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

[minaras]

 

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

 

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.

Perhaps the term "observer" is the right one. For instance, while we are standing on earth and observing the universe, we are the observers. To us, the planets, the sun and the moon are moving around earth which seems to be standing still. But the truth is that earth (and we) are moving as well. In the case of humans, while analyzing the problem of what is life, of course we are the observers. Maybe we are not changing in terms of position, but because of our chemical reactions, we are constantly changing in terms of composition. So we (the observers) are a system of changing chemical reactions. So what happens when other systems of changing chemical reactions are used as observers? In the experiment with the flask, if the chemical reactions are used as observers, then all the complex reactions that happens will be viewed from the perspective of the result, ie all the complex reactions will lead toward what we have as end results. If something was different, the whole system would have been different. So through the perspective of the resulting, these reactions would seem to be so sophisticated, or else there would be a sort of homeostasis. Also, we would have reproduction, etc and generally there would be life as we ourselves perceive in our own system we are observing. And this would happen in any system of complex chemical reactions after a huge amount of time.

Thanks Essay for the interesting suggestions...Voices from the future...

[Strange]

But velocity is relative. Chemistry isn't. The same reactions occur, whoever observes them. Even if nobody observes them.

 

The analogy just doesn't work. And certainly isn't science. Unless you can make a testable prediction?

[minaras]

I agree, that chemical reactions are the same for all observers, but I just wanted to underscore the importance of reference frames/ observers in the interpretation of physical phenomena in a wider sense. For instance, the same thing that we see as life, if the observer is for instance a little stone, a pencil etc, and generally something that doesn’t participate in the system, then what will be ‘seen’ is just simple, chaotic, complex and above all meaningless chemical reactions. That is exactly the way they see the abovementioned complex reactions in the flask. Why is our survival something important for them? Chemical reactions survive in the case of living beings, and chemical reactions survive in the case of the reactions in the flask.

As for testable predictions, you yourself said that the reactions in the flask can also be characterized as predictable. This means if I am right that whole living organisms are something like predictable reactions, although extremely complex. In other words they are chemical automatons. Their food constitute the starting reactions and simple organisms can function in predictable ways. Despite the high level of complexity, I think there are statistical tricks to generally test whether they respond predictably, without the need to test every single reaction in detail, and without the need for extremely complex unrealistic experiments for the year 2015.

[Essay]

I agree, that chemical reactions are the same for all observers, but I just wanted to underscore the importance of reference frames/ observers in the interpretation of physical phenomena in a wider sense. For instance, the same thing that we see as life, if the observer is for instance a little stone, a pencil etc, and generally something that doesn’t participate in the system, then what will be ‘seen’ is just simple, chaotic, complex and above all meaningless chemical reactions. That is exactly the way they see the abovementioned complex reactions in the flask. Why is our survival something important for them? Chemical reactions survive in the case of living beings, and chemical reactions survive in the case of the reactions in the flask.

As for testable predictions, you yourself said that the reactions in the flask can also be characterized as predictable. This means if I am right that whole living organisms are something like predictable reactions, although extremely complex. In other words they are chemical automatons. Their food constitute the starting reactions and simple organisms can function in predictable ways. Despite the high level of complexity, I think there are statistical tricks to generally test whether they respond predictably, without the need to test every single reaction in detail, and without the need for extremely complex unrealistic experiments for the year 2015.

 

re: "then what will be ‘seen’ is just simple, chaotic, complex and above all meaningless chemical reactions."

It can't be 'simple' and 'complex' at the same time ...even if it is meaningless. Chaotic isn't another synonym complex.

 

and...

re: "Despite the high level of complexity, I think there are statistical tricks to generally test whether they respond predictably, without the need to test every single reaction in detail, and without the need for extremely complex unrealistic experiments..."

 

The predictability is associated with (or predictability is a measure of) the 'robustness" of the simple systems, such as "every single reaction in detail," but predictability can't be expected to apply as well to some "high level of complexity," which itself emerges from those simple, robust (or predictably/tightly constrained within certain/predictably measurable parameters or limits), chaotic (but only chaotic within those constraining or 'robust' parameters) details, such as every single chemical reaction.

 

...in other words:

The predictability is more strongly associated with the 'robustness" of the simple systems, such as "every single reaction in detail," but the same predictability can't be expected to apply as well to some "high level of complexity," which itself emerged from those simple yet predictably chaotic details about all the chemical reactions.

 

~

[Strange]

 

As for testable predictions ...

 

That doesn't sound like a testable prediction. A testable prediction needs to be quantitative in some way, and will discriminate between your hypothesis and the alternatives.

 

For example, "if my hypothesis is correct then when we perform <details of experiment> we will see <details of result> but if I am wrong we will see <alternative result>" Where the results can be objectively measured to determine which is correct.

 

So far all you have is some vague waffle about complexity and randomness and "point of view" (which doesn't exist in chemistry).

 

It isn't clear what your "theory" is, or how it is different from the standard view of biochemistry. Making a quantitative, testable prediction would help to clarify that.

[mississippichem]

As for testable predictions, you yourself said that the reactions in the flask can also be characterized as predictable. This means if I am right that whole living organisms are something like predictable reactions, although extremely complex. In other words they are chemical automatons. Their food constitute the starting reactions and simple organisms can function in predictable ways. Despite the high level of complexity, I think there are statistical tricks to generally test whether they respond predictably, without the need to test every single reaction in detail, and without the need for extremely complex unrealistic experiments for the year 2015.

 

see statistical mechanics.

 

If you study it hard enough you can see that, in principle, chemistry falls out of statistical mechanics. You can't really make predictions about individual molecules but you can make predictions about very large collections of molecules.

 

What future "extremely complex unrealistic experiments" do you refer to? As our knowledge of biology and biochemistry expands we will be able to understand the mechanistic underpinnings behind life more and more. This is done in small incremental steps. The amount of work that goes into understanding the docking of one substrate to one enzyme alone is mind blowing and chemists still don't even fully understand the intimate details of many reactions that are much simpler than biological stuff.

[Moontanman]

 

Again, I'll ask how would you judge grain alcohol under your definition of organic?

[minaras]

Ok here are 2 (out of many) possible experimental approaches for this issue.

Proposed experimental approach no1:

If living beings are mechanistic chemical automatons then some functions/properties can be manipated in predictable ways. Because of its unique characteristics I think that the genus daphnia is a good candidate for experimental testing. Apart from being relatively simple, another characteristic of daphnia species is their relatively short lifespan and the fact that they are temperature dependent. For example, some live only 29 days at 28 °C (82 °F). Another characteristic of daphnia is that they are almost transparent, and their internal organs can be easily observed while functioning. These characteristics makes them ideal candidates for the following experiment.

If a living organism is a sum of chemical reactions, then the components of food intake are the first substrates and the excreted products are the last elements. If identical organisms (clones) eat exactly the same food with the same manner and same pace under identical conditions, then the excreted products will always be the same and predictable, apart from the standard error ε.

If we have clones of the same organism and we study them into the same conditions and we give the exact food, then if these organisms are just random chemical reactions, then their lifespan (or any other function) could be predicted as a result of multiple linear regression. The dependent variable y (or else the lifespan) would be: y=a+a1x1+a2x2+…….aνxν+aωxω+ε where ε is the error variable and x1,x2…xν the various explanatory variables and a,a1,a2…av the effects or regressor coefficients and aωxω measures the feeding speed effect.

If these clones share everything in common (e.g environmental factors, temperature etc) except the pace that they are fed, (as measured by bowel movement speed), and if we secure that actually these organisms absorb exactly the same nutrients, but differ only in the pace they absorb them, then all the parameters of the linear regression will be the same for all clones except the speed factor, or else lifespan=y=aωxω+B+ε (where B=a+a1x1+a2x2+….avxv and it is the same for all organisms), or else we have a simple linear regression. Thus, if we avoid extremes in feeding pace and we assume no collinearities caused by it, then at a certain pace range we would expect lifespan to be linearly correlated with the feeding pace (or bowel movements).

Proposed experimental approach no 2:

Also, when you study the organisms that are found in extreme conditions or pretty far from the surface of earth, one can easily study if the whole system, the density of ecosystems and the complexity in the animal structures found there, is the decaying pattern as if all that is there is just mechanistic reactions,or something else?

moontanman: Since it has an organic chemical structure, then yes, it's organic.

Edited November 19, 2014 by minaras

[Strange]

 

then if these organisms are just random chemical reactions, then their lifespan (or any other function) could be predicted as a result of multiple linear regression.

 

If they were random then you couldn't predict anything.

 

Apart from that, this proposed experiment would seem to predict the same results as standard biology. What are you predicting that distinguishes your idea from existing theories?

 

 

is the decaying pattern as if all that is there is just mechanistic reactions,or something else?

 

I don't know what this means:

 

1. What is the "decaying pattern"?

 

2. What distinguishes "mechanistic reactions" from ... well, what is the alternative? Are you suggesting some sort of magical non-mechanistic chemistry?

 

I still have no idea what you are proposing. Other than the fact that living things are a complex set of deterministic chemical reactions.

[Ophiolite]

minaras, are you self-educated in biology? As far as I can tell, from a careful reading of your posts, you are simply repeating some fairly standard, basic biology concepts, mixed in with some misunderstandings and several incorrectly used technical phrases. Self-education seems the most likely explanation for this mish-mash.

 

If I have done you a disservice then you need to read anything and everything written by Stewart Kaufman.

[minaras]

 

 

 

I still have no idea what you are proposing. Other than the fact that living things are a complex set of deterministic chemical reactions.

The general idea is that any system of complex chemical reactions can perceive the system in which they belong, as life. Even the one that was created in the flask as we described.

 

 

 

 

Apart from that, this proposed experiment would seem to predict the same results as standard biology. What are you predicting that distinguishes your idea from existing theories?

 

 

 

I didn’t know that it is widely accepted that the functions of living organisms can be predicted and manipulated with accuracy, just like performing mathematical equations. This can be achieved only if we consider living organisms nothing more than a simple catalogue of chemical reactions. In this case accurate predictions can be made under some special circumstances.

I think that scientists believe that biochemistry is something more than a simple catalogue of mechanistic chemical reactions. After all, I have never heard about experiments trying to manipulate the chemical reactions of an organism (ie. by changing the food intake etc) in order to achieve lifespan extensions, or to manipulate straightforwardly any other properties that arise from the fact that living beings are chemical deterministic machines.

 

 

 

 

 

2. What distinguishes "mechanistic reactions" from ... well, what is the alternative? Are you suggesting some sort of magical non-mechanistic chemistry?

 

 

I have no idea what is the alternative. I think that what I am is saying is pretty much obviously what is the case, if someone gets a deep view of things.

 

 

minaras, are you self-educated in biology? As far as I can tell, from a careful reading of your posts, you are simply repeating some fairly standard, basic biology concepts, mixed in with some misunderstandings and several incorrectly used technical phrases. Self-education seems the most likely explanation for this mish-mash.

 

 

No I am not self educated. I am a legitimate life scientist. I am just not a native English speaker and its hard to communicate deep complicated thoughts.

[Strange]

The general idea is that any system of complex chemical reactions can perceive the system in which they belong, as life. Even the one that was created in the flask as we described.

 

Well, life is hard to define unambiguously but it has characteristics which would not be shared by an arbitrary complex set of reactions.

 

I didn’t know that it is widely accepted that the functions of living organisms can be predicted and manipulated with accuracy, just like performing mathematical equations.

 

In principle, yes. It is immensely complicated but there are projects underway to simulate the chemical processes in a cell. Ultimately, it would be possible to simulate everything from DNA to the complete living organism. This would require far more information than we have now, and even greater increases in computing.

 

This can be achieved only if we consider living organisms nothing more than a simple catalogue of chemical reactions.

 

Apart from the "simple" bit, that is correct.

 

 

I think that scientists believe that biochemistry is something more than a simple catalogue of mechanistic chemical reactions.

 

Do you have any references to scientists who think that? I'm sure there are some religious scientists, for example, who think there must be more to life than chemistry, but I don't think it is a very mainstream view.

 

After all, I have never heard about experiments trying to manipulate the chemical reactions of an organism (ie. by changing the food intake etc) in order to achieve lifespan extensions, or to manipulate straightforwardly any other properties that arise from the fact that living beings are chemical deterministic machines.

 

 

Really? That is a little surprising for someone who is a scientist with an interest in biochemistry. This is a massive area of research. And, because of popular interest, has hit the headlines of normal news media many times.

 

For example, regarding the effect of diet:

http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47(just the first one of many in the search results)

And, on the effects of drugs:

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2808%2900182-4?cc=y(again, just the first of thousands of results)

 

And then there are entire fields of nutrition, pharmaceuticals, neurochemistry, metabolomics, genetics, toxicology and others which cover exactly the topics you describe.

[Ophiolite]

No I am not self educated. I am a legitimate life scientist. I am just not a native English speaker and its hard to communicate deep complicated thoughts.

I shall try to remember that in future exchanges. Your written English is excellent, so I had taken you for a native speaker. Is it possible that the differences we are discussing may represent a fundamental difference of view in the life sciences in your own country?

[Strange]

Your written English is excellent

 

I will second that (although I had guessed you might not be a native speaker!)

 

Is it possible that the differences we are discussing may represent a fundamental difference of view in the life sciences in your own country?

 

What an interesting question...

[minaras]

 

Well, life is hard to define unambiguously but it has characteristics which would not be shared by an arbitrary complex set of reactions.

 

 

Agreed, but I only said that the characteristics of life would be perceived as such, only through the perspective of the arbitrary reactions if used as a reference frame (and I previously tried to explain how and why). The fact that we ourselves are a set of chemical reactions judging the phenomenon of life that is a set of chemical reactions in which we participate, suggests that there might be an analogy. Or it might be the 2 different sides of the same coin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? That is a little surprising for someone who is a scientist with an interest in biochemistry. This is a massive area of research. And, because of popular interest, has hit the headlines of normal news media many times.

 

 

 

And then there are entire fields of nutrition, pharmaceuticals, neurochemistry, metabolomics, genetics, toxicology and others which cover exactly the topics you describe.

There is a difference between trying to manipulate a molecular pathway and assuming that the whole organism is a set of plain chemical reactions. In the latter case you try to manipulate a chaotic chemical system without being necessary to know the intermediate reactions. In the first case you try to block or increase something as more as possible, and in the second case you can make accurate predictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you have any references to scientists who think that? I'm sure there are some religious scientists, for example, who think there must be more to life than chemistry, but I don't think it is a very mainstream view.

 

 

 

 

I think the answer to this question is simply the fact that this thread has been removed to the speculations section.

 

 

 

 

I shall try to remember that in future exchanges. Your written English is excellent, so I had taken you for a native speaker. Is it possible that the differences we are discussing may represent a fundamental difference of view in the life sciences in your own country?

Thank you very much!! I only express my personal viewpoints.

[Moontanman]

I think minaras owes me an answer, where do you draw the line under your definition of organic? Is grain alcohol organic? Are proteins organic, what about RNA?

[Strange]

Agreed, but I only said that the characteristics of life would be perceived as such, only through the perspective of the arbitrary reactions if used as a reference frame (and I previously tried to explain how and why).

 

You have said this. Repeatedly. But you have not provided any supporting evidence (so I assume it is not true).

 

There is a difference between trying to manipulate a molecular pathway and assuming that the whole organism is a set of plain chemical reactions. In the latter case you try to manipulate a chaotic chemical system without being necessary to know the intermediate reactions. In the first case you try to block or increase something as more as possible, and in the second case you can make accurate predictions.

 

I already gave examples of research into the entire metabiome; i.e. trying to understand and model all molecular pathways. All you have is empty claims. (Which is why this is in speculations.)

 

I think the answer to this question is simply the fact that this thread has been removed to the speculations section.

 

In other words, you can't give any examples. So we can dismiss that claim as well.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Strange

[minaras]

I think minaras owes me an answer, where do you draw the line under your definition of organic? Is grain alcohol organic? Are proteins organic, what about RNA?

All of them are organic. It just happens that the latter 2 participate more crucially in the specific system of reactions that are found on nature and they characterize living beings and they play a more central part.

 

 

 

You have said this. Repeatedly. But you have not provided any supporting evidence (so I assume it is not true).

 

a) The fact that the resulting chemical reactions of a chaotic chemical system while used as an observer, it will perceive the entire system as having life-alike properties is logically self-evident.

b)It is the basic core of my arguments. In fact, it is the point where we disagree. See? You yourself say that I am not saying something that is already well known after all, and that there is nothing new in my claims..

[Strange]

a) The fact that the resulting chemical reactions of a chaotic chemical system while used as an observer, it will perceive the entire system as having life-alike properties is logically self-evident.

 

Not to me it isn't. In fact, I would say it is self-evidently nonsense. (Starting with the fact that chemical reactions cannot be an observer and decide it is alive.)

 

You think that any complex mixture of chemicals (e.g. the atmosphere of Jupiter) will think it is alive? You really need some evidence for this.

 

b)It is the basic core of my arguments. In fact, it is the point where we disagree. See? You yourself say that I am not saying something that is already well known after all, and that there is nothing new in my claims..

 

There is nothing new in your claim that life is just a series of complex chemical reactions.

 

You seem to turn that around and say that any series of complex reactions is therefore living (from its own point of view). This is the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

[Ophiolite]

Minaras, would you explain what you mean when you use the word perceive? In what way would chemical reactions, much simpler than those present in eukaryotes, be able to perceive?

[Moontanman]

All of them are organic. It just happens that the latter 2 participate more crucially in the specific system of reactions that are found on nature and they characterize living beings and they play a more central part.

 

 

 

All of them are found in space as well or are the result of non life chemical reactions in nature... DNA as well is found in meteorites...

Edited December 16, 2014 by Moontanman

[Acme]

All of them are found in space as well or are the result of non life chemical reactions in nature... DNA as well is found in meteorites...

No, DNA has not been found in meteorites. Building block of DNA yes, but not DNA itself.

NASA Researchers: DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space @ NASA

[Moontanman]

No, DNA has not been found in meteorites. Building block of DNA yes, but not DNA itself.

NASA Researchers: DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space @ NASA

 

You are correct I misread the article...

Still it doesn't change the fact that complex organic molecules are found in space, minaras's assertion that organics are only associated with life is demonstrably false... And the assertion that it is just random is false as well...

Edited December 21, 2014 by Moontanman

[Acme]

You are correct I misread the article...

 

Still it doesn't change the fact that complex organic molecules are found in space, minaras's assertion that organics are only associated with life in demonstrably false... And the assertion that it is just random is false as well...

Roger. However, if you are saying that life and it's constituent parts are predestined I strongly disagree.

...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.

Saying can and predictively in the same sentence as you have is a contradiction of terms. Just because something can happen does not mean [say predict] that it will happen.

[minaras]

 

Not to me it isn't. In fact, I would say it is self-evidently nonsense. (Starting with the fact that chemical reactions cannot be an observer and decide it is alive.)

 

 

Minaras, would you explain what you mean when you use the word perceive? In what way would chemical reactions, much simpler than those present in eukaryotes, be able to perceive?

There is a basic misconception here. I am not using the term pecreption so human-centric.

Anything in the Universe can be used as a reference frame. Remember the whole theory of relativlity that is based on reference frames. There are no absolute observers..

 

 

 

 

All of them are found in space as well or are the result of non life chemical reactions in nature... DNA as well is found in meteorites...

This fact literally shows that i am correct. Organic chemicals does not originate life.. Organics are only chemicals such as inorganic. They can be created in millions of different ways not related to life. Simply the chemical reactions of living systems for some reason (properties of organics) has created plenty of organic chemistry.

 

And i will also want to point out (and to be fair) that:

NASA scientists have found ten-fold spikes in methane in the atmosphere of Mars. If life forms are eventually found somewhere locally, this means that my arguments are proven wrong, because if life is actually arbitrary reactions as we explained, this cannot be sustained only locally. Due to a problem of space, arbitrary reactions will drop away and equilibrium would occur.

 

Additionally, chemicals would diffuse around not allowing complex reactions to be sustained. Complex arbitrary reactions can be sustained only in an isolated place (remember the paradigm with the flask), but not for long because of the lack of chemical resources. So my described model can only develop everywhere on earth simultaneously (slowly reaching higher levels of complexity) or not at all.

So this discovery possibly rules out my argument which is bad. However, this is a proof that at least my arguments are falsifiable, which is good.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/12/15/science.1261713.full.pdf?ijkey=wh80Qt3dcQZKw&keytype=ref&siteid=sci