Abiogenesis.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Benj96

I recently read the first half of Teilhards book The Phenomena of Man. You might like it

Quoting Benj96

Bacteriophages can even reanimate/ resurrect dead bacteria

Source?

Quoting Benj96

Part of the difficulty lies within developing a concrete definition of “life” or “living systems” in the first place.

There are many, but the one I prefer is the capacity of a structure to repair and replicate itself.

Re. abiogenesis, there are two leading hypotheses: 1) the cosmic soup (a form of panspermia) and the RNA world. There are not mutually exclusive. In fact a lot of the complex molecules recently found in space seem related to RNA.

The RNA world hypothesis solves a long lasting conendrum: DNA cannot replicate without proteins catalysing the reactions involved, and yet those proteins are coded in the DNA that they help replicate, leading to a chicken and egg paradox.

Quoting Benj96

So how is it that inanimate chemicals can form a living thing. And when does one call a living thing conscious? Some believe the whole universe is living in that it possesses conscious agency as a fundamental force of nature. And that the boundaries we place between that which is living and that which is dead is a false artificial construct

I personally tend towards the idea that a dividing line between biology and chemistry, between animate and inanimate, simply does not exist.

"Life" is a category we use to order our world. It is useful insofar as it allows us to quickly make overarching conclusions about how things inside or outside the category behave. But it being useful doesn't justify reifying the category. The very name "abiogenesis" has obvious religious connotations. I suspect it's a bit of a holdover of a religious, or faith-based, perspective.

There are some very complex exothermic reactions, which at some point have become so complex that to us, they look qualitatively different. We have some good theories about how that happened. But it's not inherently more Mysterious than the formation of stars, planets, or weather patterns.

As to consciousness, we are a biased observer. Because we have, or perhaps are, consciousness, we cannot pretend to objectively tell what is and isn't conscious. Instead, what we are doing is comparing how similarly things are to us, and from that conclude consciousness. Not that this is an irrelevant or fruitless task, but it does mean it's somewhat misguided to look for the a physical source of consciousness.

Quoting Benj96

Part of the difficulty lies within developing a concrete definition of “life” or “living systems” in the first place. To date the cell has typically been considered the fundamental unit of life as it possesses characteristics common across the board. However even these characteristics - reproduction , response, structure, excretion, nutrition, etc lie in a grey area. For example viruses sometimes possess all the characteristic but only in conjunction with a living host on which it depends to reproduce.

I maybe talking out of my hat here but I sense a deep flaw in this, may I call it, attitude, towards life. I don't know if biologists are doing this knowingly/unwittingly but it seems the logic is fractal in nature in the sense that biologists are of the opinion that once no similarities can be discerned between two objects relevant to this discussion, one being the body, as a whole, and the other being some unit of life, here the cell, they believe, perhaps "feel" is a better word, that that's where they should draw the line between life and non-life.

You mentioned how cells perform functions like nutrition, excretion, respiration, etc and these are the similarities between them and the body, itself composed of cells, that, in my humble opinion, lead biologists to the conclusion that once they arrive at subcellular structures that don't exhibit these functions they should then make the distinction life and non-life. In other words, the fractal self-similarity breaks down at the subcellular level...or does it? God know!

Quoting Benj96

Bacteriophages can even reanimate/ resurrect dead bacteria adding to the strangeness that is the line between dead and alive.

In other words, what is miraculous at the human scale is just an ordinary occurrence at another scale. Makes one wonder about religion, doesn't it? Jesus would've been an average bloke in the world of bacteriophages or, if you don't mind a little, perhaps dry, joke , bacteriophages, all of them, are sons of god.

Quoting Benj96

So how is it that inanimate chemicals can form a living thing.

Quit the fractal logic?! :chin:

Reply to tim wood of course beliefs should be cared about. The world we live in is dominated by belief systems as they’re are likely an unavoidable fact of the human experience. Beliefs and facts are sometimes interchangeable in that facts are often redacted and reassigned belief status and beliefs are often proven to be facts. Both are means bu which we understand the world and are subject to time and changing capacity to verify each of them. So I don’t really understand what you’re asking by “what do you mean by beliefs?”

I mean your views on the subject at hand. Whether factually, anecdotally/ experientially or intuitively or superstitiously founded. The importance of mine or your beliefs is an irrelevant feature of the discussion as it’s not what I asked nor is it the information I’m looking to attain. We could always begin a discussion on whether beliefs are important or not or what we mean by then but for the sake of this argument let’s take it at face value.

I think that Christophe Finipolscie hit the nail on the head when he he explored this subject in his 2nd book. He firstly argued that consciousness is made of of 3 more basic elements, each of which might have a range of simpler and more complex forms. These were:
- Awareness
- Control, and
- Thought (ie. a way to generate ideas/concepts and influence the wider world)

He also basically argued that we identify life when it appears to demonstrate a breach of the seemingly deterministic prinicples, which the purely chemical world seems to be governed by, (according to the traditional mathematical Laws of Physics and Chemistry).

So we see Life when activities appear to start something new, or assemble things; or produce multiple outcomes when only one should be possible if determinism was everything, (as some people argue).

He then went on to list many of the factors/processes at the core of Life which seemingly break the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. The element which resolves some of these are explained away in science through the use of probabilities (in themselves an admission of no known cause); and yet there are many other of these processes which seem to point to controlling influences which have awareness.

I have just raised a separate discussion about one of these.

Quoting Benj96

So how is it that inanimate chemicals can form a living thing. And when does one call a living thing conscious?

When I consider abiogenesis as a "natural" explanation of where life comes from, it seems to me that for some combination of particles to be the recipe for the first lifeform would just be a miraculous occurrence, even if and especially if, one excludes a supernatural explanation. Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a "natural" explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences.

Quoting NotAristotle

Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a natural explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences.

I think this is true. We cannot point at life. We can't point to the button, switch, mechanism etc.. that causes or in which consists, life. We must, given current facts, accept two scenarios:

1. We don't have all the facts, despite our attempts and we will (or not, i suppose) discover an empirical state of affairs that covers one of the two above (cause/consists in); or
2. Life comes from the non-physical - whether than be an emergence-type of thing (clearly, a force such as a life 'arising' from complexity in already-existing physical matter is not further physical matter to be discussed physically).

*shrug*.

Reply to AmadeusD And even if we did have all empirical facts and could reproduce life in a lab, it would still be a weird thing for life to arise there, in my opinion, and the occurrence of that life may not be something we "caused" even though we put all the ingredients together.

But surely such empirical facts and laboratory analysis would help us explain the Fermi Paradox.

Or maybe we can "work backwards" from the probability of life - given the Fermi paradox - to determine the conditions that would give rise to a "natural" occurrence of life?

Reply to NotAristotle if miraculous means incredibly unlikely, then yeah, the first instance of life on earth was probably incredibly unlikely. However, given the number of planets there are in the universe, and how long the universe has been around, you have to acknowledge that there are many many many opportunities for the universe to achieve this incredibly unlikely thing.

If I'm trying to achieve a one-in-a-million thing, and I only get one go, it's very unlikely I'll get it. But if I have infinite chances and infinite time to try, it goes from being very unlikely to an eventual inevitability.

Reply to flannel jesus I am trying to comprehend not just the probability of the event, an event that as you say is quite unlikely, in addition, I am trying to understand how some combination of particles under such-and-such conditions goes from non-living to living. It seems almost Frankenstenian although I think the better word is miraculous. You agree?

Reply to NotAristotle no, the particles don't go from non living to living. The particles are doing the same things they would always have done - atoms don't know they're part of a living thing. Avery atom and molecule in your body doesn't know it's part of a body, it's not behaving differently because it's part of a living thing. Any chemical reaction it has, it would be capable of having in principle even if it wasn't part of a living thing.

The distinction between living and non living is a useful one at certain scales, but at the scale of pure chemistry, I don't think there's a distinction between living and non living. Atoms just do what atoms be doin.

Reply to flannel jesus by "combination of particles" I mean a cell and I do believe cells are alive though not conscious (like plants). And I am not sure if atomic activity would change, perhaps atoms that are part of living things act differently.

In any case, my main point is that those atoms are now part of a living thing even though they have merely combined in some arrangement. To borrow a word you used earlier, that is incredible.

Quoting NotAristotle

And I am not sure if atomic activity would change, perhaps atoms that are part of living things act differently.

I can tell you right now, if you asked 100 physicists and 100 chemists, they would all say atoms do not change how they behave based on if they're in a "living" environment or not.

If an atom binds to some chemical inside a living thing, there's a way to make that atom bind to that chemical outside of a living thing

I would not say the atom itself acts differently, but the entire organism acts in a way that it would not act were it dead. The atoms, by extension and as parts of the organism, act differently than were they part of something dead.Reply to flannel jesus

Atoms still do what they do, but what they do is ordered by the activity of the whole organism.

Reply to NotAristotle We're talking about abiogensis, which means the very first instance that a chemical arrangement formed something that we might choose to call "life" or at least some precursor to life. At that moment in time - the moment that that thing first happened - there was no big miraculous change in the atoms or chemicals involved. If we could narrow it down to a specific moment, we would find that at that moment, a chemical got bound to another chemical, and then... they just kept on behaving like normal chemicals. There was no sudden magic change from non life to life. If you looked at it with a microscope, you might not even notice something interesting happened at that moment of abiogenesis.

Reply to flannel jesus yeah I see what you are saying, the chemicals and reactions and atoms, maybe they did not change their course at all so that living is physically, and in terms of process and ,functionally identical (combination aside) to non-living. Still, the central issue remains that there is something there that is alive that is composed of those atoms, chemicals, and of which those reactions are a part. That is the mystery.

Quoting NotAristotle

The atoms, by extension and as parts of the organism, act differently than were they part of something dead.

Superficially, we might say that the carbon atoms in gunpowder act differently than the carbon atoms in pencil leads. Still, the physicists and chemists will see beyond that superficiality. The way atoms act is a function of the context they are in in any case, without a distinction between living and non-living being what makes the difference.

Quoting wonderer1

The way atoms act is a function of the context they are in in any case, without a distinction between living and non-living being what makes the difference

I agree that context matters, although I would also disagree and say that whether living or non-living makes all the difference.

Or put another way, living or non-living is the relevant context.

Reply to wonderer1

That's right. My mama used to say, Carbon is as Carbon does.

Reply to flannel jesus your mother never said that, nobody ever said that, except you just now.

Here's a nice little educational resource that says it explictly:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/chemistry-of-life/elements-of-life/a/matter-elements-atoms-article#:~:text=Atoms%20and%20molecules%20follow%20the,part%20of%20a%20living%20thing.

Atoms and molecules follow the rules of chemistry and physics, even when they're part of a complex, living, breathing being. If you learned in chemistry that some atoms tend to gain or lose electrons or form bonds with each other, those facts remain true even when the atoms or molecules are part of a living thing. In fact, simple interactions between atoms—played out many times and in many different combinations, in a single cell or a larger organism—are what make life possible. One could argue that everything you are, including your consciousness, is the byproduct of chemical and electrical interactions between a very, very large number of nonliving atoms!

Quoting Benj96

And when does one call a living thing conscious?

When you think it is capable of experience.

Quoting Benj96

Part of the difficulty lies within developing a concrete definition of “life” or “living systems” in the first place.

Yes. 'Life' is a example of redefining a concept so it becomes amenable to your preferred method of investigating it. Investigating consciousness empirically is problematic, so strike that from the definition of 'life' but retain things that are more amenable, such as reproduction.

Reply to flannel jesus "atoms and molecules follow the rules" yep, agree with that, I just think they are also ruled by a further principle, namely, the organism of which they are a part.. even though they can't act contrary to the atomic and molecular rules that govern them.

But I think you and I just disagree as to whether the atoms and molecules could behave differently were they part of a living organism.

That is not the central issue/mystery anyhow.

Reply to NotAristotle I think it might be related to the central issue. If we go back to that first moment of abiogenesis, then in my interpretation, a new chemical bond gets formed but it's still just chemicals being chemicals, they aren't yet necessarily doing anything particularly novel compared to what they were doing previously.

But under your interpretation, there must be a first moment where these unalive chemicals first started becoming subject to this "further principle" you mentioned. This might be the source of why you think it's a miracle, and I think it's chemistry. If there's a new principle that governs matter that's part of life, then there kind of IS something miraculous about when those chemicals transition from not being subject to that principle, Vs how they were before when they weren't subject to it.

I think it very much could be the (or a) central issue.

If you could prove atoms follow new principles when they're part of life, you pretty much have a guaranteed nobel prize.

Reply to flannel jesus Can you clarify whether you think there is a difference between living and non-living things, and what you take that difference, if any, to consist of?

Khan Academy:One could argue that everything you are, including your consciousness, is the byproduct of chemical and electrical interactions between a very, very large number of nonliving atoms!

I guess we know Khan's position on consciousness.

Reply to NotAristotle I think there is a difference, but I don't think if you zoomed in on a chemical there's anything you could find that would tell you "this thing is definitely alive". There's no different atomic behavior that you could notice and be like "yup, that atom definitely knows it's inside a living thing". The difference between life and non-life is macroscopic and emergent, and is effectively invisible at the atomic scale.

Reply to Patterner I didn't even notice it said that when I posted it. I wasn't intending on bringing that conversation in here, whoops.

Reply to flannel jesus
Hehe. Although Benj brought consciousness into the conversation in the first post, trying to stock to abiogenesis here isn't a bad idea, imo.

Reply to flannel jesus Okay, that is fine with me, my point is, and this is what I take to be the central issue, something living, however you define it, emerges from the combination of atoms, and that is very strange, one might even say, as I have, miraculous.

Reply to NotAristotle I think it's amazing too, I would love to know what the first arrangement of self-replicating molecules actually was and how it formed.

Reply to flannel jesus James Tour has enumerated the known issues that need to be solved for non-living to produce living (in theory although perhaps not in entirety). That is not to say that solving those issues would result in a living organism, or that such problems can even be solved, practically speaking, in a lab.

I'd say metabolism and reproduction are key. Complexity and self-organization seem to suggest these things can come about, given the opportunity for enough chances. A billion years might provide that.

Then we need a body.

Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, in Journey of the Mind:Certain large molecules containing fatty acids—[I]lipids[/I], in the language of chemistry—possess a special property. They automatically self-assemble into a membrane. Their physical nature is to link together into an elastic wall that bends back on itself to create a sphere. You’ve witnessed this process anytime you’ve noticed a bubble emerge from soapy water. Soap bubbles contain molecules similar to those found in the membranes of living organisms—and similar, perhaps, to those in the primeval membranes that originally cordoned off life from not-life, thereby constructing a private room where the story of biology could unfold in fragile safety.

The establishment of a distinct physical boundary around metabolizing and self-replicating chemical processes inaugurated something marvelous. [I]A body[/i].

All educated guesses, I suppose. It would be helpful if they could make life in a lab. We can stack the deck any way we want.

Quoting Patterner

I guess we know Khan's position on consciousness.

Perhaps it explains his being so wrathful.

Reply to wonderer1
Indeed!

And thank you, once again.

Quoting Patterner

Indeed!

It makes sense. When one wants to believe oneself to be a god, and all of the evidence points to one being a genetically modified primate, there is bound to be some irritability.

Reply to wonderer1
Far worse is the non-modified primates winning time after time.

Quoting NotAristotle

Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a "natural" explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences.

A smartphone would seem miraculous to cavemen. If you were to go back in time possessing one I'm sure you would be revered and feared as nothing short of a god. But we know smartphones are not miraculous.

Abiogenesis seems miraculous indeed even now. Partly due to the hard problem of consciousness which serves to further isolate us from the inanimate chemical world we live in. That's not to say it is of course miraculous any more than a smartphone is.
We may simply not have the knowledge yet.

If the system, the entire system, the universe, is self organising in such a way that emergent properties develop based on information exchange, then perhaps panpyschism may not be as absurd as many deem it to be. In this sense the emergence of life is simply the manifestation if how such a system shoukd be organised in order to "experience".

Quoting Benj96

What do you believe?

I believe in metaphysical naturalism: everything that exists is part of the natural world, and all causes are natural. Our understanding of the natural world is incomplete, and this will probably always be the case. It seems silly to focus on one aspect of the world that is not fully understood and jump to the conclusion naturalism is false.

Reply to Relativist I agree with you - that nothing human made in my mind is "artificial" -somehow removed entirely from natural things.
Or "unnatural".

What single thing can natural beings do that is unnatural?

Which as a slight tangent leads me to think that should we create "artificial intelligence" using the same principles and laws of natural selection and replication in computing as nature has done with biology: then we ought to probably treat it as just an intelligent being.

I think it's funny how we see the progression of technology as separate from the progression of evolution of living systems, or the organic (up until now ofc).

Quoting Benj96

Which as a slight tangent leads me to think that should we create "artificial intelligence" using the same principles and laws of natural selection and replication in computing as nature has done with biology: then we ought to probably treat it as just an intelligent being.

What do you mean by "intelligent being"? Why would it matter that we label it such? I grieve when my pets die, but I wouldn't grieve when a machine stopped functioning - even if it exhibited some sort of intelligence.

Reply to Benj96 Interesting perspective Benj96. So you mean something like, if I had enough knowledge about, say, dark energy, maybe that would fill in the blanks about abiogenesis? I am not so sure. I think someone on the forum said this already, but life seems categorically, discretely, quantumly different than non-life; a difference that does not seem explicable by physical mechanisms, no matter the complexity.

Quoting NotAristotle

I think someone on the forum said this already, but life seems categorically, discretely, quantumly different than non-life; a difference that does not seem explicable by physical mechanisms, no matter the complexity.

Are you someone who is good at understanding complex physical mechanisms?

Is there some reason to think that the way things seem to you is the result of you being better informed than physicists, chemists, and biologists?

Reply to wonderer1 I do not understand the purpose of your line of questioning. Then again, I am not sure that you do either.

In a nut shell, the purpose is to investigate whether you can recognize the argument from ignorance you are suggesting.

Reply to NotAristotle You said life "does not seem explicable by physical mechanisms". That seems unwarranted because every aspect of biological function is consistent with chemistry and physics. That seems to be why some theists focus on abiogenesis, rather than the physical processes of living creatures (albeit that they tend to make arguments from ignorance).

Reply to wonderer1 Go ahead, explain fully what you meant, not just in-a-nutshell.

Reply to Relativist

Okay, so explain it to me in terms of chemistry and physics, I can wait.

Quoting NotAristotle

Go ahead, explain fully what you meant, not just in-a-nutshell.

Go ahead and answer my questions and we can go from there.

Reply to wonderer1 forget it

Quoting NotAristotle

Okay, so explain it to me in terms of chemistry and physics, I can wait.

I'm neither a biologist, chemist nor physicist, but everything I've read in these fields is consistent with this statement (from a class on Physics for Biology and Pre-Health-Care Majors):

"Biology is integrative– Biological phenomena emerge from and must be consistent with the principles of chemistry, physics, and math. " (source)

This sort of thing is the basis for my belief. You're claiming the above is false, so please show how you justify that belief.

Reply to Relativist There is absolutely no evidence the fact of life conforms to those criteria (which are a paradigm, and not infallible). NA is trying to work with those facts, best I can tell.

I agree. Pretending that everything will eventually fit a certain, current, descriptive paradigm probably isn't a good idea. THe emergence of Life is inexplicable in terms of what we know about physical systems. That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it.

Yes?

Reply to AmadeusD There is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?

I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this.

Reply to Relativist I don't think you really read what I wrote, beyond that its not accepting your conclusions.

I would just say, please re-read it, noting quite clearly this line:

Quoting AmadeusD

That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it.

This is hte point. This is true. And this is why we're talking about it. The emergence of life is mysterious. So we explore :) It's one of hte only things we cannot yet explain under that paradigm. That is interesting in itself, even if it proves merely a longer run-up.

Quoting Benj96

I agree with you - that nothing human made in my mind is "artificial" -somehow removed entirely from natural things.
Or "unnatural".

What single thing can natural beings do that is unnatural?

Why do we have the words "natural" and "unnatural"? We know what we mean. If we discover a cave deep underground that we don't think anyone could have been in, or land on another planet, or look at an asteroid field through a telescope, there are any number of things we could see that would tell us an intelligence had been at work, and had intentionally made something with an end product in mind. Without intent, the laws of physics don't lead to all things. Terrence Deacon put it this way in [I]Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter[/I] when taking about the things that motivated a boy on the beach to skip a stone across the water:

Deacon:In contrast, prior to the evolution of humans, the probability that any stone on any beach on Earth might exhibit this behavior was astronomically minute. This difference exemplifies a wide chasm separating the domains in which two almost diametrically opposed modes of causality rule—two worlds that are nevertheless united in the hurtling of this small spinning projectile.

Then, after mentioning some of the things that had to be done to manufacture his computer:

Deacon:No non-cognitive spontaneous physical process anywhere in the universe could have produced such a vastly improbable combination of materials, much less millions of nearly identical replicas in just a few short years of one another. These sorts of commonplace human examples typify the radical discontinuity separating the physics of the spontaneously probable from the deviant probabilities that organisms and minds introduce into the world.

Reply to AmadeusD I did read the post in its entirety, and I still don't understand what you were agreeing with, when you said "I agree." You followed that assertion with:

"Pretending that everything will eventually fit a certain, current, descriptive paradigm probably isn't a good idea."

I'm merely explaining that I'm a naturalist, not defending any particular scientific paradigm.

Quoting AmadeusD

That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it. — AmadeusD


This is hte point. This is true. And this is why we're talking about it. The emergence of life is mysterious. So we explore :) It's one of hte only things we cannot yet explain under that paradigm. That is interesting in itself, even if it proves merely a longer run-up.

It is indeed a scientific puzzle, and it's being investigated. The investigators obviously believe there's a natural origin. But their belief shouldn't persuade anyone. A theist's belief that God created life isn't threatened by the beliefs of these scientists, nor should those scientists belief in natural causes be threatened by the theist's belief. Metaphysically, it's moot: the existence of life is consistent with both naturalism and theism (or any other metaphysical system I can think of). The fact that we don't understand life's origin doesn't tip the scales in either direction. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Reply to Relativist On this clarification, I am in the boat and paddling hard alongside you :)

Quoting Relativist

here is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?

I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this.

What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow?

Quoting RogueAI

What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow?

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations.

Quoting Relativist

Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations.

(this is not loaded by hte previous discussion - I think this is a really interesting question alone) Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms?

Quoting AmadeusD

Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms?

What are "empirical facts"? Empirical evidence is a body of facts (such as observations, measurements...), so "not knowing" empirical facts sounds self-contradictory.

Reply to Relativist You've explained how to answer it in your response. Quoting Relativist

(such as observations, measurements...

Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know? One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know. I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.

Quoting Relativist

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations.

OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs?

Quoting AmadeusD

Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know?

Makes no sense. If we measured or observed something, we know what we measured/observed.

[Quote]One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know. [/quote]
If you're refering to cases where there is sufficient empirical evidence to develop theory - then sure, we'll probably develop theory. But our theories will necessarily be limited by what we can test and observe. Suppose there's a multiverse: other universes are causally isolated from us, so we could never verify such theory.

[Quote]I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.[/quote]
I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating.

Quoting RogueAI

OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs?

How many galaxies exist within a million light years of earth? Answer: 1. There are 2 trillion galaxies in just the observable universe.

Life exists today, but it didn't exist early in the life of the universe. If only the natural world exists - then it necessarily arose naturally.

I do not see that a failure to figure out abiogenesis somehow implies that something unnatural exists. If you think it does, then share your reasoning.

Quoting Relativist

I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating.

For the first part: I don't take your response as engaging with what I put forth, but it also doesn't matter. You've totally adequately answered me above.

Nice. Yes, I am in that boat too.

Quoting Relativist

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result?

"Luck" would come in because it would mean that we inhabit one of the most (if not the most) special places in the observable universe: the only one where life is possible. That would mean we beat some really long odds. So far, our science is predicated on the notion that we're not in a really special or unique place in the cosmos. That would change.

Quoting RogueAI

It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result?

I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. That's very different from the question you asked. We only know life is possible, we don't know how probable it is. You suggested a scenario in which we searched for life for a million years and didn't find it. That would imply life is very rare: perhaps only one instance within a galaxy (it's physically impossible to search beyond our galaxy in a million years). That would still imply 2 trillion instances of life in the visible universe.

Quoting Relativist

I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast.

I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound.

Quoting Relativist

it's physically impossible to search beyond our galaxy in a million years

With our current technology. I suspect advancements to our technology will allow us to search beyond our galaxy in far less than a million years.

Quoting RogueAI

I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound.

Show your reasoning and conclusion.

Reply to Relativist
Odd. I have a notification that you replied to me, and can see the beginning of your reply. But I can't see your reply here. Anyway, I'm not arguing the point. Just suggesting our technology will improve and allow us to see things we can't see now. But there's no way of knowing how much farther it will let us see, or if it will let us see as far as we need to for this line of thinking.

Reply to Patterner I had replied based on confusing you with RogueAI - so I based it on something he said. When I realized you were a different person, I erased that.

Quoting Patterner

Just suggesting our technology will improve and allow us to see things we can't see now. But there's no way of knowing how much farther it will let us see, or if it will let us see as far as we need to for this line of thinking.

I agree we'll expand what we can see - but there are things we will never see. For example, it's possible there is a multiverse - but because each universe is causally isolated - we'll never have empirical verification. At best, it will be entailed by theory - but theories that can't be empirically verified are less credible. That's a problem with String Theory - it's an elegant theory that explains a lot, but it defies empirical verification.

Reply to Relativist
Indeed, difficult to see the strings.

And, of course, by definition, we can't study another universe.

Can't guess what we'll come to be able to do in our own, though.

Quoting NotAristotle

When I consider abiogenesis as a "natural" explanation of where life comes from, it seems to me that for some combination of particles to be the recipe for the first lifeform would just be a miraculous occurrence, even if and especially if, one excludes a supernatural explanation. Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a "natural" explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences.

I do have a philosophical hypothesis of abiognesis (life from non-life), but it's a complex argument, involving quantum Uncertainty, Information theory, Evolution theory, Cosmology, and Entropy. There's nothing supernatural or miraculous about it, except for the same open-ended implication as Big Bang theory : something from nothing.

The postulated creative force is labeled as "meta-physical" in the sense that, like Energy and Entropy, it can only be inferred from its effects, not known by its substance. "Energy" only implies non-directional (neutral) Change, but Entropy*2 (regressive tendency) implies destructive changes. So, what's missing is an explanation for Positive Causation, toward complexity and organization.

Since Energy per se is aimless causation, if the emergence of life from non-life is a sign of anti-entropy (i.e. progress instead of regress), then some explanation for the mono-directional Arrow of Time*3 is needed, philosophically if not scientifically. This thesis merely combines Energy with Information (the positive power to transform). :smile:


*1. Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
*** I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
*** Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Entropy counter to arrow of Time :
“ Rise in entropy in all physical systems and the resulting one-way slide of the universe from order to chaos, tending towards what physicists call its ‘heat death’.” ___Paul Davies, physicist
Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics). Negentropy is an accepted scientific term, but Enformy is my own philosophical term for positive evolution.

*3. Entropy is one of the few quantities in the physical sciences that require a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system can increase, but not decrease. ___Wikipedia

Quoting Gnomon

Since Energy per se is aimless causation, if the emergence of life from non-life is a sign of anti-entropy (i.e. progress instead of regress), then some explanation for the mono-directional Arrow of Time*3 is needed, philosophically if not scientifically.

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive.

I give you an example: imagine a living thing with zero memory. It doesn't even recall the last millisecond of its existence.

Does it experience? Can it live -feel hunger, a urge to breathe, instinctive compulsions? Can it anticipate a future? Would it be capable of learning and adapting?

In this case, positive causation and entropy are mutually synergistic.

Without positive causation, entropy cannot be observed (ie the arrow of time cannot be experienced). Without entropy, positive causation or the tendency towards order, sumilarly cannot exist

Reply to Benj96
If it cannot do/experience any of those things, will it still get old and die?

Reply to Patterner it will never even live in the first place, how could it? Oops I forgot to breathe. The nervous system requires memory for comparison to the current state for basic repetitive functions

Reply to Benj96
Might it not starve to death, whether or not it remembers that it has not eaten?

Reply to Patterner without memory in the most primitive sense, the brain could not do any repetitive task with regularity, predictability etc. Starving to death would be the least of their problems.

The innate sense of passage of time from circadian rhythms in the brain of an organism allows ot to stabilises itself (maintain order ie not die).

This is why I think the passage of time differs from entropy in that one (entropy) occurs regardless of consciousness, but time - is the mental equivalent of entropy. An analogy for it based on the ability to sense a past, therefore have a present, therefore by deductive anticipate a future.

Reply to Benj96
Sure. Still, is it not alive, and starving to death because it has not eaten?

Reply to Patterner I don't really get what you're asking. I'm saying that the ability to be aware of time has to evolve simultaneously with the organisation of a system. You can't suddenly have a living system devoid of time perception and see if it starves to death. Its a hypothetical.

One didn't fabricate this living organism from thin air. It gradually emerged.

Quoting Benj96

One didn't fabricate this living organism from thin air. It gradually emerged.

Quoting Benj96

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive.

Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time?

Reply to Benj96
You said, "It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive." I think time exists regardless of living things' perception of it, and a living thing is still subject to it's passage, whether or not it is aware of that passage.

Could be a living thing that has its ability to remember destroyed. Even on life support, it will eventually die because of what happens to it as time passes.

Quoting Relativist

Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time

Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things. Passage of time is (the perception of Entropy as a unidirectional arrow of events) because it relies on memory and comparison beyween memory and current sensory input

Reply to Relativist As we continue to not discover life and Earth is revealed to inhabit a more and more special place in the universe (and abiogensis remains unexplained), theories that predict humans are special will get an epistemic boost. These theories would be mostly religious, but simulation theory would become much more credible. A universe with only us in it would look extremely suspicious, wouldn't you agree?

Reply to RogueAI
Of course, there's the possibility that we discover life all over the place.

But sure, let's just say. I guess I would wonder why something created the simulation of such an outrageous size, and only simulated life where we are.

Quoting Benj96

Entropy. Entropy isn't contingent on living things.

Aren't you referring to the change in entropy over time? If you just mean the fixed value of entropy for a state of affairs, it explains nothing.

Quoting Benj96

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive.
In this case, positive causation and entropy are mutually synergistic.
Without positive causation, entropy cannot be observed (ie the arrow of time cannot be experienced). Without entropy, positive causation or the tendency towards order, sumilarly cannot exist

I agree that, for insentient matter, there is no concept of Time, just meaningless Change. For a world without thinking & feeling persons, the universe may be as described in Einstein's thought experiment of Block Time. Without memory, there is no Past or Future, just Now, or perhaps nothingness.

We only know that Energy exists by observing both positive and negative changes in matter . . . . some good for us, some bad. Likewise, we only know "Productive" Energy by contrast with "Destructive" Entropy. That's why scientists first described the invisible Agent of Change in terms of Entropy (decline, dissipation, destruction), and only as an afterthought, added a label for positive Change : Negentropy (literally : negation of negativity).

I also agree that Positive Energy (order) and Negative Entropy (disorder) are complementary, perhaps even synergistic {see image below}. Almost every aspect of reality has a "positive" and "negative" aspect, but those labels are meaningful only to sentient beings. So, like Time, they may not exist "outside the realm of . . . living things". Perhaps without the limiting "laws" of physics, and the annihilating brakes of Entropy, the burgeoning evolution of the universe (toward order & organization) could not exist.

In the near-infinite universe, Randomness and Order coexist; uneasily, but fruitfully. Yet, on earth, order reigns supreme. That's why Plato imagined his rational world as a temporal Cosmos separated out of eternal Chaos*1. According to the second law of thermodynamics, order is an exception to the rule of general disorder*2. And yet, here we are : organized matter, thinking rational thoughts about a world born from a creative blast of energy, but ever-since descending back toward the original state of unformed Plasma . . . . except in our little corner of the cosmos, in the realm of "living things". :confused:


*1. Plato's conception of the Cosmos :
[i]Pythagoras was the first, says Plutarch, "who named the compass of the whole a Cosmos, because
of the order which is in it"[/i]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27900668

*2. Entropy vs Enformy :
[i]*** Entropy is a property of the universe, modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
*** The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

COMPLEMENTARITY OF POSITIVE & NEGATIVE

Quoting Patterner

Of course, there's the possibility that we discover life all over the place.

Yes. I think that will be the case with non-intelligent life. My discussion with Relatavist was predicated on what would happen if we don't find any life anywhere and abiogenesis continues to be a mystery.

But sure, let's just say. I guess I would wonder why something created the simulation of such an outrageous size, and only simulated life where we are.

Simulating all the faraway galaxies wouldn't require much. They wouldn't have to be too "granular" to be convincing to us.

Quoting Gnomon

no concept of Time, just meaningless Change

I take Time to be nothing but the acknowledgement of before-after wrt states of affairs. Obviously, something insentient can't acknowledge this, but the changes still occur.
Is that you feel for an insentient being this is just not relevant, or that for them, metaphysically, time wouldn't pass?

Quoting Gnomon

Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics).

I would suggest the system is the solar system, not just the Earth. The energy from the sun could have powered the increase in order.

Quoting AmadeusD

I take Time to be nothing but the acknowledgement of before-after wrt states of affairs. Obviously, something insentient can't acknowledge this, but the changes still occur.
Is that you feel for an insentient being this is just not relevant, or that for them, metaphysically, time wouldn't pass?

Yes. Time is a concept formulated by sentient observers of Change, for whom Difference is the essence of Sentience*1. But presumably, Change continues in the remote backwaters of the universe, where to our knowledge there are no observers. For example, the latest Mars missions have found evidence of physical changes over time, but no little green men to take note of it. For those red rocks lying in an ancient dry river bed, Time is "not relevant". So, as you say, "metaphysically" (relation to Mind) Time stands still*2. :smile:

*1. Perception is knowledge of Change :
Sameness, similarity and difference are basic relationships in human perception and cognition.
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/11/9/172

*2. À la recherche du temps perdu :
The relationship between time and change remains elusive. Giving time priority over change, and imagining time continuing in the absence of events, have unsatisfactory consequences. It is no less unsatisfactory to see time as generated from, or subsisting in, the relations between events, if only because this leaves us with the seeming impossibility of characterising the nature of that relationship without mentioning the word ‘time’. ___Raymond Tallis
https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Time_and_Change

Quoting Patterner

Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics). — Gnomon
I would suggest the system is the solar system, not just the Earth. The energy from the sun could have powered the increase in order.

Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink:

Quoting Gnomon

For those red rocks lying in an ancient dry river bed, Time is "not relevant". So, as you say, "metaphysically" (relation to Mind) Time stands still

Do you think that no radioactive isotopes that were in the rock at the time of the rock's fomation have decayed?

Quoting Gnomon

Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink:

I'm only saying there is a source of energy that can account for the energy that would be needed to decrease the entropy, if that's what happened.

Quoting wonderer1

Do you think that no radioactive isotopes that were in the rock at the time of the rock's fomation have decayed?

Unobserved Change is not Time. I think you missed the point of the "red rock" example. The dry river bed is evidence of physical Change in the environment over eons of Time. But, even internal sub-atomic changes would be irrelevant to an insentient rock, presumably lacking both the cognitive power of Interoception, and the ability to measure differences. Time is a measurement. :joke:


Interoception — your brain's representation of sensations from your own body
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/interoception-how-we-understand-our-bodys-inner-sensations

Reply to Gnomon

Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense.

Quoting Patterner

Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink: — Gnomon
I'm only saying there is a source of energy that can account for the energy that would be needed to decrease the entropy, if that's what happened.

Yes, but what is the source of organic Biogenesis (Negentropy ; Enformy) on all the other "rocks" in the system?

Pure Energy alone is neither positive (+) nor negative (-), neither constructive nor destructive --- just the Potential for directionless desultory Change. Entropy is how science defines dissipative change. So, we need a new positive term (Enformy?) to designate beneficial, organic, accumulative, directional, or determined changes : the power to transform Old to New, Past to Future, Dead to Life : opposite to the entropic Arrow of Time. :wink:


Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=99336

Desultory : lacking a plan, purpose

Entropic :a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

Organic : having systematic coordination of parts : organized. an organic whole

Quoting wonderer1

Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense.

Speaking of literal non-sense. How do you define Time, apart from metaphysical Measurement by a Mind?

Time has no physical properties to measure.
https://www.nist.gov/how-do-you-measure-it/how-do-you-measure-second

Quoting wonderer1

Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense.

Gnow gnow.

Reply to Gnomon :ok: Thank you mate, appreciate that.

Reply to Patterner :naughty:

Quoting Patterner

Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense. — wonderer1
Gnow gnow.

I'm not sure what ticked Reply to wonderer1 off, but I suspect he doesn't appreciate my references to fundamental Information, and other sub-physical notions that might have something to do with the emergence of Life from abiotic Matter. Apparently he can't make sense of my immaterial "gnon-sense". But, if Abiogenesis was a sensible thing, you'd think it would already be accepted as a physical fact, instead of a philosophical theory.

I do use some concepts from Quantum Physics that are literally non-sense. For example, the hypothetical Quantum Field is not something you could perceive with your 5 physical senses. Although undetectable by senses or instruments, physicists assume that their imaginary mathematical grid must be real, because they have no better idea for the source of physical Energy (e.g. vacuum energy). I do postulate that Life is a form of Energy, which is a local form of universal Enformation (power to transform).

In a related topic, I just read about the novel notion of Information Realism in Bernardo Kastrup's Science Ideated. He attributes that worldview to mathematical physicist Max Tegmark, who claimed "matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real". The term "Information Realism" is also connected to Yale philosopher of Information Luciano Floridi. Who admitted that "information remains an elusive concept", hence it can easily be dismissed by materialists as "non-sense".

Since philosophers manipulate Concepts instead of Matter, most of their speculations are literally non-sense, and can only make "sense" via rational inference instead of physical perception. Do you think the explanation for Abiogenesis will necessarily conform to the current dominant scientific worldview of Materialism? :nerd:


Information Realism? :
[i]Physicists love to play the philosopher, and when they do the result is often nonsense. A recent example is the so-called information realism of physicist Max Tegmark. Here is the gist of it:

. . . according to information realists, matter arises from information processing, not the other way around. Even mind—psyche, soul—is supposedly a derivative phenomenon of purely abstract information manipulation.

When I read this, I said to myself, "I will have no trouble blowing this nonsense out of the water." Reading on, however, I noted that the author of the Scientific American piece, Bernardo Kastrup, did exactly that.[/i]
https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2020/02/information-realism.html
Note --- Ironically, Kastrup's alternative to Information Realism is Analytical Idealism. Which the Maverick Philosopher might also characterize as "nonsense". But the Information Philosopher might beg to differ :

The Information Philosopher has established that quantum mechanics and thermodynamics play a central role in the creation of all things. This finding has enormous implications for philosophy and metaphysics.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/

Terrence Deacon on Abiogenesis :
The major transition from the nonliving to the living - the problem of abiogenesis, and the introduction of telos in the universe - happens in Deacon's third level.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature?

Reply to AmadeusD
Reply to Benj96

Odd that I didn't get a notification about you quoting me. Oh well, maybe just a one time glitch.

Quoting Gnomon

Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature?

Me? I love the book. At least the half I've gotten through.

Quoting Gnomon

Do you think the explanation for Abiogenesis will necessarily conform to the current dominant scientific worldview of Materialism? :nerd:

From the little I know of Complexity and Self-organization, I think it's plausible. I don't know enough specifics to defend the theory, though. And I don't think there's one specific abiogenesis theory that's considered more likely than others? Other than various creation stories, I don't know of other types of theories.

Quoting Gnomon

fundamental Information

I’ve said this before, but I’ll try again - there’s no such thing as ‘generic information’. Information is always specific. References to information are always to information about something. Sure, ‘information’ is in some way fundamental to living processes, insofar as DNA is said to ‘encode information’, but isn’t that a metaphorical use of the term?

That link you provide to Maverick Philosopher refers to Bernardo Kastrup’s essay on Information Realism. Kastrup writes, in relation to Tegmark’s Pythagorean philosophy:

You see, it is one thing to state in language that information is primary and can, therefore, exist independently of mind and matter. But it is another thing entirely to explicitly and coherently conceive of what—if anything—this may mean. By way of analogy, it is possible to write—as Lewis Carroll did—that the Cheshire Cat’s grin remains after the cat disappears, but it is another thing entirely to conceive explicitly and coherently of what this means.

Our intuitive understanding of the concept of information—as cogently captured by Claude Shannon in 1948—is that it is merely a measure of the number of possible states of an independently existing system. As such, information is a property ofan underlying substrate associated with the substrate’s possible configurations—not an entity unto itself.

To say that information exists in and of itself is akin to speaking of spin without the top, of ripples without water, of a dance without the dancer, or of the Cheshire Cat’s grin without the cat. It is a grammatically valid statement devoid of sense; a word game less meaningful than fantasy, for internally consistent fantasy can at least be explicitly and coherently conceived of as such.

I read Kastrup’s essay as directly challenging the kind of ‘information realism’ that you seem to be advocating. Instead he says that the ‘reduction base’ is experience itself - not your experience or mine alone, but in the inter-subjective sense he spells out as analytic idealism.

we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.

What do you think?

Quoting Wayfarer

I’ve said this before, but I’ll try again - there’s no such thing as ‘generic information’. Information is always specific.

It's true that Shannon's Information (data) is always specific, since it is used for communication engineering purposes. But Terrence Deacon is "redefining information"*1 by postulating a triad of Information types : Shannon, Boltzmann, & Darwin. You can think of them as Pragmatic Engineering, Thermodynamic, & Biological functions. However, I use the term "Generic Information" to mean something like the source (generator) of all Forms (everything physical & biological & mental) in the world.

Hence, my Generic Information is fundamental, in the sense of John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" hypothesis*2, based on Quantum Uncertainty (coin flip). When applied to biological Natural Selection, the semi-random Bit-flip is a gamble that decides the direction of Evolution. But it's a "choice" with a physical memory : material forms. And the material record indicates that the "coin" may be weighted with a tendency toward Complexity & Consciousness. :nerd:


*1. Redefining Information :
[i]Beginning from the base established by Claude Shannon, which otherwise ignores
issues of content, reference, and evaluation, this two part essay explores its
relationship to two other higher-order theories that are also explicitly based on an
analysis of absence: Boltzmann’s theory of thermodynamic entropy (in Part 1)
and Darwin’s theory of natural selection (in Part 2).[/i] ___Terrence Deacon
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/Deacon_Redefining_II.pdf

*2. It from Bit Koan :
Wheeler has condensed these ideas into a phrase that resembles a Zen koan: “the it from bit.” In one of his free-form essays, Wheeler unpacks the phrase as follows: “...every it--every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits.” ___John Horgan
https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/physicist-john-wheeler-and-the-it-from-bit

Quoting Wayfarer

I read Kastrup’s essay as directly challenging the kind of ‘information realism’ that you seem to be advocating.

I had never heard the term Information Realism before reading Science Ideated. Kastrup does indeed challenge Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. But that's only a small part of what I'm "advocating". I can see that Mathematics is the Logic of reality. But EnFormAction is also postulated as the creative Causal Force of reality.

Kastrup's alternative worldview is Analytical Idealism, which may also be a small part of my more inclusive worldview of Enformationism. As Floridi says, Information can be viewed both analytically and metaphysically. So, while I can accept each of those partial theories of Information, I am not personally advocating any but my own little amateur Theory of Everything. :grin:


*3. Philosophy of Information :
PI may be approached in two ways, one analytical and the other metaphysical. The chapter ends with the suggestion that PI might be considered a new kind of first philosophy. ___Luciano Floridi
https://academic.oup.com/book/32518/chapter-abstract/270223494?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Quoting Patterner

Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature? — Gnomon
Me? I love the book. At least the half I've gotten through.

Stick with it. Incompleteness in reading leaves an ignorance Absence. Taken as a philosophical worldview, Deacon's theory of Creative Absence is a paradigm changer. :wink:

Quoting Patterner

From the little I know of Complexity and Self-organization, I think it's plausible. I don't know enough specifics to defend the theory, though. And I don't think there's one specific abiogenesis theory that's considered more likely than others? Other than various creation stories, I don't know of other types of theories.

Yes. There have been several scientific & philosophical attempts to explain the emergence of Life from non-life*1. But so far, none has hit a home-run, and all leave some unexplained gaps, such as the emergence of Mind from mindless Matter. I have my own personal Information-based Genesis hypothesis, which is more general & philosophical than just Biogenesis. But it lacks the mythical poetry of an anthro-morphic deity speaking the world into existence, and animating dead clay. So, it's not likely to serve as the basis for a popular religion. :smile:

*1. Origin of Life, Theories of :
There are many facets to the problem of understanding life’s origin and equally many ways to address it. The origin of life can be viewed from a variety of different standpoints: information theory (Yockey, 2005), RNA replication (Eigen and Schuster, 1977), meteorite impacts (Brack, 2009), physics (Smith and Morowitz, 2016), specific chemical synthesis (Powner et al., 2009), geo- chemistry (Martin and Russell, 2003), or entropy (Russell et al., 2013), to name a few.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Origin-of-Life--Theories-of.pdf

LET THERE BE BIOLOGY

Reply to Gnomon Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism.

Quoting Wayfarer

Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism.

I doubt that Deacon is a fan of Idealism, whether Analytical or Metaphysical. He's a traditional academic scientist who, following the evidence, has strayed across the taboo line between Hard Science and Soft Philosophy. Unfortunately, he hasn't published much since his 2011 book, except a few videos.

I'm still reading Kastrup's Analytical Idealism, so I'll reserve any pro or con comments for a while. My first impression, regarding The Idea of the World was that it mostly aligned with my own worldview. But it also went beyond my grasp in some areas. His defense against hardline materialistic attacks are very persuasive in most cases. :smile:

Quoting Wayfarer

?Gnomon
Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism.

FWIW, I just came across the excerpt below from a reply to you on the Absential Materialism thread.

"[i]In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I summarized the book as "a naturalized account for Life, Mind, Soul, Sentience, & Consciousness". But, as a practicing scientist, he seems to carefully avoid crossing the taboo line between Physics vs Metaphysics, Realism vs Idealism, and Science vs Philosophy. So, I also noted, "In order to establish the plausibility of absence-based (Metaphysical) causation, Deacon has to weed out unwarranted assumptions of Physicalism and Materialism". This straddling strategy and ontological balancing act led me to add : "The deistic inferences I'm drawing from Deacon's evidence & reasoning are precisely the one's he's trying to avoid".

I give him some slack though, because Deacon is a scientist whose specialties --- Anthropology, Biosemiotics & Neuroscience --- straddle the dividing line between Science & Philosophy and Classical & Quantum worldviews. My own Enformationism worldview also tiptoes along the same borderline . . . .

And the associated philosophical attitude of BothAnd --- neither Realism nor Idealism, but Both --- places me on the same moot margin as Deacon.[/i]"

Reply to Gnomon It occurs to me that maybe you could say that Deacon is trying to establish the linkage between physical and logical causation. Ran it by ChatGPT, it says that it's feasible.

Quoting Wayfarer

It occurs to me that maybe you could say that Deacon is trying to establish the linkage between physical and logical causation. Ran it by ChatGPT, it says that it's feasible.

I had to Google "logical causation". What I found was not very enlightening*1.

Apparently, Logical Causation is what Hume said was "unprovable"*2, perhaps in the sense that a logical relationship (this ergo that) is not as objectively true as an empirical (this always follows that) demonstration. Logic can imply causation in an ideal (subjective) sense, but only physics can prove it in a real (objective) sense.

Of course, even physical "proof" is derived from limited examples. So any generalization of the proven "fact" is a logical extrapolation (subjective) from Few to All, that may or may not be true in ultimate reality. I suppose It comes down to the definitional difference between Ideal (what ought to be) and Real (what is) causation. How is linking the two realms (subjective logic and objective science) "feasible"? Isn't that where skeptics confidently challenge presumably rational conclusions with "show me the evidence"?

Do you think Deacon's "constitutive absence"*3 is the missing link between Logical truth and Empirical fact*4 regarding Abiogenesis? I'm afraid that proving a definite connection is above my pay grade, as an untrained amateur philosopher. What is ChatGPT's philosophical qualification? :grin:

*1. What is the difference between logical implication and physical causality? :
Logical implication refers to the relationship between two statements where the truth of one statement guarantees the truth of the other. Physical causality, on the other hand, refers to the relationship between events where one event is the direct cause of another event.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/logical-implication-vs-physical-causality.1015629/

*2. Hume Causation :
Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

*3. Causation by Constitutive Absence :
According to Deacon, the defining property of every living or psychic system is that its causes are conspicuously absent from the system
https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/05/23/reading-incomplete-nature-by-terrence-deacon/

*4. Causal and Constitutive explanation :
[i]It is quite natural to explain differences or changes in causal capacities by referring to an absence of certain components or to their malfunction. . . . .
most philosophers of explanation recognize that there is an important class of non-causal explanations, although it has received much less attention. These explanations are conventionally called constitutive explanations[/i]
file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/Causal_and_constitutive_explanation_comp.pdf

Reply to Gnomon Replied here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/894970