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

[Ten oz]

There is real only two options:

Alpha - random chemical reactions started life

Bravo - life has always existed and has no beginning

 

While option Alpha has yet to be entirely duplicated in a lab it is theoretically more likely than option Bravo which can not truly be tested or expiremented. We can see the way life has evolved. We know that different chemicals under conditions that can occur naturally will create amino acids and proteins.

 

Option Bravo says that some more advanced more intelligent life that is free of origin has always existed, always had knowledge, and created all other life. Option Bravo also fudges the idea that the universe has a beginning by theorizing an life form that by virtue of being infinite predates the finite Universe.

 

Assuming one believes that life has any origin at all option Alpha is the only choice regardless of how little its understood or observed. Option Bravo does not explain how life was created. Rather option Bravo claims life was never created. Life just is.

[minaras]

Here i use the term reference frame as a synonym to the term " observer".

 

In a recent study entitled “The butterfly effect in cancer: A single base mutation can remodel the cell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2015)” scientists have found that the impact of a single reaction to the whole system can be much more complicated and stronger than previously thought. These chaotic system phenomena to my opinion support a model in which organism are composed of systems of chaotic arbitrary complex chemical reactions.

In time, more and more studies provide us with more information about the similarities of the pathways that viruses use with the cellular pathways of the host. This raises our confidence that viruses really are formal living beings. However viruses become alive when they interact with hosts, ie while they are undergoing chemical changes. For viruses, chemical reactions=living state and not chemical reactions=non living state.

Even complex misfolded proteins can pose similarities with life, because they generate diversity and can be evolved chemically. Rna and DNA might be a result of life.

This approach we used (to see life as a system of complex random chemical reactions that we perceive as life due to our specific viewpoint as inside the system observers, underscores the fact that apart from our position and motion, not even our viewpoint is completely objective. On the contrary, it can be very subjective. This means that there are 2 possibilities: That either there are no objective observers in the universe, or there are (but not we). Both possibilities pose interesting implications because even theories in physics and cosmology can be benefited, as theories can encounter the fact that our viewpoint is subjective. For instance, if we find for instance that light is an objective observer and universe stretches and curves around this observer, new theories can be built in which light is the observer….etc etc

[Strange]

Here i use the term reference frame as a synonym to the term " observer".

 

If you want to be understood, I would recommend using words with their standard meanings.

 

 

These chaotic system phenomena to my opinion support a model in which organism are composed of systems of chaotic arbitrary complex chemical reactions.

 

It is still nonsense.

 

Unless you use the term "chaotic" as a synonym for coordinated.

And you use the term "arbitrary" as a synonym for highly optimised by evolution.

[Ten oz]

@ Minaras, life could theoretically be nothing but a dream too but it is far more rational to focus on what is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Light as an objective observer is rather nebulous. Seems as though you have an idea but no work. You haven't figured an experiment to test your idea. As such it is premature to advocate for it.

[minaras]

@ Minaras, life could theoretically be nothing but a dream too but it is far more rational to focus on what is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Light as an objective observer is rather nebulous. Seems as though you have an idea but no work. You haven't figured an experiment to test your idea. As such it is premature to advocate for it.

I used light as an example of what can be used as an objective observer, if any.

If life is just a sum of random chemical reactions, then under certain conditions, they will behave just like chemical automatons. In page 2 i have proposed some experimental ways to test this hypothesis. If you want i can propose even more...

 

And this is not far from what we find in our everyday experiments. Anyone who is familiar with biomedical research understands.

Recent scientific findings are steadily approaching to the only chemical reaction model, that starts from food and gut microbiota and end in excretions of the body.

For instance, more and more evidence links cancer with inflammation, with aging and gut microbiota interactions, that can at some point be controlled with diet. Seems more like a complex interplay between a huge amount of just chemical reactions.

Edited February 19, 2015 by minaras

[Strange]

I used light as an example of what can be used as an objective observer, if any.

 

How can light be an observer? That is meaningless.

 

If life is just a sum of random chemical reactions

 

Which it obviously isn't.

 

, then under certain conditions, they will behave just like chemical automatons.

 

If the reactions were random, then they would not behave like "chemical automatons".

 

However, as chemistry is deterministic, and living systems do a lot to maintain equilibria, etc. it could be argued that living organisms are "chemical automatons".

 

And this is not far from what we find in our everyday experiments. Anyone who is familiar with biomedical research understands.

Recent scientific findings are steadily approaching to the only chemical reaction model, that starts from food and gut microbiota and end in excretions of the body.

For instance, more and more evidence links cancer with inflammation, with aging and gut microbiota interactions, that can at some point be controlled with diet. Seems more like a complex interplay between a huge amount of just chemical reactions.

 

This appears to be the standard view of life as a series of chemical reactions. As such, I still have no idea what you are claiming that is different from mainstream science.

 

Do you think life is considered to be more than just chemistry?

Edited February 19, 2015 by Strange

[Essay]

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 life is just a sum of random chemical reactions, then under certain conditions, they will behave just like chemical automatons. In page 2 i have proposed....

 

Seems more like a complex interplay between a huge amount of just chemical reactions.

 

Right, life is a "complex interplay," rather than "just a sum of random chemical reactions...."

 

Mixing up the difference between these two words, 'complex' and 'random,' might by why you think other reference frames should be just as valid. While other reference frames are filled with random chemical reactions also, life is much more complex. And self-aware life is another quantum leap beyond that, in complexity, so our reference frame shouldn't be compared with other random reference frames, if you're looking for a certain analogy or various similarities. Life is special.

 

Before you proposed those experiments, on page 2, I had proposed you read (or just read about) " The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, which explains how stable complexity often arises out of a system comprised of simple, robust, chaotic operators..." to help explain a common source of confusion about using the word "random" and "complex" ...especially as it pertains to this topic, and the language you are using to relate or juxtapose various concepts.

 

Here is another [free, simple text-based] 2010 source for definitions, and more, on much of the terminology and research into this topic:

http://archive.org/stream/ComplexityEmergentSystemsLifeAndComplexBiologicalSystemsComplex/ComplexityEtDynamics487p28Mb_djvu.txt

...or look up some of the terminology in wikipedia;

 

...or see this discussion by the author, Capra, which might also be helpful.

===

 

At the risk of going in circles, or repeating Strange's insightful question, do you think this new information about nutrition and "the 'only chemical' reaction model" is a new paradigm or a new view about life? Do you think biology is based on something other than chemistry, or that chemistry is based on anything other than physics?

 

~

[minaras]

Not only am i saying that life is only chemistry, but i am saying that it is meaningless and purposeless chemistry for every single observer apart from us and apart from all the other results of these reactions.

Even some substances that react in random in a tube and create a complex interplay have a natural history. After millions of years if equillibrium is avoided for some reason, then the prevailing reactions will prevail because of their properties. Through the eyes of the resulting system, the whole natural history will be perceived as something like evolution and the system something as life.

And before you hurry up and say that this cant be true, remember what we ourselves are and what the whole system of life is. Chemical reactions!!

[Strange]

Not only am i saying that life is only chemistry, but i am saying that it is meaningless and purposeless chemistry

 

Do you think that there is any science that disgarees with this mind-numbingly obvous conclusion?

 

Even some substances that react in random

 

Substances do not react at random. Why haven't you understood this yet?

 

The only reason you get a negative reaction is because you mix this sort of idiotic statement with naive expressions of the obvious (as if it was new).

 

And before you hurry up and say that this cant be true, remember what we ourselves are and what the whole system of life is. Chemical reactions!!

 

No one is denying this. Which is what makes your posts so bizarre: you seem to be saying that we should accept standard mainstream science. Well, surprise: we do.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Strange

[minaras]

Ok! So if we agree, then why are we still arguing?

 

You still believe that the only meaning of random is anything with unpredictable outcome and i have already explained that this is not what i mean. Random has many meanings and one of them is that something is random if it lacks a pattern. For instance, if you have an audio cassette entitled "random hits" it doesnt mean that you wont know the order of the songs and everytime you listen the tape the order will be unpredictable...It simply means that the rder of the songs has no specific pattern...

[Strange]

Ok! So if we agree, then why are we still arguing?

 

I have no idea. Perhaps because what you think is an exciting new idea is just what everybody thinks. One way to find out: answer the question I have asked several times... Do you think that the standard scientific view is that life is more than just chemistry?

 

Or perhaps because you are unable to communicate your idea clearly. If we ignore all the terms you abuse (random, frame of reference, etc) then the dialog comes down to:

 

"Life is just chemistry!"

"Yes, we know."

"No, you don't get it! Life: it's JUST chemistry!!"

"Yes, we all know that."

"But. But. Life. Is. Chemistry!!!"

"Yes. Everybody knows that"

etc. across hundreds of posts across several forums.

 

Why are you still arguing?

[minaras]

There are 2 possibilites:

a)Either you are trolling my posts.

b)Either you still don’t understand what my arguments are. In this case I would be grateful if you could please ignore my posts and don’t comment on them any more. Or at least stop misinterpreting them.

Of course I am not arguing that the standard scientific view is something else apart from the fact that life is just chemistry. Whatever I say, you summarize my thoughts into this false conclusion, over and over again.

I am arguing that life is not only chemistry, but random, arbitrary, meaningless chemistry. If life seems to have some properties, its only because we are the observers of all this. We are chemical reactions that observe a system of chemical reactions in which we are included. In fact, any complex chemical reaction system if used as an observer can perceive itself as life.

PS1:

And this is what I mean with the term random:

Random

adjective

1.

proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:

the random selection of numbers.

Idioms

7.

at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to aprior arrangement; in a haphazard way:

Contestants were chosen at random from the studio audience.

PS2 Is this the mainstream scientific view?

[Strange]

 

There are 2 possibilites:

a)Either you are trolling my posts.

b)Either you still don’t understand what my arguments are. In this case I would be grateful if you could please ignore my posts and don’t comment on them any more. Or at least stop misinterpreting them.

 

Definitely the latter. But I am giving up trying to extract any meaning from your "random" posts.

 

Of course I am not arguing that the standard scientific view is something else apart from the fact that life is just chemistry.

 

Thank you for finally confirming that. (I have lost track of how many times I have asked.)

 

I am arguing that life is not only chemistry, but random, arbitrary, meaningless chemistry. If life seems to have some properties, its only because we are the observers of all this. We are chemical reactions that observe a system of chemical reactions in which we are included. In fact, any complex chemical reaction system if used as an observer can perceive itself as life.

This is obviously not true. There is nothing more to say.

 

PS2 Is this the mainstream scientific view?

 

Obviously not.

[minaras]

 

This is obviously not true. There is nothing more to say.

 

Obviously not.

 

So it seems that you understood what i my arguments are, but you simply disagree!

Good.

Now that we both know what we are talking about, i can offer you some clues (and evidents) why i might be right..

New insights

 

Scientists from the Scripps Research Institute published a paper showing that only a single base substitution causes major unexpected changes on phenotype, as it causes multiple changes, other than that are connected with the activity of the gene. This chaotic behavior underscores the unimaginable complexity and the inter-reactions between molecular pathways. The more we uncover the hidden complexities, the more complexities we found, which to my opinion will eventually lead us to a model in which we will only have chains and systems of chemical reactions that inter-react.

 

 

In a new study published in PNAS, scientists from UMMS found that long-lived mutated roundworm, despite the fact that they lived longer, they spent most of their life in a frail condition. This means that longevity is not synonymous with well being.

This supports the chemical reaction model that we described, because if you intervene with chemical reactions just to make them last longer, inevitably you pay the price for it (e.g slower reactions, creation of other pathways and thus frailty, etc). Its not just that you intervene with stem cells that rejuvenate the body and everything starts from the beginning as time has not passed at all.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

We're done here.

minaras,

Take some time to ready back through the responses given to you. You are not permitted to reintroduce the topic.