Life Is Inevitable Consequence Of Physics, According To New Research

[Polymath257]

In what sense would you say that the hypothesis has the above been "tested"? It would not have thought that mathematics qualifies as a form of testing given that it is not based on direct observation but relies on inference. hence, it could not be said to be objectively true because it relies on assumptions put into the models. (i.e. whilst 2+2=4 that's not the same as "4" representing a physical state or observation because numbers are so abstract. there is therefore considerable room for error in how a phenomena can be quantified).

I would say that the hypothesis in the OP has only been very weakly tested, at best. The problem, as you say, is that the computer simulations don't accurately show the complexity of the chemical reactions involved, they don't have a good definition of 'life' in this context (high complexity isn't th same as life), and we simply do not know what sort of chemistry is *required* for life.

 

[Laika]

I would say that the hypothesis in the OP has only been very weakly tested, at best. The problem, as you say, is that the computer simulations don't accurately show the complexity of the chemical reactions involved, they don't have a good definition of 'life' in this context (high complexity isn't th same as life), and we simply do not know what sort of chemistry is *required* for life.

I'm happy to agree with you on that.

the fact that the article treated it as a breakthrough (comparable to Darwin) just shocked me and struck me as unsubstantiated and sensationalist (given that popular representation of science has typically only a vague resemblance to what the science actually is). I may be over-reacting but it just felt like an abuse of science to go that far.

 

[Nous]

And to top it off, there's no mention of you know who in the thread.

There was no mention of you-know-who on this thread until you mentioned you-know-who.

Actually some of the people who might mention you-know-who in this context might be inspired by the idea that we are not improbable accidents. The laws of nature function together with the inevitable outcome of producing life, giving rise to intelligent beings, who might contemplate the purpose and beauty of it all.

 

[gnostic]

As enthusiastic as I am in supporting science, I find the crudity of this being treated as a "breakthrough" deeply disturbing. This is primordial soup except you swapped "chemistry evolves into biology" for "physics evolves into biology".

Actually, life involved both chemistry and physics in biology.

Physics is a study of nature, and their properties - mass and energy.

Life is matter, thus living matters.

Every parts of our body, every bones, every organs and tissues, every drop of blood, every chromosomes, every genes, and cells, are all matters, made from compounds and molecules of atoms.

Life is part of nature, Laika. Isn't it?

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, life involved both chemistry and physics in biology.

Physics is a study of nature, and their properties - mass and energy.

Life is matter, thus living matters.

Every parts of our body, every bones, every organs and tissues, every drop of blood, every chromosomes, every genes, and cells, are all matters, made from compounds and molecules of atoms.

Life is part of nature, Laika. Isn't it?

I would go as far as to say that life as we know it is simply a certain type of complex chemical system.

The question in the OP is whether such a system will spontaneously form inevitably under certain conditions.

Because of the rapidity of life originating on our planet, it seems that the formation of life is *easy*, but I am far from convinced it is inevitable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found the article o be sadly underwhelming.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was no mention of you-know-who on this thread until you mentioned you-know-who.

Actually some of the people who might mention you-know-who in this context might be inspired by the idea that we are not improbable accidents. The laws of nature function together with the inevitable outcome of producing life, giving rise to intelligent beings, who might contemplate the purpose and beauty of it all.

I've no idea who you're not talking about.

 

[Nous]

I've no idea who you're not talking about.

I can't put the name with the face at the moment.

 

[DavidFirth]

The argument presented is totally bogus hocus pocus.

 

[gnostic]

And to top it off, there's no mention of you know who in the thread.

There was no mention of you-know-who on this thread until you mentioned you-know-who.

Actually some of the people who might mention you-know-who in this context might be inspired by the idea that we are not improbable accidents.

Are we talking about Lord Voldemort? Or was that Darth Sidious? Sauron...?

Ok, I give up. I am no good in this game.

 

[Laika]

Actually, life involved both chemistry and physics in biology.

Physics is a study of nature, and their properties - mass and energy.

Life is matter, thus living matters.

Every parts of our body, every bones, every organs and tissues, every drop of blood, every chromosomes, every genes, and cells, are all matters, made from compounds and molecules of atoms.

Life is part of nature, Laika. Isn't it?

Yeah. I agree that life is material and is part of nature. I was just a bit stunned that using physics to explain the origin of life (like Chemistry) hadn't occurred to people sooner. how could that possibly be a "new" idea? I would have thought it was obvious that all these disciplines are all studying matter at different levels of organisation and are therefore inter-related with one another.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah. I agree that life is material and is part of nature. I was just a bit stunned that using physics to explain the origin of life (like Chemistry) hadn't occurred to people sooner. how could that possibly be a "new" idea?

It isn't a new idea.

That's why a lot of people here, don't think it is ground-breaking news.

I was never a biology expert, but even I wasn't impressed by this article.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are we talking about Lord Voldemort? Or was that Darth Sidious? Sauron...?

Ok, I give up. I am no good in this game.

Lord Voldemort is a great guess!
If you promise to not broach her name, i'll give you a hint.....
There was an election last year, in which a major candidate lost.

Let's just call her "SWSNBN" (she who shall not be named).

 

[Grandliseur]

Life Is Inevitable Consequence Of Physics, According To New Research

Please discuss.

The mumbo-jumbo uttered in wet dreams by people who call themselves scientists - is lapped up as the utterances of a deity by people who believe in the evolution. Anything to support their flawed paradigm is OK, as long as it helps them feel better about their belief system.

Their demand for evidence, for falsification - is extremely poor when it comes to these wet-dreams. The fact that life's DNA programming speaks against any by-itself creation - is happily ignored. How do I make a liver? a kidney, an eye? Ohh, no problem, it made itself. just like my computer and my car did, and as my dishes clean themselves - every day.

That people even can pay attention to this kind of drivel is beyond comprehension.

 

[Nous]

Geez, I would have thought that the idea of a universe whose laws conspire to produce not lifeless objects but living entities would be gratifying.

 

[Polymath257]

Geez, I would have thought that the idea of a universe whose laws conspire to produce not lifeless objects but living entities would be gratifying.

Agreed. It is something that has a great deal of appeal. It is even something I would *bet* is true. But it has not been proven from this study.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The mumbo-jumbo uttered in wet dreams by people who call themselves scientists - is lapped up as the utterances of a deity by people who believe in the evolution. Anything to support their flawed paradigm is OK, as long as it helps them feel better about their belief system.

Their demand for evidence, for falsification - is extremely poor when it comes to these wet-dreams. The fact that life's DNA programming speaks against any by-itself creation - is happily ignored. How do I make a liver? a kidney, an eye? Ohh, no problem, it made itself. just like my computer and my car did, and as my dishes clean themselves - every day.

That people even can pay attention to this kind of drivel is beyond comprehension.

Feel better?

 

[Grandliseur]

Feel better?

Indeed !
And, You?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Indeed !
And, You?

I'm good. Just seemed like you needed to get that off your chest.

 

[ChristineM]

Geez, I would have thought that the idea of a universe whose laws conspire to produce not lifeless objects but living entities would be gratifying.

Read this a while ago, took some time to find it again.

A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine