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

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The basic information needed to form atoms, galaxies, and life was already encoded at the time of the Big Bang.

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. 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

the precursor to life may have been non-physical, with information being carried by energy without matter.

Yeah, or maybe it came from a leprechaun fart which is basically equivalent to the claim you're making. 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

While speculative, this challenges the traditional materialistic view

What it "challenges" is credulity. 

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, 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. 

Ah, but don’t forget, this is not creationism, no indeedy. 🤔

[Luc Turpin]

50 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[iNow]

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]

1 minute ago, 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. 

You have an unconventional way of getting your point across, so in a way, that makes us even.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

even

I do not think that word means what you think it means

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, 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.

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]

1 hour ago, 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

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]

3 hours ago, 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...

Or you could, you know, NOT DO IT AT ALL, since it’s off-topic.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The basic information needed to form atoms, galaxies, and life was already encoded at the time of the Big Bang.

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.

 

3 hours ago, 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.

How can you demonstrate that? What is your evidence that anything was guided? 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

As an implication, the precursor to life may have been non-physical, with information being carried by energy without matter.

Energy is a property, not a substance. Energy can’t carry information. It’s whatever has that energy.

 

3 hours ago, 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.

You’ve just described chemical reactions, and the laws that govern them 

 

1 hour ago, 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.

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]

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.

57 minutes ago, swansont said:

 Energy is a property, not a substance. Energy can’t carry information. It’s whatever has that energy.

I should have referred to force as electromagnetic force, which acts as an information carrier.

Edited Thursday at 04:19 PM by Luc Turpin

[CharonY]

37 minutes ago, 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.

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]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

1 hour ago, 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.

There’s no gotcha if you know what you’re talking about.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I should have referred to force as electromagnetic force, which acts as an information carrier.

Can you explain how, especially without defining what information is?

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

12 minutes ago, 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.

Before attempting to explain how something happened, it's essential to first establish that it actually did happen.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you explain how, especially without defining what information is?

How about we focus instead on discussing the limitations set forth by abiogenesis on scientific inquiry?

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, 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.

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]

22 minutes ago, 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.

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]

 

1 hour ago, 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

I do not know which post you are referring to, but that does not support your assertion that it:

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

is widely accepted as a demonstratable fact is limiting the scope of scientific research

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]

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.

[exchemist]

33 minutes ago, 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.

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 Thursday at 07:55 PM by exchemist

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, 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. 

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,

22 minutes ago, 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.

this is not such not such an example as it just stipulates something without even explaining how that could be.

[exchemist]

43 minutes ago, 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.

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]

3 hours ago, 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. 

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."

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that life could have emerged alongside matter

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.

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

a natural principle [does] not involve matter

For example ...?

[Gees]

On 1/29/2025 at 10:57 AM, 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.

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

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, 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? 

Another option is that you seem to struggle with reading comprehension