"Controversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn't a Fluke of" Topic

… Biology—It Was Physics.

"The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of "entropy" or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things. The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and "should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill."

Since then, England, a 35-year-old associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been testing aspects of his idea in computer simulations. The two most significant of these studies were published this month—the more striking result in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the other in Physical Review Letters. The outcomes of both computer experiments appear to back England's general thesis about dissipation-driven adaptation, though the implications for real life remain speculative.

"This is obviously a pioneering study," Michael Lässig, a statistical physicist and quantitative biologist at the University of Cologne in Germany, said of the PNAS paper written by England and an MIT postdoctoral fellow, Jordan Horowitz. It's "a case study about a given set of rules on a relatively small system, so it's maybe a bit early to say whether it generalizes," Lässig said. "But the obvious interest is to ask what this means for life…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

How is this controversial?
Nobody in a long time has claimed life was a fluke. And whether it's by the laws of physics or laws of chemistry is inconsequential.
And nobody has claimed it was biology.

Add me to the list of those not understanding where the controversy lies.

All biology is a matter of chemistry. All biological functions must follow the laws of chemistry. Similarly, all chemistry is constrained by the physical laws, of which the Laws of Thermodynamics are just a part of. So that life, the emergence of life, and the evolution of life must all be constrained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. England's work may be pioneering, but the underlying theory behind it certainly is not.

What Boman said.
Controversy? How?

BTW, I love people who quote the 2nd Las of Thermodynamics.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I wonder if the person who complained or the moderator that nuked my comment knows anything about the Discovery Institute, and why it's mention in a science board should be a cause célèbre. It's difficult enough to have a meaningful discourse here already.

I wonder if the person who complained or the moderator that nuked my comment knows anything about the Discovery Institute, and why it's mention in a science board should be a cause célèbre. It's difficult enough to have a meaningful discourse here already.

I remember a few years back when a memeber was posting about stromfront and an editor was saying we should respect all sources and truth is somewhere in the middle, or words to that effect. (To be fair to our community, that was jumped upon prompty and forcefully by a fair number of people before there was a mass nuking of the thread)

I blame it on the "Fair and Balanced™" paradigm of reporting (AKA the High and Holy Church of David Broder) where the audience is supposed to decide on who's correct, Buzz Aldrin or some crank known for calling in on Coast2Coast AM about ziggurats on the moon/flat earthers….

\jumpoffsoapbox

Maths is fake science.

Anybody can fill a blackboard with symbols and say, here see this proves that cats are really a type of carrots.
I don't see lots of fractions orbiting stars.
It's called the physical world, not the mathical world.(see how close that word is to magical?)

I truly love how these discussions meander, like a little bubbling brook.

Well mathematics is a human construct, very similar to language. It helps us describe the world around us, in the same ways words do. Of course, the "words" of mathematics are symbols that describe the world in a quantitative form. We would assume that all intelligent life would have some form of mathematics and that some of the math would be universal. That's why the aliens in Sagan's Contact get our attention by sending radio signals with bursts of prime numbers.

Anybody can fill a blackboard with symbols and say, here see this proves that cats are really a type of carrots.

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. The symbols look like magical runes to me, but that is purely due to my ignorance. In fact this type of ignorance is so widespread that it is described by Clarke's Third Law.

link

The controversy is obviously in the implication, but buried in our limited ability to gather more information.

If, as is asserted, the Universe is necessarily constructed so that life WILL occur, are we merely proof of that, or are we the result of that? In short, is life the purpose of the Universe, or simply the odd, inevitable result , as of randomness that somehow stumbled into a deterministic path.
What about other life? If the Universe is so constructed that life is inevitable, are we (Earth life) the only possible form, or do other forms exist or potentially exist? Are our chemical processes the sole method, or might other processes produce "life"? And then, the biggie, where are they?

Granted, this is where we are limited in our ability to gather data. Yet as of yet, no definitive signs of life or lifelike processes have been discovered. Not on the Moon, not on Mars, not on Venus, not on Jupiter's moons (or its upper atmosphere), not on Titan, etc., etc.. Granted, we are very early in the search even for simple life, but we can say with near certainty that higher order forms, particularly intelligent forms, do not exist in these places. In that sense, we are certainly alone in this solar system, and barring further discoveries in physics far beyond our current understanding, are effectively isolated, and thus alone, from life occurring elsewhere in our galaxy, or certainly any other. And even then, as yet we have seen no definitive signs of life on any of the nearby exoplanets, though again our ability to detect life is minimal, if not merely speculative. Certainly, if a technologically advanced species is an inevitable result of physical processes in the Universe, we have detected no signs of technology equivalent to our own within our admittedly limited sphere.
So the controversy becomes if life is inevitable, why is it not common? Why is it not even duplicated in our stellar neighborhood, so far as we can detect? Are the factors so narrowly defined that only a truly duplicate or nearly duplicate stellar environment will produce life? Or are we still just that limited in what we can detect? Or are we inexplicably first? Or at least first to get this far? And if so, how is that possible? And, if so, why… If there is a 'why?'"

All of these questions thus are highly controversial. But at the same time, they are hardly new. So the claim is just more coals tossed in the furnace, in some respects.

I was hoping you'd chime in. Even though it seems you are channeling GWA in some parts. I'll try to answer some of your questions.

If, as is asserted, the Universe is necessarily constructed so that life WILL occur, are we merely proof of that, or are we the result of that?

Isn't that a chicken or egg question?

In short, is life the purpose of the Universe, or simply the odd, inevitable result , as of randomness that somehow stumbled into a deterministic path.

I doubt the Universe has a purpose, but that's just me reacting to anthromorphizing. As for the last part, read this:

link

What about other life?

Ok

If the Universe is so constructed that life is inevitable, are we (Earth life) the only possible form, or do other forms exist or potentially exist?

Depends what you mean by "form". Life on Earth has a multitude of forms, some startlingly different and alien. And, on the other hand, other varied creatures exhibit a convergence of form (such as bony fish, dolphins and sharks). Creatures that evolve on alien planets with totally unknown eco-niches and totally alien evolutionary pressures will create totally alien forms, no?

Are our chemical processes the sole method, or might other processes produce "life"?

While chemistry and chemical laws should be consistent throughout the Universe, the actual chemicals and chemical processes should be totally different. For example, organic macromolecules on Earth fall into broad classifications such as lipids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and proteins. Also, many other complex molecules are combinations of the above, such as glycoproteins, DNA and proteolipids. It is silly to suspect that alien macromolecules should be anything like the chemicals that evolved on Earth.

We would expect life to be carbon based as carbon can form polyvalent reversible bonds. However that is also not a given as Silicon based life could exist. I fact, our Solar System could be full of Silicon based life forms and we would never know. As Martin from Canada so succinctly puts it, "How would we recognize silicon based life processes as distinct from inorganic weathering"?

And then, the biggie, where are they?

Well we may be surrounded by intelligent life, but we are in a very, very, very large Universe.

So the controversy becomes if life is inevitable, why is it not common?

I think you answered this pretty well with, "….this is where we are limited in our ability to gather data." We've only just began discovering exoplanets. Most are in very inhospitable orbits around inhospitable unstable suns. These environments, the majority, are contrary to life. And for the others, there is no way we can see if they contain life at this point.

Why is it not even duplicated in our stellar neighborhood, so far as we can detect? Are the factors so narrowly defined that only a truly duplicate or nearly duplicate stellar environment will produce life?

No, but then our Solar System is only an infinitely small part of our own galaxy. Having only one inhabited planet in a system isn't any indication of life elsewhere.

Or are we still just that limited in what we can detect?

Yep.

Or are we inexplicably first?

We may be first (or close to it) but it is far from inexplicable. Life should only form in the second generation of Suns created after the Big Bang. The first generation of suns had to form, ignite, live and then die in order for carbon (and silicon) to form. The second generation of suns have their planets form in a carbon rich environment, and hence life can form. Life could not form right after the BB. Billions of years had to pass before the Universe became life friendly.

Or at least first to get this far?

We haven't gotten very far at all, as far as I can see. I mean we only have evidence for the development of agriculture at 12,000 years ago, and the development of writing at about over 5,000 years ago. We are pretty new at things.

And if so, how is that possible? And, if so, why… If there is a 'why?'"

Sorry, no idea what you mean.

In fact this type of ignorance is so widespread that it is described by Clarke's Third Law.

For sure. Each time that professor Solomon goes to the board to "illustrate" his latest rant with "formulae" they all look legit to me. :D

Well we may be surrounded by intelligent life, but we are in a very, very, very large Universe.

I don't feel like going back to Dawkins's book, but in The God Delusion he points out the enormous size of the universe using the math developed by astrophysicists, and, iirc, comes up with c. a billion "earth" planets in the entire universe. Which is to say, like needles hiding in haystacks. The distances apart are so huge that any evidence originating from a given planet would be most likely still on its way here. By the time it gets here, said-planet will most likely be dead and gone. In other words, the energy by which any "signaling" would have to travel is too slow, even at the speed of light, to reach across the universe, be detected by a high enough technology, and replied to. We are not capable of doing anything more than shouting "We are here! We are here! We are here!" If/when some higher order world picks up our shouting, we, and the Earth, will no longer exist, having passed away millions if not billions of years ago.

Yep.

But I would still enjoy us getting a "We are here!" message from a long dead, far away alien civilization. At least we'll "know" we are/were not alone.

My questions were somewhat rhetorical, though I thought rather clear.
I *am* acknowledging from the start that our searching has been limited, mostly by our limited ability to actually search and discern anything significant in the limited data we can collect.
Though the lack of EM signal data is notable. We are left with the possibility that the "billions" of planets capable of producing intelligent life are either in stages where that life has not developed EM signaling capability, have progressed entirely to something else before the time period in which we have been able to detect EM (their versions of "I Love Lucy" and "Dallas" have passed us by), have ended catastrophically before that time period, or are all too far away for any significant, detectably deliberate EM signal to reach us before the signal dissipates, or we're always looking in the wrong direction. But the emphasis on these explanations is on the "all" component. It remains a bit unsettling that we've seen NOTHING in the EM band that can only be logically assigned to technology as an originating cause. Yes, we've have some funky moments, but invariably these have turned out to have more plausible (if scientifically exciting) natural explanations. ET may phone home, but we are definitely not on his party line.

Regarding the chicken and the egg question, well yes and no. I think we can safely say that indeed, there was at one time a creature that we would in no way think of as a "chicken" who laid an egg that produced a mutation that we would indeed describe as a "chicken." That's the inherent assumption of evolution, after all-- that the DNA of a non-chicken creature became mutated in its offspring to become the DNA of a chicken creature. (Ergo, the egg precedes the chicken.)

But, returning to the question, it really is a big question: Is life really the result of a random universe that has deterministic patterns to its randomness (which, by the way, would not be random)? Or is the universe deterministic in order to produce life, and even more so, intelligent life?

Think of it this way. You have a very large bag of marbles, some blue, some green, some red, some orange, some white. You dump the marbles into a large pan, shake the pan, and set it down for the marbles to settle in place. Now, the possibility that a white marble will wind up surrounded by nothing but six blue marbles touching each side is of course existent in this action. But it is NOT guaranteed, or even the greatest probability. What the proposal argues regarding life in the Universe is effectively the same as arguing that the dump of marbles ABSOLUTELY WILL produce at least one combination of one white marble surrounded by and touching six blue marbles, no matter what. That's not random. Thus, controversy. And that raise the question in to one of determinism; that is, if the Universe MUST produce life, and MUST produce intelligent life, that is an entirely different thing than a Universe that MIGHT produce the same and just happened to have done so.

As to "how would we recognize non-carbon based life," I think it's rather obvious, as we define life:
Consumes its environment to grow and/or create internal energy, but any such growth or energy production is dependent upon the distinct characteristics of its environment; that is, it can't just eat "anything," it has to eat certain elements or compound combinations.
Growth is not merely the accumulation of mass, but involves converting the consumed elements of the environment into a consistent set of compounds and features inherent in the living entity and other examples of it. Similarly, energy production assumes an internal necessity for the energy for the entity to continue to function as it does.
Reproduces independently of deliberate external action, producing other entities of significantly similar appearance and function, that in their own behaviors, characteristics and such function in the same manner as the parent entity.
Can be moved from its current environment to another similar environment and still continue to grow and reproduce; thus, is not dependent on the exact specific conditions of a location to continue its processes.

I believe the above would cover any known life form, while in combination rules out natural processes which mimic some, but not all of the requirements.

And, of course, there are some definitive life traits of higher order life forms that are inescapable as "life," though not all forms of life exhibit these traits: Namely, the ability to move on its own from internally developed energy, or to communicate or express itself in some way through manipulation of its environment and/or energy release. Note that machines can typically do these things too, though not usually with all of the above basic requirements. Of course, we can't rule out "machine life," but that inherently implies a natural life process (and an intelligent one) which designed, constructed and put in place the "machine life."

Elsewhere in my post, by "are we the only form of life," by "form of life" I meant carbon processes in general, regardless of shape the life takes.

When I was a kid I was certain that we would have discovered signs of intelligent life in the universe by the time I was 30 (1970). Now, I think that it is not only unlikely that this will not happen in my lifetime, but a certainty that it won't.

In fact, I imagine that the probability of humankind ever discovering intelligent life, or evidence of it anywhere but earth is very small. The distances are too great, the laws of physics too restrictive, and the probability of intelligent life on earth being terminated by misfortune prior tosuch discovery is possible enough.

YouTube link

But, returning to the question, it really is a big question: Is life really the result of a random universe that has deterministic patterns to its randomness (which, by the way, would not be random)? Or is the universe deterministic in order to produce life, and even more so, intelligent life?

Can one discriminate between the two just from observation? I guess the former is more accurate, the latter seems to suggest the Universe has a specific purpose. Seeing purpose in all things smacks of anthropomorphizing……a common logical fallacy.

As to "how would we recognize non-carbon based life," I think it's rather obvious, as we define life:
Consumes its environment to grow and/or create internal energy, ……..(snipped for brevity)

Actually it's not obvious at all. You overlooked the second part of Martin's paraphrase.

Elsewhere in my post, by "are we the only form of life," by "form of life" I meant carbon processes in general, regardless of shape the life takes.

Sorry, that wasn't clear.

I wanted to add to a point after reading the dopey source for the "Fermi Paradox" thread on this board.

To get back to your statement, "Is life really the result of a random universe that has deterministic patterns to its randomness (which, by the way, would not be random)?"

I think certain, infinitesimally small parts of the Universe are conducive to life. However, what goes on in the other parts has an important bearing and influence on the parts that do foster life. For instance, a sun blowing up is a very violent, destructive force which we can not readily imagine. However, it is necessary for life to form, by providing certain needed chemical building blocks. That doesn't mean the Universe has a purpose in creating that life.

Look at the "Fermi Paradox" essay. It is true that most of the Universe is very dangerous and violent, and is mostly inhospitable to life. But the author keeps dwelling on a "the Universe is out to get us" motif. No it's not. Anymore than the Grand Canyon was out to get me if I got too close to the edge and toppled over. That implies intent, which is not present.

The same logic applies to, "Or is the universe deterministic in order to produce life, and even more so, intelligent life?"

If by deterministic you mean that life can, given the proper circumstances, form in this Universe then I can't help but agree, as out existence proves. But I don't think the Universe is out to produce life, anymore than it is trying to do us in. This is simply assigning intent and purpose to a thing (albeit a very large and impressive thing).

Overarching any focus ON the universe, we have the question of causes, or Cause. Since we are inarguably the most intelligent species within our purview, examining and questioning everything – whereas all other life does neither – it is not a logical fallacy to see purpose in our perceived purpose; in our very intelligence, our sapience.

To assume that such a phenomenon is a fluke of exploding suns has no basis; it smacks of ex nihilo, intelligence out of non intelligence. It makes more sense to look for a Cause that possesses everything in existence.

it is not a logical fallacy to see purpose in our perceived purpose; in our very intelligence, our sapience.

It is if you imbue inanimate objects with human qualities

To assume that such a phenomenon is a fluke of exploding suns has no basis; it smacks of ex nihilo, intelligence out of non intelligence. It makes more sense to look for a Cause that possesses everything in existence.

You think what you wrote makes sense. You cannot back up your assertions, so I'll disagree. To me, this makes more sense:

link

The title especially is relevant to you.

I'm not arguing intent in the Universe, so much as function. That is, if the Universe functions in such a way that life, and intelligent life, is inevitable (therefore, not random, but deterministic), then that in itself raises questions. One of those questions might indeed be the possibility of underlying intent, not necessarily by the Universe, but by a source cause. Or the possibility that the Universe is utterly deterministic in every aspect, as if every thing, event, and action were merely elements of set scenes that play out in an trillion-year pantomime from Big Bang to Cold Death, prescribed by the underlying mathematical and physical laws, with no randomness at all, but merely what we perceive as randomness even though even that perception is deterministic itself. Thus, then even this discussion would not truly be the product of independent thought and impulses, but simply just the Universe functioning as it was always going to function from the start. Personally, I reject that interpretation, but then one could say that's just the Universe talking.

That's too predestined, Parzival. You are leaving out free will. It doesn't matter that the Cause sees all things from "outside" of spacetime, and therefore knows all endings from all beginnings. Knowing is not causing, it is simply observation of facts as they play out due to choices made by free will.

Our brains "leak". Even "God" says, "I remember your sins no more." Is "God" playing with words? Or is that a literal promise? Mormons say that "God" is a glorified man, who went through mortality unmeasurable spans of eons ago. "The God with which we have to do" is a caretaker, an organizer of formless void, taking the matter and making worlds without number. But "God the Father" has a "Father", who has a "Father", and to mortal minds (and quite probably immortal minds) this is "turtles all the way down", because you never reach the bottom from where you start counting. The "Cause" behind Existence gives its intelligence to life. We possess the most that we know of.

@Bowman: of course we are going to prefer to be the center of everything. How does that alter the question of "cause"? We are not the cause, but we appear to be the central life for which all of this is made. We are the only caretakers, the only creators out of what surrounds us. Nothing else concerns itself with these things, only man. That makes us responsible to do well with that over which we have power. That makes us "central" to what is going to happen from this point on.

AGW, free will is extremely important to us but has nothing whatsoever to do with Parzival's comment of:

…..the possibility that the Universe is utterly deterministic in every aspect, as if every thing, event, and action were merely elements of set scenes that play out in an trillion-year pantomime from Big Bang to Cold Death……

The Universe will continue based of basic laws of physics, regardless of the free will of one small life form in one small corner.

Mormons say that "God" is a glorified man, who went through mortality unmeasurable spans of eons ago.

You sure know how to effectively kill a conversation on a Science board.

Setting aside the divergence into specific religious beliefs…

The question of free will actually is significant to the discussion. If all events are determined by physical laws, and the Universe is entirely deterministic, then even the actions, choices, and yes, very thoughts of our brains are therefore deterministic as well. Choice, thus, becomes an illusion. You choose because the Universe's function determines that you do, and that the choice you choose is also so determined. (Assuming our premise of a completely deterministic Universe, of course). Thus, free will would be merely the function of the deterministic Universe giving the appearance of free will, without any actual undeterministic choice being possible at all.

Now, think on this one: If the Universe is completely deterministic in nature, and that determinism inevitably produces intelligence, and what we know as matter and energy are in fact nothing but the varying states in a single Grand Field of energy (which some physicists suggest), then the Universe itself contains intelligence and the inherent certainty of intelligence, so, could not one say that the Universe itself is therefore intelligent without anthropomorphizing at all?

Yes. Everything possesses "intelligence", because it emanates from "God". And I am not talking about the Mormon God the Father. Bowman thinks that this is religious inclusion in a scientific discussion. Bowman is only half correct. Because to Mormons, all true science is part of their religion.

We have discussed this before. You are under the impression that order cannot come from disorder just from the influence of simple physical laws. I have given you simple examples how this happens that can be easily seen in nature. Same with intelligence, which is a manifestation of complexity. This argument is just a rehash of the "information cannot come about ex nihilo" that only members of the Discovery Institute are seriously considering. Same with "irreducible complexity", both of which are relegated to the dust bin of bad ideas.

Arguing against devised terms is a debate game. It is a simple fact that intelligence exists, and is therefore inarguably part of or a trait of the universe. That we can observe complexity and simplicity occurring in nature isn't proof or even evidence for a "time" when intelligence did not exist.

It is a simple fact that intelligence exists, and is therefore inarguably part of or a trait of the universe. That we can observe complexity and simplicity occurring in nature isn't proof or even evidence for a "time" when intelligence did not exist.

Nor is there evidence that "intelligence" (and I'm at a loss as to what exactly you mean by that) has existed for all time. Nor is it even relevant. That, by whatever mechanism, it arose is a question of evolution over time and nothing more.

It is a simple fact that intelligence exists, and is therefore inarguably part of or a trait of the universe.

No it's not. The fact that intelligence exists is inarguably a trait of the creature that possesses the intelligence. The universe is inanimate, therefore is not intelligent, kind, cruel, happy, thoughtful, remorseful or any other human trait you want to push upon it.

And you have a bent against any whiff of anthropomorphism. I guess a chasm lies between thee and me in this regard.

Look at it this way: current existence as we "see" it is evidence of a process that is ongoing. Just because science says "billions and billions of years" to arrive at our sapience, here, in this solar system, does not mean that this is the first time it happened, or that "billions and billions" has some significance in determining purpose. If we saw a rapid expansion of our intellect, say within three generations, you would not argue against an anthropomorphic intelligence behind the existence of our world (meaning the whole ball of wax baby universe). But because it takes an "inordinate" amount of time, you take that as some good reason for a "time" when intelligence didn't exist yet because it hadn't arisen.

What part of "eternal" or "everlasting" is so hard to apprehend? In an eternal or everlasting (also infinite) progression "billions and billions" might as well refer to nanoseconds as light years.

And you have a bent against any whiff of anthropomorphism. I guess a chasm lies between thee and me in this regard.

Yes I do, and yes there is. That's because I know it's a logical fallacy, and you don't.

Look at it this way: ……..

None of that applies to what I've been saying.

What part of "eternal" or "everlasting" is so hard to apprehend?…….

Again, nothing to do with what I've been saying. You have said nothing to show that intelligence can only derive out of an "intelligent universe" , whatever that means. Unsupported proclamations don't count.

Intelligence, like life, is a form of complexity. Complex things derive from simple things all the time, with a bit of application of physical laws. No underlying intelligence is required.

Yes. Everything possesses "intelligence", because it emanates from "God".

Well apparently not everything.