https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

Cymek said:

https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

Sounds like a philosopher postering on the meaning of life.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

Sounds like a philosopher postering on the meaning of life.

Somewhat I think, interesting though

Cymek said:

https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

Years ago, I heard of the simplest explanation ever:
A biologist came home after work and sat down at the kitchen table where his 5 year old daughter had been
playing at creating shapes using dozens of 2 dimensional octagonal blocks.

Attempting to clear a place at the table, he absentmindedly shoved the blocks to one side, but quickly noticed
that the octagonal blocks automatically arranged themselves into what resembled molecular representations.

Ah Ha! The Light Bulb Moment

crock

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.038001

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1700617114

dv said:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.038001

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1700617114

To consider evolution should be enough to tell you that it does not apply to living organisms that principally survive due to their adaptability to their environment that has always been subject to change, usually from conditions beyond their control.

dv said:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.038001

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1700617114

Got to the 2nd line of the first one.

What is “work energy”?

Is there a type of energy not related to work?

Ogmog said:

Cymek said:

https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

Years ago, I heard of the simplest explanation ever:
A biologist came home after work and sat down at the kitchen table where his 5 year old daughter had been
playing at creating shapes using dozens of 2 dimensional octagonal blocks.

Attempting to clear a place at the table, he absentmindedly shoved the blocks to one side, but quickly noticed
that the octagonal blocks automatically arranged themselves into what resembled molecular representations.

Ah Ha! The Light Bulb Moment

the point being
once it became evident that chemical atoms could self assemble into molecules
it wasn’t much of a stretch to understand that given common conditions such as
an energy source a suitable solvent such as H2o and viola’ …Primordial Soup,,,
self replication and LIFE would indeed become an “inevitable consequence”.

(No “WATCHMAKER” need get involved)

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.038001

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1700617114

Got to the 2nd line of the first one.

What is “work energy”?

Is there a type of energy not related to work?

chemical/heat energy common in deep sea volcanic vents
electrical as in lightening

Apparently there was another ‘school shooting’ in the US (St. Louis) overnight.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63375659

Seems like the ABC can’t be bothered reporting these things any more. And who could blame them?

Wrong thread. Apologies.

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.038001

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1700617114

Got to the 2nd line of the first one.

What is “work energy”?

Is there a type of energy not related to work?

chemical/heat energy common in deep sea volcanic vents
electrical as in lightening

I’m tempted to debate that, but it’s pretty off topic so I’ll let it drop (transferring work energy as it falls).

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

Cymek said:

https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

A few years back, a remarkable new hypothesis made its way into the scientific zeitgeist – namely, that life is an inevitable consequence of physics. The author of this concept, an associate professor of biophysics at MIT named Jeremy England, has now published the first major papers testing out this idea, and it’s looking like he might be right on the money.

Years ago, I heard of the simplest explanation ever:
A biologist came home after work and sat down at the kitchen table where his 5 year old daughter had been
playing at creating shapes using dozens of 2 dimensional octagonal blocks.

Attempting to clear a place at the table, he absentmindedly shoved the blocks to one side, but quickly noticed
that the octagonal blocks automatically arranged themselves into what resembled molecular representations.

Ah Ha! The Light Bulb Moment

the point being
once it became evident that chemical atoms could self assemble into molecules
it wasn’t much of a stretch to understand that given common conditions such as
an energy source a suitable solvent such as H2o and viola’ …Primordial Soup,,,
self replication and LIFE would indeed become an “inevitable consequence”.

(No “WATCHMAKER” need get involved)

OK, I’ll stay out of the argument then.

roughbarked said:

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

Years ago, I heard of the simplest explanation ever:
A biologist came home after work and sat down at the kitchen table where his 5 year old daughter had been
playing at creating shapes using dozens of 2 dimensional octagonal blocks.

Attempting to clear a place at the table, he absentmindedly shoved the blocks to one side, but quickly noticed
that the octagonal blocks automatically arranged themselves into what resembled molecular representations.

Ah Ha! The Light Bulb Moment

the point being
once it became evident that chemical atoms could self assemble into molecules
it wasn’t much of a stretch to understand that given common conditions such as
an energy source a suitable solvent such as H2o and viola’ …Primordial Soup,,,
self replication and LIFE would indeed become an “inevitable consequence”.

(No “WATCHMAKER” need get involved)

OK, I’ll stay out of the argument then.

Two nit picks H ₂ O and voila

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ogmog said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Got to the 2nd line of the first one.

What is “work energy”?

Is there a type of energy not related to work?

chemical/heat energy common in deep sea volcanic vents
electrical as in lightening

I’m tempted to debate that, but it’s pretty off topic so I’ll let it drop (transferring work energy as it falls).

seriously

dU = dw + dq

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

mollwollfumble said:

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

there’s other life

weird accounts of aliens shows theres a variety

mollwollfumble said:

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

I don’t see how such a thing could possibly be proved my maths, when we don’t know the possible paths by which life might evolve.

But if we accept it, what is paradoxical about life being extremely rare?

It might be 1 per 10^trillion visible universes for all we know. We have no evidence to the contrary.

irrelevant

SCIENCE said:

irrelevant

Why did you make that “irrelevant” statement?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

irrelevant

Why did you make that “irrelevant” statement?

grabs popcorn

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

irrelevant

Why did you make that “irrelevant” statement?

grabs popcorn

irreverent

mollwollfumble said:

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

you might assume it is as common as it is, out there, and that for the moment any construction regard its prevalence appears inadequate to some

but I might add I like the concept of indeterminate, people got somehow corrupted by the notion of infinity, and the desire to put the entire universe in its place, subordinate to conceptualization

indeterminate, not such a bad thing, not such a terrible situation

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

I don’t see how such a thing could possibly be proved my maths, when we don’t know the possible paths by which life might evolve.

But if we accept it, what is paradoxical about life being extremely rare?

It might be 1 per 10^trillion visible universes for all we know. We have no evidence to the contrary.

> But if we accept it, what is paradoxical about life being extremely rare? It might be 1 per 10^trillion visible universes for all we know. We have no evidence to the contrary.

Exactly correct :-)

> I don’t see how such a thing could possibly be proved my maths, when we don’t know the possible paths by which life might evolve.

Well we do actually.

First let’s consider carbon-based life vs non-carbon-based life.
Carbon-based life has two advantages over non-carbon-based life.
1) The elements needed to make carbon-based life ie. CNOH are extremely common in the universe
2) Carbon molecules can form flexible chains that are ideal for creating huge diversity

For carbon-based life, we know from experiments that:

• double-walled vesicles the size of bacteria can form de-novo in a Miller-Urey type experiment.
• small beta-sheet proteins have been detected in meteorites. Beta-sheet is the easiest type of protein to self duplicate
• any lock and key system of catalysis will do, it doesn’t have to be protein-based.

So if life can be protein-like-based inside (or on the surface of) a double-walled vesicle then it must be common as muck. The number of stars in the visible universe is about 10^22, so the number of places suitable for life to form is of the order of 10^24. The number of nucleation points for de-novo life in each place suitable for such life is of the order of a trillion, 10^12. Making of order 10^36 nucleation points for life in all. No matter how rare protein-like-based life is, one in a million perhaps, there’s going to be still something like 10^30 living things in the universe. Life is extremely common.

or

On the other hand, life as we know it is nucleic acid based. For starters, nucleic acids are very much more difficult to produce de-novo than proteins. Each component – the nucleic acid, the simple carbohydrate, the phosphate backbone, the associated proteins, form under different and usually incompatible chemical oxidation environments.

The probability that a random RNA has a make-up that is useful so far as generating life is concerned is vanishingly small. 10^36 nucleation points (see above) is attained by only about 50 base pairs. The smallest known genome has 1.3 million base pairs. Even allowing for non-coding bases and base substitution we’re talking about 9000 base pairs in the correct order, which gives us an absolute maximum of one chance in 4^9000 ie. 10^-5000 of any nucleation point giving us life as we know it.

10^36 potential life nucleation points times 10^-5000 chance at each nucleation point gives us one living thing in 10^4964 universes at best.

So the maths says that life in the universe is either extremely common, of order 10^30 living things or more in the visible universe. Or extremely rate, of order one life nucleation point in about 10^5000 universes.

The Miller–Urey experiment

or

Miller-Urey experiment

in any case;
Dr. Carl Sagan stated that the “Stuff of Life” was common throughout the Universe
“Great Gobs of the Stuff raining down on surfaces just waiting for the right conditions,
that it was the height of conceit to imagine that we’re unique and absolutely alone on this
“Pale Blue Dot” floating in this vast universe containing “Billions & Billions” of stars & galaxies.

so “in a computationally complete universe, patterns will arise that generate similar patterns to themselves” seems a fairly plain concept

SCIENCE said:

so “in a computationally complete universe, patterns will arise that generate similar patterns to themselves” seems a fairly plain concept

Think Mr Mandelbrot tells you that.

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

you might assume it is as common as it is, out there, and that for the moment any construction regard its prevalence appears inadequate to some

but I might add I like the concept of indeterminate, people got somehow corrupted by the notion of infinity, and the desire to put the entire universe in its place, subordinate to conceptualization

indeterminate, not such a bad thing, not such a terrible situation

I don’t know what that means.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

There is a paradox about the origin of life.

According to the mathematics it must be either extremely common or extremely rare.

If extremely rare, we are not just the only life in the galaxy, we are the only life in the visible universe.

If extremely common, we should find it in Jupiter’s clouds.

The mathematics says that there’s no middle ground, either life is everywhere or we’re alone. My philosophic self rebels at that. My gut tells me that there must be a mistake in the mathematics. But I can’t find it.

I don’t see how such a thing could possibly be proved my maths, when we don’t know the possible paths by which life might evolve.

But if we accept it, what is paradoxical about life being extremely rare?

It might be 1 per 10^trillion visible universes for all we know. We have no evidence to the contrary.

> But if we accept it, what is paradoxical about life being extremely rare? It might be 1 per 10^trillion visible universes for all we know. We have no evidence to the contrary.

Exactly correct :-)

> I don’t see how such a thing could possibly be proved my maths, when we don’t know the possible paths by which life might evolve.

Well we do actually.

First let’s consider carbon-based life vs non-carbon-based life.
Carbon-based life has two advantages over non-carbon-based life.
1) The elements needed to make carbon-based life ie. CNOH are extremely common in the universe
2) Carbon molecules can form flexible chains that are ideal for creating huge diversity

For carbon-based life, we know from experiments that:

• double-walled vesicles the size of bacteria can form de-novo in a Miller-Urey type experiment.
• small beta-sheet proteins have been detected in meteorites. Beta-sheet is the easiest type of protein to self duplicate
• any lock and key system of catalysis will do, it doesn’t have to be protein-based.

So if life can be protein-like-based inside (or on the surface of) a double-walled vesicle then it must be common as muck. The number of stars in the visible universe is about 10^22, so the number of places suitable for life to form is of the order of 10^24. The number of nucleation points for de-novo life in each place suitable for such life is of the order of a trillion, 10^12. Making of order 10^36 nucleation points for life in all. No matter how rare protein-like-based life is, one in a million perhaps, there’s going to be still something like 10^30 living things in the universe. Life is extremely common.

or

On the other hand, life as we know it is nucleic acid based. For starters, nucleic acids are very much more difficult to produce de-novo than proteins. Each component – the nucleic acid, the simple carbohydrate, the phosphate backbone, the associated proteins, form under different and usually incompatible chemical oxidation environments.

The probability that a random RNA has a make-up that is useful so far as generating life is concerned is vanishingly small. 10^36 nucleation points (see above) is attained by only about 50 base pairs. The smallest known genome has 1.3 million base pairs. Even allowing for non-coding bases and base substitution we’re talking about 9000 base pairs in the correct order, which gives us an absolute maximum of one chance in 4^9000 ie. 10^-5000 of any nucleation point giving us life as we know it.

10^36 potential life nucleation points times 10^-5000 chance at each nucleation point gives us one living thing in 10^4964 universes at best.

So the maths says that life in the universe is either extremely common, of order 10^30 living things or more in the visible universe. Or extremely rate, of order one life nucleation point in about 10^5000 universes.

But what about the approximately 99% probability (+-1%) that the initial life processes involve mechanisms that you have not considered?

SCIENCE said:

so “in a computationally complete universe, patterns will arise that generate similar patterns to themselves” seems a fairly plain concept

Do you know what they mean by “a computationally complete universe”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so “in a computationally complete universe, patterns will arise that generate similar patterns to themselves” seems a fairly plain concept

Do you know what they mean by “a computationally complete universe”?

Your search – “a computationally complete universe” – did not match any documents.

Why we live in the Computational Universe

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so “in a computationally complete universe, patterns will arise that generate similar patterns to themselves” seems a fairly plain concept

Do you know what they mean by “a computationally complete universe”?

Your search – “a computationally complete universe” – did not match any documents.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Do you know what they mean by “a computationally complete universe”?

Your search – “a computationally complete universe” – did not match any documents.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

Yeah, The Soft likes to pretend their new Lambda functions are something big. They are OK, I did something similar in VBA about 15 years ago, and use it occasionally.

But the relevance to the current discussion is not obvious to me.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Your search – “a computationally complete universe” – did not match any documents.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

Yeah, The Soft likes to pretend their new Lambda functions are something big. They are OK, I did something similar in VBA about 15 years ago, and use it occasionally.

But the relevance to the current discussion is not obvious to me.

it’s all the same

I don’t think the paper answers the right questions. “Inevitable” doesn’t mean anything. The key question is probability. We already know the probability of life arising on a planet is between 0 and 1, non-inclusive. Is it 1 in a trillion? 1 in 10?

Some Festival of Life character made me a regular stop on his mission to save our souls:

One day I hit him with the inevitability of spontaneously self creative life
and he shot back with; “Yes but, what are the odds of chemicals assembling themselves
into molecules capable of replicating themselves which result in what we call ‘LIFE’?”

Without batting an eye I said,
“I should think the odds are a helluva lot better than some all-knowing all-seeing being simply
p0pping into existence one sunny morning.”

Not entirely sure why, but he never darkened my front porch ever again. Go Figure. /-:

Ogmog said:

Some Festival of Life character made me a regular stop on his mission to save our souls:

One day I hit him with the inevitability of spontaneously self creative life
and he shot back with; “Yes but, what are the odds of chemicals assembling themselves
into molecules capable of replicating themselves which result in what we call ‘LIFE’?”

Without batting an eye I said,
“I should think the odds are a helluva lot better than some all-knowing all-seeing being simply
p0pping into existence one sunny morning.”

Not entirely sure why, but he never darkened my front porch ever again. Go Figure. /-:

Yep, no point wasting good soul saving time on this one.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

Yeah, The Soft likes to pretend their new Lambda functions are something big. They are OK, I did something similar in VBA about 15 years ago, and use it occasionally.

But the relevance to the current discussion is not obvious to me.

it’s all the same

What is all the same?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Yeah, The Soft likes to pretend their new Lambda functions are something big. They are OK, I did something similar in VBA about 15 years ago, and use it occasionally.

But the relevance to the current discussion is not obvious to me.

it’s all the same

What is all the same?

all computationally complete universes are the same

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

it’s all the same

What is all the same?

all computationally complete universes are the same

Could you tell me what a “computationally complete universe” is please.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is all the same?

all computationally complete universes are the same

Could you tell me what a “computationally complete universe” is please.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Why we live in the Computational Universe

Apparently, this does?
Not that I’ve read it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Do you know what they mean by “a computationally complete universe”?

Your search – “a computationally complete universe” – did not match any documents.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

What is all the same?

all computationally complete universes are the same

Could you tell me what a “computationally complete universe” is please.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

all computationally complete universes are the same

Could you tell me what a “computationally complete universe” is please.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/excel-blog/announcing-lambda-turn-excel-formulas-into-custom-functions/ba-p/1925546

OK, I give up.

Got to do a computation in the BAS universe and pay the guvmint some money anyway.