 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Do you agree, or not, that claiming life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is premature and overly simplistic?

Given that the building blocks of life are molecules, it seems reasonable to assume that life arose from molecules in a "primordial soup".

 

23 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Do you agree, or not, that science may have somewhat overlooked its responsibility to explore all viable possibilities?

What viable alternative possibilities are there, and also, how does science explore such possibilities? It's all well and good to offer up exotic possibilities, but unless you also offer up a way to explore such possibilities, you haven't really said anything useful.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:54 PM by KJW

[studiot]

Is anyone claiming that there are no immaterial objects in the known universe ?

I claim that there are such objects, some of which actually admit of some Science of their own.

Further, at least some of these objects can affect material objects.

 

 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

there is no substantive difference

Yes, in my mind the difference depends on the area of interest: massive vs. massless, relativistic vs. non-relativistic, fermions vs. bosons, ... All this I think is irrelevant to the question of abiogenesis.

[studiot]

Just now, KJW said:

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Do you agree, or not, that claiming life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is premature and overly simplistic?

Given that the building blocks of life are molecules, it seems reasonable to assume that life arose from molecules in a "primordial soup".

Well I agree with Luc on this. But only partly since he has made the basic mistake of trying to combine two separate statements, each with their own independant veracity,

"Arising from molecules" is about source.

"In a primordial soup" is about place.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is anyone claiming that there are no immaterial objects in the known universe ?

I claim that there are such objects, some of which actually admit of some Science of their own.

Further, at least some of these objects can affect material objects.

 

 

Which object do you have in mind?

[KJW]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Well I agree with Luc on this. But only partly since he has made the basic mistake of trying to combine two separate statements, each with their own independant veracity,

"Arising from molecules" is about source.

"In a primordial soup" is about place.

Yeah, I did consider this, which is why I placed "primordial soup" in quotes.

 

[studiot]

Just now, Genady said:

Which object do you have in mind?

Well I am not claiming that there is a single object, but a simple example would be a shadow.

 

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I am not claiming that there is a single object, but a simple example would be a shadow.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

No, I don't recall 

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

anyone claiming that there are no immaterial objects in the known universe

 

[Luc Turpin]

29 minutes ago, KJW said:

Given that the building blocks of life are molecules, it seems reasonable to assume that life arose form molecules in a "primordial soup".

What viable alternative possibilities are there, and in particular, how does science explore such possibilities? It's all well and good to offer up exotic possibilities, but unless you also offer up a way to explore such possibilities, you haven't really said anything useful.

 

1. Assume, yes; but don’t claim it as a fact without a clear mechanism for transforming matter into life.

2. Science has explored alternative possibilities in other fields; why not do the same for abiogenesis?

 

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I agree with Luc on this. But only partly since he has made the basic mistake of trying to combine two separate statements, each with their own independant veracity,

"Arising from molecules" is about source.

"In a primordial soup" is about place.

Well, I nearly fell off my chair reading this post! It’s the first one, aside from Gee, that doesn’t completely contradict what I’m saying.

What’s wrong with combining 'source' and 'place' in the same statement? This happens all the time in discussions about abiogenesis.

[TheVat]

Seems a small semantic knot over how physical is defined.  My understanding was that all events that can be measured, i.e. which interact with something else, be they force-carriers or massive particles or monopoles (if they are ever discovered), constitute "the physical."  So "nonphysical" seems to be more of a philosophic postulate.  A neo-Platonist for example would view natural laws as nonphysical, i.e. they can somehow exist independent of physical interactions.  A dualist, for another example, would view mind as nonphysical, capable of existing independent of brains.  Since we are physical entities who use physical means to apprehend our universe, there are no readily available testable hypotheses about nonphysical, i.e. noninteracting, things.  So far, it looks like a "law," rather than being something that exists independently (perhaps written in some ethereal tome called How to Run a Universe), is an abstraction derived from the observation of the physical world which refers to a perceived regularity in the patterns of nature.  But it's very easy to start confusing abstractions with things - in philosophy that's called reification.  That's how one falls into intellectual potholes like "the ghost in the machine."  Or "mind was there, before matter."  

 

Edited yesterday at 05:34 PM by TheVat
seriously, fuck the disruptive full page ads.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

OK I see what you mean. But if the contention is that living matter could have arisen from something other than inanimate matter, I think we are into such realms of fantasy that consideration of Ockham's Razor for even a second would dismiss that.

Most likely. But I have been (undercover) among drunk theoretical physicists and, well things got weird (though to be fair, maybe I just wasn't drunk and educated enough to follow). But yes, if we talk about even somewhat realistic/practical hypotheses, and especially working from an area of partial rather than no evidence, you are certainly correct.

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Most likely. But I have been (undercover) among drunk theoretical physicists and, well things got weird (though to be fair, maybe I just wasn't drunk and educated enough to follow). But yes, if we talk about even somewhat realistic/practical hypotheses, and especially working from an area of partial rather than no evidence, you are certainly correct.

Haha.
 

Well, if you read Jim Baggott’s “Farewell to Reality”, or Peter Woit’s blog, you will see that some people think at least some (drunk?) theoretical physicists have ceased to do science. 😁

[Luc Turpin]

Life Alongside Matter: Life and matter might not have a strict cause-and-effect relationship, with life existing alongside and interacting with matter. 

How could that be?

Emergence: Life is viewed as an emergent property, arising from the complex interactions and arrangements of matter. Rather than matter directly creating life, it creates the conditions necessary for life to emerge. Life is a product of these interactions, but not the creation of matter.

Information: Life is an information processing mechanism, while matter serves as the information storage and transmission medium. Information, not just physical matter, drives life's processes. Life emerges from the organization of information, with matter providing the structure but information guiding the process.

 

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

life existing alongside and interacting with matter

There are physical laws describing how matter moves and interacts. If life interacting with matter causes the matter to move and to interact differently than required by these physical laws, then life causes violation of the physical laws.

Do you mean that life violates laws of physics? If not, then life does not have any effect on matter, IOW, life does not interact with matter.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Isn’t science about forming hypotheses and testing them through falsification?

Yes

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why should this principle not apply to abiogenesis?

Who has suggested it doesn’t?

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Aren’t there competing theories and viewpoints within science?

Yup. 

 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

My point is simply that claiming life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is both premature and overly simplistic. I also believe science has become so closely tied to this explanation—and similar ones—that it has somewhat neglected its responsibility to explore all viable possibilities. That is the crux of my argument.

What are the viable alternatives? We keep asking.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

When I mentioned quantum biology and the holographic principle, my intention was to highlight that they are significantly different perspectives on the issue, not to advocate for them. Yet, I was asked to defend these ideas. The same applies to information theory, which offers a unique angle on abiogenesis.

But you can’t seem to explain what this angle is.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

When I suggested that life might align with matter rather than arise from it, my goal was to present other potential alternatives—not to argue that life exists without matter.

You just stated you weren’t presenting alternatives. Just a few sentences prior to this

 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Before claiming that I’m contradicting myself based on the previous paragraph, I should clarify that I nearly had to invent a possible link to abiogenesis to include them in the discussion, not that they are actually being taken seriously by science.

So you know you said that, and also that these aren’t “viable” 

21 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Emergence: Life is viewed as an emergent property, arising from the complex interactions and arrangements of matter. Rather than matter directly creating life, it creates the conditions necessary for life to emerge. Life is a product of these interactions, but not the creation of matter.

Life can’t be defined this way if it exists independent of matter. 

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Life Alongside Matter: Life and matter might not have a strict cause-and-effect relationship, with life existing alongside and interacting with matter. 

How could that be?

Emergence: Life is viewed as an emergent property, arising from the complex interactions and arrangements of matter. Rather than matter directly creating life, it creates the conditions necessary for life to emerge. Life is a product of these interactions, but not the creation of matter.

Information: Life is an information processing mechanism, while matter serves as the information storage and transmission medium. Information, not just physical matter, drives life's processes. Life emerges from the organization of information, with matter providing the structure but information guiding the process.

Oh, Otto.

[Luc Turpin]

16 hours ago, Genady said:

There are physical laws describing how matter moves and interacts. If life interacting with matter causes the matter to move and to interact differently than required by these physical laws, then life causes violation of the physical laws.

Do you mean that life violates laws of physics? If not, then life does not have any effect on matter, IOW, life does not interact with matter.

 

---

Life Partnering with Matter to Express Life

Living organisms interact with and shape matter to create and sustain life. From biomineralization to enzyme catalysis and photosynthesis, life processes directly transform matter into functional biological structures and processes.

• Biomineralization: Life and Matter Interacting: Weiner, S., & Dove, P. M. (2003). "An Overview of Biomineralization." In: Weiner S, Dove PM, editors. Biomineralization. Academic Press.
  This work discusses how organisms like corals, mollusks, and bacteria use the surrounding environment to create minerals that provide structural support, demonstrating how life transforms matter into complex biological structures.
• Enzyme Catalysis and Matter Manipulation: Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Gatto, G. J. (2015). Biochemistry. 8th ed., W.H. Freeman and Company.
  This textbook highlights how enzymes interact with substrates to catalyze reactions, showcasing how life (through proteins) manipulates chemical matter to carry out vital functions such as metabolism and energy transfer.
• Quantum Coherence in Photosynthesis: *Engel, G. S., et al. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes." Nature.
  This study demonstrates how photosynthetic organisms utilize quantum coherence to efficiently transfer energy, showing how life partners with quantum mechanical properties of matter to optimize biological processes.
• Self-Organization in Biological Systems: Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press.
  Kauffman explores self-organization in biological systems, where life, through natural processes like chemical evolution, leads to the formation of organized structures and functions, illustrating how life shapes matter to express biological systems.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

And as alternative lines of investigation goes, what have you offered along those lines? I don’t see any posts discussing the details of e.g. quantum biology from you. We’re not discussing it because you aren’t, in any substantive way. 

Quantum Mechanics and the Emergence of Life from Non-Living Matter

Quantum mechanics may have played a crucial role in the emergence of life from non-living matter. Studies suggest that quantum phenomena such as coherence, tunneling, and decoherence could have influenced prebiotic chemical processes essential for life’s origin, and influence the arising of life itself.

• The Role of Quantum Coherence in Prebiotic Chemistry: *Escher, M., et al. (2017). "The role of quantum coherence in prebiotic chemistry." Nature Communications.
  This study investigates the potential influence of quantum coherence in molecular assembly, proposing that quantum effects may have facilitated the assembly of complex prebiotic molecules critical for life’s origin.
• Quantum Tunneling in Biological Processes: *Barton, J. K., & Kohn, D. B. (2016). "Quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  This research explores the role of quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis and its relevance to early prebiotic chemistry, suggesting that tunneling could have accelerated critical reactions for abiogenesis.
• Quantum Mechanics and the Formation of RNA-like Molecules: *Gabbay, D., et al. (2013). "The role of quantum mechanics in the formation of RNA-like molecules." BioSystems.
  This paper discusses how quantum mechanical phenomena, particularly tunneling, could have played a role in the chemical reactions leading to the formation of the first RNA molecules, supporting the RNA World Hypothesis.
• Quantum Decoherence and Early Chemical Evolution: *Tegmark, M. (2000). "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes." Physical Review.
  Although focused on brain processes, this study touches on the broader implications of quantum interactions in molecular systems, which could have been essential for early chemical evolution leading to life.

[Genady]

It'd be more meaningful to discuss something with my dinner table...

[Luc Turpin]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

It'd be more meaningful to discuss something with my dinner table...

I did my best, which isn't much, but oh well.

It was meant to spark a discussion, but I suppose that won't be happening.

[KJW]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

---

Life Partnering with Matter to Express Life

Living organisms interact with and shape matter to create and sustain life. From biomineralization to enzyme catalysis and photosynthesis, life processes directly transform matter into functional biological structures and processes.

• Biomineralization: Life and Matter Interacting: Weiner, S., & Dove, P. M. (2003). "An Overview of Biomineralization." In: Weiner S, Dove PM, editors. Biomineralization. Academic Press.
  This work discusses how organisms like corals, mollusks, and bacteria use the surrounding environment to create minerals that provide structural support, demonstrating how life transforms matter into complex biological structures.
• Enzyme Catalysis and Matter Manipulation: Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Gatto, G. J. (2015). Biochemistry. 8th ed., W.H. Freeman and Company.
  This textbook highlights how enzymes interact with substrates to catalyze reactions, showcasing how life (through proteins) manipulates chemical matter to carry out vital functions such as metabolism and energy transfer.
• Quantum Coherence in Photosynthesis: *Engel, G. S., et al. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes." Nature.
  This study demonstrates how photosynthetic organisms utilize quantum coherence to efficiently transfer energy, showing how life partners with quantum mechanical properties of matter to optimize biological processes.
• Self-Organization in Biological Systems: Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press.
  Kauffman explores self-organization in biological systems, where life, through natural processes like chemical evolution, leads to the formation of organized structures and functions, illustrating how life shapes matter to express biological systems.

Quantum Mechanics and the Emergence of Life from Non-Living Matter

Quantum mechanics may have played a crucial role in the emergence of life from non-living matter. Studies suggest that quantum phenomena such as coherence, tunneling, and decoherence could have influenced prebiotic chemical processes essential for life’s origin, and influence the arising of life itself.

• The Role of Quantum Coherence in Prebiotic Chemistry: *Escher, M., et al. (2017). "The role of quantum coherence in prebiotic chemistry." Nature Communications.
  This study investigates the potential influence of quantum coherence in molecular assembly, proposing that quantum effects may have facilitated the assembly of complex prebiotic molecules critical for life’s origin.
• Quantum Tunneling in Biological Processes: *Barton, J. K., & Kohn, D. B. (2016). "Quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  This research explores the role of quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis and its relevance to early prebiotic chemistry, suggesting that tunneling could have accelerated critical reactions for abiogenesis.
• Quantum Mechanics and the Formation of RNA-like Molecules: *Gabbay, D., et al. (2013). "The role of quantum mechanics in the formation of RNA-like molecules." BioSystems.
  This paper discusses how quantum mechanical phenomena, particularly tunneling, could have played a role in the chemical reactions leading to the formation of the first RNA molecules, supporting the RNA World Hypothesis.
• Quantum Decoherence and Early Chemical Evolution: *Tegmark, M. (2000). "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes." Physical Review.
  Although focused on brain processes, this study touches on the broader implications of quantum interactions in molecular systems, which could have been essential for early chemical evolution leading to life.

In what way is any of this contrary to the notion of abiogenesis put forward by science?

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Quantum Mechanics and the Emergence of Life from Non-Living Matter

Quantum mechanics may have played a crucial role in the emergence of life from non-living matter. Studies suggest that quantum phenomena such as coherence, tunneling, and decoherence could have influenced prebiotic chemical processes essential for life’s origin, and influence the arising of life itself.

Yeah? Is this somehow surprising to you? This came up before - QM being a part of chemistry is well-known to chemists and physicists. QM being involved falls in the “sun rises in the east” category of discussion. This is the veneer. Where’s the substance? What’s your point?

What details of quantum mechanics - i.e. actual science - are you prepared to discuss? 

We could, for example, talk about how tunneling makes certain reaction more likely than what a classical description predicts, which counters certain objections about how these reactions are unlikely. It’s also why fusion in the sun happens at energies lower than what the Coulomb barrier naively predicts. It happens in a lot of circumstances. 

[Luc Turpin]

The conventional view of reality often leans toward a 'matter-based' perspective, where the universe is seen as a collection of particles and forces interacting in deterministic or probabilistic ways - a machine. However, when life collaborates with matter to express itself, and quantum biology is taken into account, reality begins to appear more life-like than matter-like. This fusion suggests that life may be more fundamental to the fabric of the universe than previously believed. Rather than merely a complex arrangement of particles, it makes reality feel more organic, interconnected, and dynamic - not entirely behaving as a machine.

Might life-like principles have played a bigger role in abiogenesis than anticipated?

Edited 1 hour ago by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

Science requires evidence, not vibes. And we’re discussing life, not reality, so no tap-dancing away from the topic.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, when life collaborates with matter to express itself, and quantum biology is taken into account, reality begins to appear more life-like than matter-like.

You're becoming even more vague after 13 pages of this. 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

This fusion suggests that life may be more fundamental to the fabric of the universe than previously believed.

Fundamental?  The universe did just fine for billions of years without life. Life is just better at absorbing and dissipating heat from the sun.

I suggest you drop using the words "fabric of the universe". It's been proven to derail many people trying to understand various scientific principles. I'm still assuming you're here to learn something.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Rather than merely a complex arrangement of particles, it makes reality feel more organic, interconnected, and dynamic - not entirely behaving as a machine.

So, we should pay attention to how "reality" makes you "feel"? And you don't think machines and living people can be interconnected? What's wrong with machines? Have you never driven a really well-made automobile? Have you never watched someone compete at basketball from a wheelchair?

I think you suffer from "man isn't natural" syndrome. You seem to think we aren't part of the nature we observe.