Can life be in fact just random chem reactions?Our special viewpoint as inside the system observers deceives us.

[minaras]

Suppose we have a flask with simple chemical compounds and we constantly provide external energy so that random chemical reactions occur. If we continue to provide external energy then not only chemical equilibrium will not occur, but instead more and more reactions will occur and the system will thrive and become more and more complex. Lets say that our system is not a flask, but primordial earth and the external source of energy is solar energy coming from the sun. In this case, equilibrium would be avoided, and the system would continue to thrive. Through the eons, in a chaos of chemical reactions, only those with some kind of repeatability and periodicity will not lead to a dead end and will be able to continue happening in the long term. Additionally, many random chemical reactions will eventually lead to some molecules with the ability to adhere with other molecules and also with surfaces. These reactions will eventually prevail and become the basis for further complexity, because the chemical compounds will not diffuse around and lead to dead ends. This will make the process multifocal rather than diffuse, enhancing its ability to thrive. Thereafter, these focal sites of increasing complexity will interact with one another and the systems with the greatest capacity to survive will continue happening in the long term and will become more complicated. Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed. Also, the reactions with the ability to promote their own existence would prevail and continue to exist, in a process which is a kind of natural selection and survival of the fittest reactions.
Random chemical reactions does not promote a certain plan or any kind of order, but what we see, is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history. However, their end results are reactions that are characterized by survival capacities over others. And suppose that these end results are the observers of the whole system. Virtually they are composed from some chemical compounds, which are constantly changing However, everything that happens leads to them. Everything is a matter of perspective. If they analyze their own reactions they will have a very good view to their homeostasis. As we said they are seeing the system from inside, or else in a mirror like direction, because they themselves are part of things, so they appreciate things from its results. They think that homeostasis is a very perfectly sophisticated and stochastic mechanism, because they are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the catalogue of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive. It is like they are in a moving ship, and so they realize things differently from someone who is standing in the port. Most of all, they don’t have a good sense of our own movement. Additionally, if they were not a part of the chemical system, they would not find any reasoning or purpose of existence for all the other reactions on earth. Even if they were tables for example, they would think that the most perfect creatures are the tables.
In other words these systems would have exactly the same perspective as we ourselves have while thinking about what is life, evolution, reproduction (repeatability of reactions).
Thus, random reactions and life can be the opposite sides of the same coin.
Important tip:
How can random reactions, no matter how good they were selected through the centuries, can lead from a tiny spore to the creation of extremely complex organisms (plants, animals, human) in relatively predictive ways?
Answer: Don’t get confused by the complexity of the grown up organisms. Don’t forget what happens with fractals. Seemingly complex structures emerge as the result of very simple initial conditions (equations). Similarly, complex animals can arise predictively from the flourishing of much simpler entities over time, such as zygotes, spores etc. This is simply perceived by us as embryology.

[Strange]

 

If we continue to provide external energy then not only chemical equilibrium will not occur, but instead more and more reactions will occur and the system will thrive and become more and more complex.

 

1. The reactions will not be random.

2. Adding more energy will not necessarily cause more reactions to take place. In general it might shift the equilibrium. If there is enough energy to break certain bonds then a new equilibrium may be created.

 

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be describing (in a slightly confusing way) one way abiogenesis may have occurred (some sort of "chemical evolution").

 

But you also seem to imply that chemicals are conscious and drive evolution in a particular direction? Or have I misunderstood?

 

 

How can random reactions, no matter how good they were selected through the centuries, can lead from a tiny spore to the creation of extremely complex organisms (plants, animals, human) in relatively predictive ways?

 

Well, apart from the fact that (a) the reactions are not random and (b) the results are not necessarily predictable, the mechanism is roughly as you have described. Selection pressures drive reactions to produce more of the "successful" chemicals (those that are selected).

 

However, it seems very unlikely that life was created by "random" chemical reactions. It seems more likely that a particular chemical environment (e.g. proton gradients at deep sea vents) provided a starting point.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Strange

[delboy]

I've been thinking of starting a thread along similar lines, but have held back because I thought it was potentially a bit depressing!

My thinking was that life started by certain inevitable chemical reactions. Once natural selection took over these reactions gradually became more and more complex. But have they remained as inevitable chemical reactions ever since, just very complex ones. So is every decision made by every living thing just due to chemical happenstance?

 

If so, it's not a thought I want to dwell on too much I don't think!

[Phi for All]

If so, it's not a thought I want to dwell on too much I don't think!

 

Why not? It's stimulus/response. If you don't like the chemical mix you have running through your system right now, raise your arms above your head in the victory stance and you'll get a refreshing change.

[chemistry student]

But how we're these chemicals present to begin with? :L

[minaras]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. You seem to be describing (in a slightly confusing way) one way abiogenesis may have occurred (some sort of "chemical evolution").

Yes you probably misunderstood. I am not saying that chemicals are are conscious or driving evolution towards a particular direction. Chemicals are inevitable and happening spontaneously. We are just a part of the system. In a repeating alphabet, if we were X and Y, we would think that the system is sophisticated, and the purpose of A and B is to lead to C and D and eventually to us. Through the evolution of chemical reactions, the end reactions will be the ones with survival capacity. But what is special about us? We can survive. Its not true order, its only survival capacity.

 

 

2. Adding more energy will not necessarily cause more reactions to take place. In general it might shift the equilibrium. If there is enough energy to break certain bonds then a new equilibrium may be created.

Adding more energy will not lead to more complex reactions, but they will not stop happening. And once the ones with repeatability or adhesive capacities come along, then the system will begin to thrive very fast.

 

However, it seems very unlikely that life was created by "random" chemical reactions. It seems more likely that a particular chemical environment (e.g. proton gradients at deep sea vents) provided a starting point.

Is it more likely that life emerged of some soup of gradients, rather than emerged naturally as a sum of random chemical reactions?

 

I've been thinking of starting a thread along similar lines, but have held back because I thought it was potentially a bit depressing!

My thinking was that life started by certain inevitable chemical reactions. Once natural selection took over these reactions gradually became more and more complex. But have they remained as inevitable chemical reactions ever since, just very complex ones.

This seemingly naïve thought you had becomes very reasonable if you consider who is the reference frame. We .A sum of continuously happening reactions inside the whole system of reactions.

[Moontanman]

Yes you probably misunderstood. I am not saying that chemicals are are conscious or driving evolution towards a particular direction. Chemicals are inevitable and happening spontaneously. We are just a part of the system. In a repeating alphabet, if we were X and Y, we would think that the system is sophisticated, and the purpose of A and B is to lead to C and D and eventually to us. Through the evolution of chemical reactions, the end reactions will be the ones with survival capacity. But what is special about us? We can survive. Its not true order, its only survival capacity.

 

 

Adding more energy will not lead to more complex reactions, but they will not stop happening. And once the ones with repeatability or adhesive capacities come along, then the system will begin to thrive very fast.

 

Is it more likely that life emerged of some soup of gradients, rather than emerged naturally as a sum of random chemical reactions?

 

This seemingly naïve thought you had becomes very reasonable if you consider who is the reference frame. We .A sum of continuously happening reactions inside the whole system of reactions.

 

 

You do understand that these chemical reactions are not random at all... right?

[Strange]

But what is special about us? We can survive. Its not true order, its only survival capacity.

 

Yep. That's the basis of evolution and, presumably, pre-biotic "chemical evolution".

 

Is it more likely that life emerged of some soup of gradients, rather than emerged naturally as a sum of random chemical reactions?

 

The point about the deap-sea vent hypothesis is that it proposes specific chemical pathways and finds supporting evidence in biochemistry and genetics.

 

The same is true for other hypotheses for abiogenesis. Do you have any specific suggestions for the mechanisms involved?

[/backslash/]

 

 

Its not true order, its only survival capacity.

How is survival capacity not true order? Your beginning observation is good, but the facts are a bit skewed.

[minaras]

 

 

You do understand that these chemical reactions are not random at all... right?

Nothing is unquestionable.

 

 

 

The point about the deap-sea vent hypothesis is that it proposes specific chemical pathways and finds supporting evidence in biochemistry and genetics.

 

The same is true for other hypotheses for abiogenesis. Do you have any specific suggestions for the mechanisms involved?

My suggestions are that actually organic compounds were formed later in the course of life. It was a result of life, or else a consequence of a system of reactions that was becoming more and more complex.

 

 

[How is survival capacity not true order? Your beginning observation is good, but the facts are a bit skewed.

This is a difficult question. For some reason, order in living systems or reactions appear to pose survival capacities. This means that they can continue in the long term more effectively than others with a less ordered state. However, a) this is not always the case and b) natural laws do not promote the creation of order directly. For instance, if you pour oil in a glass of water, the entropy of the system will increase, but at the end, oil and water will be perfectly separated in a condition which, in a way, is a state of perfect order (all oil concentrated at the top of the solution). So it seems that in the long term, despite initial fluctuations, order will triumph in some cases. This is not because there is a natural law that constantly creates order (with the expense of increasing disorder of the environment), but because of the capacity of order to sustain itself in the very long term over other possible conditions.

[Strange]

Nothing is unquestionable.

 

The fact that chemistry is not random is pretty unquestionable.

 

My suggestions are that actually organic compounds were formed later in the course of life. It was a result of life, or else a consequence of a system of reactions that was becoming more and more complex.

 

At least that is a clear, testable claim.

 

It fails at the first step because we know that organic chemicals exist in the absence of life.

 

Also, maybe you need to define what you mean by "life". It is possible that there were some basic reactions, that started the whole process, that did not depend on organic molecules. But they would not get very far, because they would be limited to be fairly simple. As soon as you have something that could plausibly be called life it almost certainly exploited the existing organic compounds to mediate the more complex function, to transfer or store energy, to form structures, etc.

[Moontanman]

Nothing is unquestionable.

The laws of physics that govern chemistry are quite well known.

 

 

My suggestions are that actually organic compounds were formed later in the course of life. It was a result of life, or else a consequence of a system of reactions that was becoming more and more complex.

Interstellar space is full of organic molecules, I suggest you define what you mean by organic compounds to make sure you are using the correct definition.

[minaras]

The laws of physics that govern chemistry are quite well known.

 

I agree! I didn't say something different.

To put it different, i only say that biology is only complex chemistry. We have to expand chemistry to more complexity to explain biology.

This is confusing, because most people say that life is only chemistry, but they use the phrase mostly to say that we are only flesh and bone, not something more. However, they assume that biology is something sophisticated and there is some kind of magic in it. On the contrary, when i say life is chemistry, i mean it literally. Scientists should expand the indefinetelly and without boundaries the laws of chemistry to get the laws of biology. They should merge into one entity without anything between them.

 

Interstellar space is full of organic molecules, I suggest you define what you mean by organic compounds to make sure you are using the correct definition.

 

 

Sorry, but when I say that organic compounds were created later in the course of life, I refer it to the system I am describing, the system of complex random chemical reactions. It literally means that organic life was not necessarily present from the beginning. That’s what I mean. Now, of course, organic compounds can be created everywhere in the universe, I didn’t say the opposite. However, if they are not created as a part of a continuing system of reactions, they are just that: organic compounds. All these organics found in space don’t have nothing to do with life and probably they never will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least that is a clear, testable claim.

 

It fails at the first step because we know that organic chemicals exist in the absence of life.

 

Also, maybe you need to define what you mean by "life". It is possible that there were some basic reactions, that started the whole process, that did not depend on organic molecules. But they would not get very far, because they would be limited to be fairly simple. As soon as you have something that could plausibly be called life it almost certainly exploited the existing organic compounds to mediate the more complex function, to transfer or store energy, to form structures, etc.

 

For the organic chemicals, see above.

For the definition, see the opening post for details. Basic reactions don't need to create life as we know it. They only have to avoid equillibrium and become a more and more complex system. Thats what was there then, thats what is here now. Random chemical reactions then, random chemical reactions now. The difference is that now organics have prevailed in the long term due to their properties (evolution and survival of reactions) and gave to the system the pattern we have today in which we are inside observers and perceive as sophisticated due to our specific point of view.

 

To put it differently, every system of complex chemical reactions that survives in the long term (due to repeatability, chemical properties, etc) carries the basic properties of life to the "eyes" of the reactions of this system.

[Moontanman]

I agree! I didn't say something different.

To put it different, i only say that biology is only complex chemistry. We have to expand chemistry to more complexity to explain biology.

This is confusing, because most people say that life is only chemistry, but they use the phrase mostly to say that we are only flesh and bone, not something more. However, they assume that biology is something sophisticated and there is some kind of magic in it. On the contrary, when i say life is chemistry, i mean it literally. Scientists should expand the indefinetelly and without boundaries the laws of chemistry to get the laws of biology. They should merge into one entity without anything between them.

 

 

 

Sorry, but when I say that organic compounds were created later in the course of life, I refer it to the system I am describing, the system of complex random chemical reactions. It literally means that organic life was not necessarily present from the beginning. That’s what I mean. Now, of course, organic compounds can be created everywhere in the universe, I didn’t say the opposite. However, if they are not created as a part of a continuing system of reactions, they are just that: organic compounds. All these organics found in space don’t have nothing to do with life and probably they never will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the organic chemicals, see above.

For the definition, see the opening post for details. Basic reactions don't need to create life as we know it. They only have to avoid equillibrium and become a more and more complex system. Thats what was there then, thats what is here now. Random chemical reactions then, random chemical reactions now. The difference is that now organics have prevailed in the long term due to their properties (evolution and survival of reactions) and gave to the system the pattern we have today in which we are inside observers and perceive as sophisticated due to our specific point of view.

 

To put it differently, every system of complex chemical reactions that survives in the long term (due to repeatability, chemical properties, etc) carries the basic properties of life to the "eyes" of the reactions of this system.

 

 

Again chemistry is not random...

[Strange]

I agree! I didn't say something different.

 

You did. You said, repeatedly, that chemistry is random.

 

To put it different, i only say that biology is only complex chemistry.

 

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. It is kind of obvious.

 

However, they assume that biology is something sophisticated and there is some kind of magic in it.

 

Who does?

 

Sorry, but when I say that organic compounds were created later in the course of life, I refer it to the system I am describing, the system of complex random chemical reactions.

 

So you don't mean "organic" (based on carbon) you mean chemicals that are only produced by living organisms?

 

So your claim is: chemicals produced only by living organisms didn't appear until after living organisms appeared? Well, duh. Again, obvious.

 

Random chemical reactions then, random chemical reactions now.

 

CHEMICAL REACTIONS ARE NOT RANDOM!

Edited October 19, 2014 by Strange

[Moontanman]

I agree! I didn't say something different.

To put it different, i only say that biology is only complex chemistry. We have to expand chemistry to more complexity to explain biology.

This is confusing, because most people say that life is only chemistry, but they use the phrase mostly to say that we are only flesh and bone, not something more. However, they assume that biology is something sophisticated and there is some kind of magic in it. On the contrary, when i say life is chemistry, i mean it literally. Scientists should expand the indefinetelly and without boundaries the laws of chemistry to get the laws of biology. They should merge into one entity without anything between them.

 

 

 

Sorry, but when I say that organic compounds were created later in the course of life, I refer it to the system I am describing, the system of complex random chemical reactions. It literally means that organic life was not necessarily present from the beginning. That’s what I mean. Now, of course, organic compounds can be created everywhere in the universe, I didn’t say the opposite. However, if they are not created as a part of a continuing system of reactions, they are just that: organic compounds. All these organics found in space don’t have nothing to do with life and probably they never will.

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the organic chemicals, see above.

For the definition, see the opening post for details. Basic reactions don't need to create life as we know it. They only have to avoid equillibrium and become a more and more complex system. Thats what was there then, thats what is here now. Random chemical reactions then, random chemical reactions now. The difference is that now organics have prevailed in the long term due to their properties (evolution and survival of reactions) and gave to the system the pattern we have today in which we are inside observers and perceive as sophisticated due to our specific point of view.

 

To put it differently, every system of complex chemical reactions that survives in the long term (due to repeatability, chemical properties, etc) carries the basic properties of life to the "eyes" of the reactions of this system.

 

 

How would you categorize grain alcohol?

[minaras]

 

CHEMICAL REACTIONS ARE NOT RANDOM!

As i see, the term random is the main reason why you i am misunderstood.Maybe i am misusing the term. Ok! Maybe you can help me with that. If you throw 20 different chemicals in a flask and you provide external energy, how do you call the reactions that what will occur? Random? Spontaneous? Something else? Whatever you say I will use it from now on instead of the term random.

[Strange]

As i see, the term random is the main reason why you i am misunderstood.Maybe i am misusing the term. Ok! Maybe you can help me with that. If you throw 20 different chemicals in a flask and you provide external energy, how do you call the reactions that what will occur? Random? Spontaneous? Something else? Whatever you say I will use it from now on instead of the term random.

 

I don't really know what would be appropriate as a general term.

 

"Predictable"

"Complex"

"Boring" or "exciting", depending on exactly what the 20 chemicals were.

 

Just stop saying "random" and we can move on to the substantive part of ypour argument (whatever that is).

 

You seem to be saying that "life is just chemistry" as if this was some great breakthrough. But it is just an obvious fact.

[minaras]

Ok, lets call them complex. While they start interacting and forming end products, there will be 30-40 substances and the possible interactions between chemicals will increase, making the system more and more complex. Now what will happen after millions of years if the external source continue to provide energy? At some point the reactions will reach a very high level of complexity, but will they eventually lead to equillibrium every time? Well, it depends. If a repeating system of reactions emerges, lets say A+B-->C+D-->A+B-->C+D-->A+B..and so on, then this system will last longer compared to other reactions. Lets call this system of A,B,C,D as advantageous for this reason. In a way it has a survival capacity. There are many other ways as well how a system can be advantageous inside the whole system of reactions. After billions of years, if the system is still in non equillibrium and extremely complex, then most existing systems will be in some way the advantageous ones. And the question is: is this complex system something that emerges different than life? If the mainsteam opinion is that yes, then i agree with the mainstrem. If no, i have this to say: If the reference observer is a small system of end reactions inside the whole system, then according to its perception, the system in the flask has all the properties of life as we understand it. Just think about it. Afterwards, homeostatic mechanisms as well as self sustainability are the same thing as the advantageous systems we described above, while seen from another perspective.Everything depends on the observer. After all, we are a sum of reactions and we are the reference frames while judging what is life. Are there analogies with the system in the flask that describe. This is easily testable.

[Strange]

 

This is easily testable.

 

What is easily testable? And how do you suggest it is tested?

 

I still don't really understand what you are trying to say, nor how "the observer" is relevant. Although life is quite hard to define, there are a number of objective criteria.

 

Are you saying anything other than: "life is the result of chemical reactions"?

 

And how does "our special viewpoint as inside the system observers deceive us"?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Strange

[minaras]

Ok! O will try to make it simple. To you are there any differences between life and the complex reactions we described in the flask? If yes, what are the differences?

[Strange]

Ok! O will try to make it simple. To you are there any differences between life and the complex reactions we described in the flask? If yes, what are the differences?

 

The difference is that life consists of a set of chemical reactions that are self-supporting and "discrete"; i.e. self-contained and isolated from the environment to some extent. These discrete cells or organisms are also able to metabolise and reproduce.

 

For example, if you shake your flask containing a mixture of chemicals then any amount of any chemical can move to a different locations and mixed with any other chemicals.

 

One the other hand, if it contains some living organisms then they will remain whole and not be randomly(!) mixed up with other stuff.

 

Your turn: what do you claim the difference is?

[minaras]

My claim is that actually there is no actual difference apart from a difference in reference frames. Remember the different reference frames in relativity, right?

My claim is that in any complex system of chemical reactions after a significant period of time, if the reference frame are the own reactions of the system, then the system will be viewed as having all the properties of life, exactly the way we see our own system we live in. It is something analogous with the fact that we as a part of the moving earth think that earth is the non moving center of the universe.

Additionally, any system of complex reactions after a huge amount of time will favor those reactions with repeatability, or adhesive capacities, isolation through membranes, etc, because it is more difficult for them to come to an equilibrium state. So eventually you will have discreteness, self-supportance, reproduction etc….Just give to the reactions in the flask some time…

[Strange]

My claim is that actually there is no actual difference apart from a difference in reference frames. Remember the different reference frames in relativity, right?

 

What does relativity have to do with it? We don't fail to recognize life because we are moving relative to it.

 

 

So eventually you will have discreteness, self-supportance, reproduction etc….Just give to the reactions in the flask some time…

 

Right. Which has nothing to do with "frame of reference". It is to do with self-organizing structures and reactions.

 

Perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "frame of reference" as you appear to be using it in a very non-standard way.

[Essay]

My claim is that actually there is no actual difference apart from a difference in reference....

 

Additionally, any system of complex simple, robust, and chaotic reactions after a huge amount of time will favor those reactions with repeatability, or adhesive capacities, isolation through membranes, etc, because it is more difficult for them to come to an equilibrium state ...and they dissipate energy more effectively (and/or raise the level of entropy more effectively). So eventually you will have discreteness, self-supportance, reproduction etc….Just give to the reactions in the flask some time…

 

^^ ...fixed that, I think.

 

You should read The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains how stable complexity often arises out of a system comprised of simple, robust, chaotic operators ...or words to that effect. I think it would provide you with more language and a better framework for understanding how the parts and processes involved, with which you already seem to be very familiar, contribute to helping define life as something more than random. You might see then that you are both saying 'relatively' the same thing, istm.

 

"He [Capra] compares this shift to the Copernican revolution suggesting that the new perception of reality has profound implications not only for science and philosophy but also for business, politics, health care, education, and everyday life. "The new paradigm may be called a holistic worldview," he writes, "seeing the world as an integrated whole rather than a dissociated collection of parts." --from the link

 

~

Edited October 30, 2014 by Essay