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

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You seem to think we aren't part of the nature we observe.

His earlier threads suggest instead he thinks everything across nature and the cosmos itself is alive, including rocks and air and solar winds.

He uses the language of biological life and reproduction to bootstrap his everything in the universe is oneness narrative. While separate, his thoughts in this thread are very clearly overlapping.  

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

His earlier threads suggest instead he thinks everything across nature and the cosmos itself is alive, including rocks and air and solar winds.

He uses the language of biological life and reproduction to bootstrap his everything in the universe is oneness narrative. While separate, his thoughts in this thread are very clearly overlapping.  

Interesting. Sounds a little bit like (a very muffled version of)  Teilhard de Chardin. 

[Genady]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

he thinks everything across nature and the cosmos itself is alive

alive and conscious.

[Luc Turpin]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

His earlier threads suggest instead he thinks everything across nature and the cosmos itself is alive, including rocks and air and solar winds.

He uses the language of biological life and reproduction to bootstrap his everything in the universe is oneness narrative. While separate, his thoughts in this thread are very clearly overlapping.  

The art of amplifying a thought to its extreme in order to ridicule or mock it. Now, is that a productive tactic in a good discussion? And just to add a little flair, how about downvoting this post too?

1 hour ago, Genady said:

alive and conscious.

It’s possible that nature is more alive and conscious than we initially thought, though not everything possesses life or awareness. In previous posts, I’ve provided numerous examples suggesting that nature is more alive than we once believed. As for consciousness, I’ve presented human experiences that seem perplexing when viewed through a purely brain-based lens, suggesting that there may be aspects of consciousness we don't yet understand—maybe, just maybe, there’s more to it than we think.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Interesting. Sounds a little bit like (a very muffled version of)  Teilhard de Chardin. 

I share some affinities with de Chardin, though not all of his ideas, particularly the noosphere. I’m also influenced by thinkers like Stapp, Josephson, Capra (expirential), Hameroff, and Penrose—those who believe there’s more to life and consciousness than our current understanding suggests. However, this perspective doesn’t extend to inanimate matter like rocks, air, or solar winds, as pointed out earlier.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

maybe

Maybe. Maybe not. Go ahead, investigate. When you have something, maybe there will be something to discuss.

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, Genady said:

Maybe. Maybe not. Go ahead, investigate. When you have something, maybe there will be something to discuss.

How about all the references to studies I've already posted, which were mostly overlooked? It seems they were dismissed as irrelevant without being properly assessed.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

How about all the references to studies I've already posted, which were mostly overlooked? It seems they were dismissed as irrelevant without being properly assessed.

They all support the chemical-physical view of life.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

How about all the references to studies I've already posted, which were mostly overlooked? It seems they were dismissed as irrelevant without being properly assessed.

Haven't you learned anything??? 

'Mind the gap' is an underground meme... 

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, Genady said:

They all support the chemical-physical view of life.

I strongly disagree!

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Haven't you learned anything??? 

'Mind the gap' is an underground meme... 

Don't get it!

[Genady]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

I strongly disagree!

It does not matter.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

I strongly disagree!

Don't get it!

Hmmm, I strongly disagree with something I don't understand, "mind the gap"???

[Khanzhoren]

On 1/19/2025 at 5:00 PM, iNow said:

Classic creationist argument against evolution by conflating it with abiogenesis and suggesting all theories are same as all beliefs.

Basic structure: “We’ve only witnessed parts of the process not all together when it actually occurred billions of years ago therefore your trust and faith in that as truth is no different from my trust and faith that goddidit. Both equal.”

What I simply wanted to say is that, if I'm not mistaken, there hasn't been any direct evidence or direct observation of the process of abiogenesis, so it remains theoretical. This statement is unrelated to the hypothesis of the existence or non-existence of a god

Edited Monday at 11:17 AM by Khanzhoren

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, Khanzhoren said:

What I simply wanted to say is that, if I'm not mistaken, there hasn't been any direct evidence or direct observation of the process of abiogenesis, so it remains theoretical. This statement is unrelated to the hypothesis of the existence or non-existence of a god

13.8 billion years ago, there was no life in the universe. 13.8 billion years later, there is life. A state without life has evolved into a state with life. This is abiogenesis.

[Khanzhoren]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

13.8 billion years ago, there was no life in the universe. 13.8 billion years later, there is life. A state without life has evolved into a state with life. This is abiogenesis.

That's correct, but I'm referring to a direct experimental observation of the phenomenon (possibly in a laboratory), of course. This process is also probably rarer than we might have thought, given the fact that the existence of extraterrestrial life eventually seems to be very difficult to confirm.

Edited Monday at 11:57 AM by Khanzhoren

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Khanzhoren said:

That's correct, but I'm referring to a direct experimental observation of the phenomenon (possibly in a laboratory), of course. 

We have a direct experimental observation of the two states, without life and with life. If the process of changing the former into the latter is such that it takes, say, at least a million years, we will never directly observe it.

[Khanzhoren]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

 If the process of changing the former into the latter is such that it takes, say, at least a million years, we will never directly observe it.

Why do you think an apparently molecular process would take so long? Indeed, if it were a process on a larger scale (stellar, geological, etc.), it would be more understandable if it required so much time.

[Genady]

Just now, Khanzhoren said:

Why do you think an apparently molecular process would take so long? Indeed, if it were a process on a larger scale (stellar, geological, etc.), it would be more understandable if it required so much time.

You have answered your own question.

[Khanzhoren]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

You have answered your own question.

why do you say that ? I asked Why do you think a seemingly molecular process would take so long?

[Genady]

Just now, Khanzhoren said:

why do you say that ? I asked Why do you think a seemingly molecular process would take so long?

Because I think it is a large-scale process.

[Khanzhoren]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because I think it is a large-scale process.

However, as well-known, a living organism can be microscopic, even with a relatively low number of constituent molecules.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Khanzhoren said:

However, as well-known, a living organism can be microscopic, even with a relatively low number of constituent molecules.

It says nothing about a process that led to its appearance.

[studiot]

Just now, Khanzhoren said:

Why do you think a seemingly molecular process would take so long?

What do you know about chemical kinetics ?

 

The answer lies therein.

[Khanzhoren]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

What do you know about chemical kinetics ?

 

The answer lies therein.

I know a little about chemistry but without being a chemist. If you can go in-depth into the explanations I can follow and it would be appreciated. Thanks

Edited Monday at 12:43 PM by Khanzhoren

[Genady]

43 minutes ago, Khanzhoren said:

I know a little about chemistry but without being a chemist. If you can go in-depth into the explanations I can follow and it would be appreciated. Thanks

You can find an overview here: Chemical Kinetics: Rate of reaction, types of reaction on basis of their rate.

Notice this:

Quote

Very Slow Reactions (Type – II):

Chemical reactions which complete in a long time from some minutes to some years are called slow reactions. The rates of such reactions are hardly of any physical importance.

e.g. rusting of iron, transformation of carbon into diamond etc.

 

[studiot]

OK so Chem K is based upon the idea of estimating the chances of two molecules, say A and B meeting to create the reaction. That is called a simple reaction.

In general, The greater chance the faster the reaction.

The chances increase with concentration of the molecules A and B.

They decrease with the requirement that three (or more) molecules need to meet to further the reaction.

 

Now, as @genady says, at astronomical volumes the concentrations are minute (concentration being the number of reacting molecules in a given volume)

There is a further complication.

That is that many, if not most, reactions are actually what is called multistep, not simple.

Each step has to occur in the correct order within the correct timescale (ie before something else happens to the reactants) for the final products to emerge.

Now remembering that all probabilities are less than 1 and that these probabilities are multiplied together you should be able to see that this will result in a very very small number of successful reactions.

The trick, of course, is estimating these probabilities.