Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[u196533]

I don't think it is speculation at all.  I consider it a fact that at some point in the origin of life, primitive chemical systems had to seek out food.  It is also a fact that their collective atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy (which are the two main drives in chemistry) if they were to decompose.  So I am asking what I consider to be a basic question:  Why would they seek out food versus just dying? 

I have asked that question since the 80s and never received an answer. 

Vitalism and anthropomorphism are inappropriate explanations for the literature ignoring this obvious question.  If you do not believe in vitalism and actual anthropomorphism (I assume nobody here does),  you would want to explain this as a natural phenomenon using the laws of chemistry, physics etc.

I have come to the conclusion that science cannot answer this question.  If the question is not being asked in the literature, it aint gonna get answered. 

[Baruch]

I am a vitalist and I support anthropomorphism   .... though I might be the only one here.

It is an assumption, that proper scientific method can explain everything.  Most people don't realize that they are engaged in philosophy whenever they step outside current peer reviewed research.  Scientists are just as much into authoritarianism as any Catholic priest.

[u196533]

You are almost as rare as a  mutating replicator molecule.  Please explain your reasoning.    I get the connection to vitalism/anthropomorphism, but I never looked at this problem through that lens.

[trdsf]

The bottom line is that sometime before well before things with brains evolved, primitive life must have developed self preservation.  I don't think science alone can explain that.

This is presupposing intent on behalf of a molecule, or even a bacterium, or even multicelled but not sentient creatures.

All anything needs to be is a better replicator than any other competing molecule/organism that comes along.  Any 'goal' of self-preservation is just an after-effect of just being better at replicating -- it only looks like a goal from this end.  While it's going on, it's simply a matter of having a slightly better chance of replication before being consumed by a competitor.

I think I see the issue here.  You're talking about goals in evolution, and evolution is a goal-less process.  Self preservation doesn't enter into that, only reproduction does -- again, if self-preservation were the goal (or even the optimal survival strategy), mayflies wouldn't reproduce since that's pretty much the last thing they do before they die.  Male praying mantises would avoid the hell out of reproducing since they're basically bed-and-breakfast to the female.  Ditto any number of other animals for whom reproduction is terminal for any or all involved.

In a system that optimized for self-preservation, these wouldn't happen.

I would further argue that the concept of self preservation requires, or at least contains, the ability to decide when or whether the gain to one's extended genotype (family, species, whatever you want to call it) outweighs the personal desire to continue existing.  This is an intellectual process (i.e., something available at highly evolved states), not so much an instinctive one, although examples do exist in nature.  But not many, and certainly not enough to say that this is the overriding force in evolution.

Last point: I will not argue with your last sentence, if you add one single word: "yet".

[Baruch]

You are almost as rare as a  mutating replicator molecule.  Please explain your reasoning.    I get the connection to vitalism/anthropomorphism, but I never looked at this problem through that lens.

Top down vs bottom up.  Telescope vs microscope.  Epistemological fundamentalism that says that bottom up and microscope is the one true way.  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When you look at some aspects of human experience, and you using the reductionist POV ... then the god of the gaps is labeled vitalism and anthropomorphism.  From the holistic POV, there are no problems with those aspects, since you are a human being, not an atom.

From the Platonist POV, science is discovering the perfect mathematical world of forms, as it applies to physical reality.  But Platonism is an assumption.  No physical triangle obeys the Pythagorean theorem, but the perfect triangle in the world of forms does.  Hence the disconnect of applying a perfect world to an imperfect world.

As a holist, I simply accept human beings, simply accept life as axiomatic ... so I don't need to come up with axioms, and deduce life and human beings.  To do that would be Euclid on LSD ;-)

[u196533]

This is presupposing intent on behalf of a molecule, or even a bacterium, or even multicelled but not sentient creatures.
You are missing the critical point I have been trying to make.  Bear with me as I break it down even further.

Chemistry has two basic drives, 1.decrease energy and 2. disperse the energy (increase entropy)
A reaction that does both will occur spontaneously (sometimes explosively like a bomb).  A reaction that releases energy but decreases entropy (Crystal forming) will occur if the energy release outweighs the loss in entropy.  Similarly for a reaction that increases energy but increases entropy (gas expanding when heated.)
However a reaction that increases energy and decreases entropy will not occur spontaneously.  It can be forced to occur, but that places it in an unstable state from which it will revert as soon as it can.  Imagine a refrigerator compressor or squeezing a balloon and compressing gas.  As soon as you remove pressure, the balloon will pop back to its original size.

Living things exist in a state far from equilibrium.  Our atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy if they were to decompose.  If you were to analyze any living thing, you would conclude that it will decompose (and we do when we die.)  We eat (increase energy) to maintain a low state of entropy.  Living things are the only things that exhibit that defiant behavior. 

I can understand why a sentient being does that.  However, those primitive chemical systems should just decay so that their atoms could move toward equilibrium.  When they eat (increase energy) to decrease their entropy they are defying the basic drives of chemistry and thermodynamics.  That is exactly equivalent to the gas in a balloon compressing itself.  Science cannot explain that.

All anything needs to be is a better replicator than any other competing molecule/organism that comes along.
I don’t think the idea that a replicator molecule emerged and evolved over time to create RNA/DNA is held with high hopes anymore.  The research that was conducted over decades since it was proposed is completely un-supportive of that claim.  I don’t think a naturally occurring replicator molecule has been discovered outside of a cell.  The ones that have been synthesized have been small.  Under perfect laboratory conditions, they replicate a few times and cease.  Most critically, when they are modified slightly (simulate mutation), they lose the ability to replicate.  Given that is the result of decades of research, it is hard to imagine a replicator molecule that morphed over eons to form RNA/DNA. 

[u196533]

Top down vs bottom up.  Telescope vs microscope.  Epistemological fundamentalism that says that bottom up and microscope is the one true way.  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

While I can respect that POV, my engineering background prevents me from completely sharing it.  However, as I get older I become more convinced that science is not a panacea.  There are just too many things that it can’t explain.  (The obvious ones:  Where did the energy in the Universe come from, How/Why did life form in defiance of entropy etc.) 
What really opens my mind are the wonders of living things.  There are dozens of amazing stories describing what animals do to survive or protect their offspring.  Some of the rituals are too elaborate for me to believe they are instinctive. One that blows my mind is that pregnant women often crave things that their fetus or they need.  Their conscience mind has no idea that the food they crave contains a certain mineral or property, or that their fetus needs that mineral or property.  They just know that they need to eat that particular food. 
It is ironic that the wonder and the awe that nature inspires is sometimes comforting.  (btw â€" I don’t think science/evolution will ever be able explain the full range of human emotions, and that thought makes me laugh.)

When you look at some aspects of human experience, and you using the reductionist POV ... then the god of the gaps is labeled vitalism and anthropomorphism.
I don’t see my argument above as god of the gaps.  I am not just pointing out a gap. I am pointing out something that defies the laws of physics.

[widdershins]

I don't think it is speculation at all.  I consider it a fact that at some point in the origin of life, primitive chemical systems had to seek out food.  It is also a fact that their collective atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy (which are the two main drives in chemistry) if they were to decompose.  So I am asking what I consider to be a basic question:  Why would they seek out food versus just dying?

I have asked that question since the 80s and never received an answer.

I don't know the answer to that.  I'm not a chemist or biologist and I won't pretend that I know enough about those subjects to give anything even resembling an informed answer.

But the "speculation" I was speaking of was the assumption that food "would have been cut off".  "Cut off" implies it's there or plentiful, then it's gone or scarce in a short period of time.  That is speculation.  It could have gradually decreased over long periods of time, forcing adaptation.  The only "fact" I can give you is that we don't know.  But I would argue that for something to "seek out food", which implies at least a primal instinctual effort, I would think at that point you're no longer talking about simple groups of molecules.  Perhaps nothing more complex than a virus, perhaps not even that complex, but certainly more complex then simple chemical machines by the point they were "seeking out" anything.

Vitalism and anthropomorphism are inappropriate explanations for the literature ignoring this obvious question.  If you do not believe in vitalism and actual anthropomorphism (I assume nobody here does),  you would want to explain this as a natural phenomenon using the laws of chemistry, physics etc.

I have come to the conclusion that science cannot answer this question.  If the question is not being asked in the literature, it aint gonna get answered. 

You have come to the wrong conclusion.  The conclusion that you should have come to is that science "has not answered" this question, not that it "can not answer" this question.  To be clear, science doesn't actually need to answer every question you might be able to pose.  It's not a crystal ball, it's an observation based method of discovery.  And if this question isn't being asked in the literature, why not?  The most likely explanation is that it's just not a good question.  It's like the Christian demanding a full description of the singularity before the expansion of the universe began.  We don't know.  We'll likely never know.  Your question is unanswerable.  In their case, that's intentionally because they often have this ignorant mindset that if science cannot give an answer, not only RIGHT NOW, not only delivered by the person they're talking to INSTEAD of someone qualified to answer them, but ALSO an answer that they will accept.  They have stacked the deck multiple ways to ensure absolutely that they won't get an answer which disagrees with them.  They only ask people who have no way of knowing, they demand the answer on the spot, giving them no time to gather information and, should the person know more than they expected, they reserve the right to reject any and all explanations, no matter how fact-based or logical, which they most certainly will.

And that's what you're sounding like with this question.  I don't know what your beliefs are.  I don't know if this is a question you actually want to understand or if you're happy that you've never gotten an explanation that you will accept.  I don't know if you really want answers or if this is just a desperate attempt to maintain a precarious grasp on a faith you live in constant fear of losing.  If you want answers, ask biologists.  Ask chemists.  And be prepared for "I don't know".  Whether you like the answer or not it IS a valid and honest answer.  It is infinitely better to get "I don't know" than to have someone make some shit up just to make you go away because then you walk away dumber for the misinformation you just demanded.

And if you don't want it to be answered, stop asking.  You'll only be happy if you don't get a viable answer anyway and if you keep asking a question which you don't want answered you may accidentally get an answer you can't dismiss some day.

Either way, that we can't answer this question you're demanding an answer to does not reveal any great "Aha!" about the origins of life.  All it reveals is that if you ask an extremely specific question on a very poorly understood subject people will likely not know the answer.  No, maybe science can't answer this question.  What does that mean?  Not what you apparently think it does.  It means the scientific process has too much integrity to simply make something up in order to shut you up about it.  It means that "discovery" requires "data" and, in the absence of data on a given subject, there can be no discovery.  Science can't determine what I had for breakfast on September 13, 1985.  Does that mean I didn't have breakfast that day?  What does it tell us about science that it can't answer even this simple, basic question?  It tells us that the question is stupid unanswerable.

[Baruch]

Top down vs bottom up.  Telescope vs microscope.  Epistemological fundamentalism that says that bottom up and microscope is the one true way.  If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

While I can respect that POV, my engineering background prevents me from completely sharing it.  However, as I get older I become more convinced that science is not a panacea.  There are just too many things that it can’t explain.  (The obvious ones:  Where did the energy in the Universe come from, How/Why did life form in defiance of entropy etc.) 
What really opens my mind are the wonders of living things.  There are dozens of amazing stories describing what animals do to survive or protect their offspring.  Some of the rituals are too elaborate for me to believe they are instinctive. One that blows my mind is that pregnant women often crave things that their fetus or they need.  Their conscience mind has no idea that the food they crave contains a certain mineral or property, or that their fetus needs that mineral or property.  They just know that they need to eat that particular food. 
It is ironic that the wonder and the awe that nature inspires is sometimes comforting.  (btw â€" I don’t think science/evolution will ever be able explain the full range of human emotions, and that thought makes me laugh.)

When you look at some aspects of human experience, and you using the reductionist POV ... then the god of the gaps is labeled vitalism and anthropomorphism.
I don’t see my argument above as god of the gaps.  I am not just pointing out a gap. I am pointing out something that defies the laws of physics.

There aren't any laws of physics, unless you agree that G-d wrote physics (as early scientists assumed).  There are recurring patterns, which to the extent they are recurring, and in their particular context, are reliable.  Otherwise you are talking Plato.  In my early adulthood, I was an engineer too.

[Mike Cl]

There aren't any laws of physics, unless you agree that G-d wrote physics (as early scientists assumed).  There are recurring patterns, which to the extent they are recurring, and in their particular context, are reliable.  Otherwise you are talking Plato.  In my early adulthood, I was an engineer too.

I am not and was not an engineer.  Not close.  But no laws of physics?  This is what I was taught about physical laws:

Several general properties of physical laws have been identified. Physical laws are:

True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
..Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.
..Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
..Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.
..Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate lawsâ€"see "Laws as approximations" below),
..Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).
..Generally conservative of quantity.
...Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time.
...Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible.

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens. (From Wiki)

[Unbeliever]

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Unless your name happens to be Maxwell, and your hammer is silver...

[u196533]

The conclusion that you should have come to is that science "has not answered" this question, not that it "can not answer" this question

I was trying to be subtle and ask questions, but that didn't work, so I'll be more direct. 
I was originally responding to a post from someone who was stating that abiogenesis is easy.  (Add water, chemicals, heat, still occasionally for a million years and Life.)  I think that person was mindlessly parroting something from Dawkins from 40 years ago before we knew anything about micro-biology.  It was so absurd, I had to comment.

In addition to pointing out that the scientific research does not support that claim, I also wanted to point out a huge flaw in that proposal.  Consider what I had previously stated as facts without any objection from anyone:  that at some point in the origin of life, primitive chemical systems had to seek out food.  It is also a fact that their collective atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy (which are the two main drives in chemistry) if they were to decompose.  It clearly follows that a chemical system increasing its energy and lowering its entropy via seeing energy/food violates the basic drives of chemistry/thermodynamics. That is kind of the definition of a supernatural event;  therefore science cannot answer it.

So it follows that either abiogenesis via replicator to RNA to primitive life did not happen, or it did not happen naturally.

[u196533]

There aren't any laws of physics, unless you agree that G-d wrote physics (as early scientists assumed).

I'll bite.  How does agreeing that God wrote physics make them laws? 

[marom1963]

Did the universe begin to exist at some point? Or has it always existed?

Science seems to be leaning in the direction of a single point of beginning for space, time and all matter. The moment when all this came into existence is known as the "Big Bang".

But why did this happen?

It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. And since the universe began to exist, the universe had a cause.

If this is true, then what more can we say about this cause?

If something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. As we have already agreed, the universe - the collection of beings in space and time - exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. Moreover, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe itself or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

So, given that the universe exists, we know that it had a cause which transcends both space and time.

And this transcendent cause is what we call "God".

In our experience, things require makers - but who says our experience is all encompassing? Why do things - or at least all things - require makers? It remains possible that some things do not require makers - the Universe might be just such a thing. We cannot know - nor can we assume. To assume that there simply had to be a maker of the Universe and then make up a maker is - silly. A maker that nobody can see, nobody can hear, that nobody can touch (at least nobody who is not in a rubber room on meds) does not count. Produce God - I do not care if he/she/it is no bigger than a flea: I want to see this necessary maker. Otherwise, there is no such being.

[Baruch]

The conclusion that you should have come to is that science "has not answered" this question, not that it "can not answer" this question

I was trying to be subtle and ask questions, but that didn't work, so I'll be more direct. 
I was originally responding to a post from someone who was stating that abiogenesis is easy.  (Add water, chemicals, heat, still occasionally for a million years and Life.)  I think that person was mindlessly parroting something from Dawkins from 40 years ago before we knew anything about micro-biology.  It was so absurd, I had to comment.

In addition to pointing out that the scientific research does not support that claim, I also wanted to point out a huge flaw in that proposal.  Consider what I had previously stated as facts without any objection from anyone:  that at some point in the origin of life, primitive chemical systems had to seek out food.  It is also a fact that their collective atoms would be in a lower state of energy and a higher state of entropy (which are the two main drives in chemistry) if they were to decompose.  It clearly follows that a chemical system increasing its energy and lowering its entropy via seeing energy/food violates the basic drives of chemistry/thermodynamics. That is kind of the definition of a supernatural event;  therefore science cannot answer it.

So it follows that either abiogenesis via replicator to RNA to primitive life did not happen, or it did not happen naturally.

This is an false dichotomy.  Either people are natural or they are not.  If people are not natural, then science can't explain them  If people are natural, then there is no problem.  Most people here choose the second, and I choose the first.  This is because I reject old Greek scripture ... aka Thales and Pythagoras.  They are the first ones to define "nature" ... aka how much can we explain without Greek gods.  The answer surprisingly turned out to be ... quite a lot.  Almost nobody believes in the Greek gods anymore ... unless we are talking about Thales and Pythagoras ;-)  I am no longer a part of their early Freemasonry.