Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

[u196533]

Those "facts" have not been disputed because the terms you used are completely undefined.  When you say "primitive chemical systems", are you talking about life forms or the precursors?  When you say "food", are you talking about simply chemical energy or complex organic materials?  When you say, "seek out" do you mean make a primal or conscious effort or simply "run across it or die"?

You tell me.  If you believe spontaneous abiogenesis happened, then it’s your story. 
I have pointed out a significant flaw in the origin of life narrative.  I understand that after over 100 years of research there is no empirical data to support the replicator molecule proposal.  I can accept that science just hasn’t cracked that code yet.  However, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone can at least provide a plausible story describing the transitions from replicator molecule to photosynthesis that a kid taking Chem 101 could not refute.

[SGOS]

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.

Evolution explains the development of self preservation.  "Development of self preservation" is the definition of evolution.  Things that preserve themselves don't need to have an awareness, motive, or some unknown force to self preserve.  They just happen to have organic or inorganic molecular structures that resist entropy.  Evolution is not complicated.  In fact, it's very simple.  It's a mistake to add unnecessary or irrelevant conditions to evolution.  People do that when they don't recognize the simplicity of it all. 

[widdershins]

Those "facts" have not been disputed because the terms you used are completely undefined.  When you say "primitive chemical systems", are you talking about life forms or the precursors?  When you say "food", are you talking about simply chemical energy or complex organic materials?  When you say, "seek out" do you mean make a primal or conscious effort or simply "run across it or die"?

You tell me.  If you believe spontaneous abiogenesis happened, then it’s your story. 
I have pointed out a significant flaw in the origin of life narrative.  I understand that after over 100 years of research there is no empirical data to support the replicator molecule proposal.  I can accept that science just hasn’t cracked that code yet.  However, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone can at least provide a plausible story describing the transitions from replicator molecule to photosynthesis that a kid taking Chem 101 could not refute.

I DON'T KNOW and I don't claim to know.  You have pointed out what you believe to be a significant flaw.  And a kid taking chem 101 is hardly qualified to "refute" scientific theories put forth by a majority of PhDs in the field, regardless what said kid thinks he knows.

If you think that your tiny bit of chemistry knowledge has lead to a monumental problem with a prevailing theory that all the PhDs in the world have missed, there is a MUCH greater chance that you're simply being arrogant in your ignorance than there is that you're actually onto something.  And THAT is my position.  Not that you're wrong, not that current theory about the origins of life is necessarily correct, just that you probably don't have anything intelligent to add to the conversation and neither do I.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You tell me.  If you believe spontaneous abiogenesis happened, then it’s your story. 
I have pointed out a significant flaw in the origin of life narrative.  I understand that after over 100 years of research there is no empirical data to support the replicator molecule proposal.  I can accept that science just hasn’t cracked that code yet.  However, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone can at least provide a plausible story describing the transitions from replicator molecule to photosynthesis that a kid taking Chem 101 could not refute.

Well, I have passed Chemistry 101 and I do not find that abiogenesis contradicts it. There is nothing in biochemistry that violates chemical laws. There is nothing about entropy that states that things cannot grow more complex, including chemicals. In fact, some ways of growing more complex do in fact increase overall entropy and are thus spontaneous.

If you think otherwise, then I think you need to re-take Chem 101, because you've obviously forgotten some of the basics.

[trdsf]

If you really think through the process that would have occurred over millions of years, it is not plausible for all of those reactions that consistently lowed entropy to have occurred without consistently taking on energy.  That has never been observed outside of life.

So you don't eat?  You consistently take on energy every single day of your life.  So, certainly, did the earliest proto-living molecules, whether chemically, kinetically, electromagnetically, whatever.

In any case, you're still basically saying, "it hasn't been explained yet and I can't figure it out myself, therefore it can't ever be explained by anyone."

[u196533]

So you don't eat?  You consistently take on energy every single day of your life.  So, certainly, did the earliest proto-living molecules, whether chemically, kinetically, electromagnetically, whatever.

In any case, you're still basically saying, "it hasn't been explained yet and I can't figure it out myself, therefore it can't ever be explained by anyone."

I am a sentient living being so I eat as an act of self preservation.   Reactions that increase energy and lower entropy do not happen spontaneously.  When the driving force behind a self ordering inorganic system is removed,  it ceases.  (e,g,  a candle flame,a hurricane, or a Bénard cell)   Yet you must think it  occurred in a successive molecules over millions of years. 
Since this problem is sidestepped and ignored, I can't imagine it ever being explained.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I am a sentient living being so I eat as an act of self preservation.   Reactions that increase energy and lower entropy do not happen spontaneously.  When the driving force behind a self ordering inorganic system is removed,  it ceases.  (e,g,  a candle flame,a hurricane, or a Bénard cell)   Yet you must think it  occurred in a successive molecules over millions of years. 
Since this problem is sidestepped and ignored, I can't imagine it ever being explained.

Again, you need to re-take Chemistry 101. There is no such reaction that always decreases entropy under all conditions. If there were, we couldn't know about it because such a reaction would never occur in the first place. At all. Because every reaction we have seen is spontaneous (entropy increasing) under some set of conditions â€"that's why they happen at allâ€" and the conditions around a reaction can change according to circumstance.

[u196533]

Because every reaction we have seen is spontaneous (entropy increasing) under some set of conditions

That is simply not true.  A brief refresher that I posted previously:

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. 

[Baruch]

Anthropomorphism still?  "It can be forced to occur" ... conditions of disequilibria exist, and they are temporary.  Such is mortality.  If we are caught outside in a snowstorm ... we either retain what heat we already have, or we find additional sources of heat.  Otherwise our puny efforts at local reversal of energy flow is in vain.  Do you wonder why after billions of years, any pockets of disequilibria exist?

The idea that there is one reality, and that it is reductionist ... isn't true.  The idea that atoms have "will" is ridiculous.  The idea that a magical combination of atoms will through epiphenomena have "will" is tendentious.  Atoms have no thought, no feeling, no will.  To understand people, you have to think top-down.  To understand physics, you have to think bottom-up.  Combining the two is water and oil.

So is reality all physics, and no humanity ... or is reality all humanity, and no physics?  Humans create physics, for their own purpose ... it is a tool, no different than a hammer, and we use it as a hammer of Nietzsche.  It is Plato that claims falsely, that there is a reality apart from humanity.  Where all triangles are perfect maths.

[marom1963]

Anthropomorphism still?  "It can be forced to occur" ... conditions of disequilibria exist, and they are temporary.  Such is mortality.  If we are caught outside in a snowstorm ... we either retain what heat we already have, or we find additional sources of heat.  Otherwise our puny efforts at local reversal of energy flow is in vain.  Do you wonder why after billions of years, any pockets of disequilibria exist?

The idea that there is one reality, and that it is reductionist ... isn't true.  The idea that atoms have "will" is ridiculous.  The idea that a magical combination of atoms will through epiphenomena have "will" is tendentious.  Atoms have no thought, no feeling, no will.  To understand people, you have to think top-down.  To understand physics, you have to think bottom-up.  Combining the two is water and oil.

So is reality all physics, and no humanity ... or is reality all humanity, and no physics?  Humans create physics, for their own purpose ... it is a tool, no different than a hammer, and we use it as a hammer of Nietzsche.  It is Plato that claims falsely, that there is a reality apart from humanity.  Where all triangles are perfect maths.

Plato was an idiot. PM me. I have something that I think you might like - if you're interested.

[Hakurei Reimu]

<snip completely missing the point>

The big thing you are consistently missing here is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics applies to systems, not individual objects. The systems in play dictate what an increase in entropy means, and what a change in energy means. These things will vary widely given sufficiently different conditions, because energy depends on the forces involved, so if you put the system under different forces, the energy considerations will change. Entropy depends on the microstates available to the system, which will again depend on those conditions.

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.

The various preservation techniques derived around the world put lie to this. It is demonstrably false that you will decay as soon as your energy input is cut off, as indicated by the fact that you can preserve food (or people) in a fridge or by drying them out, and will keep for a very long time (thousands of years) provided you keep them cold or dry. Decomposition is actually carried out by life. It doesn't happen spontaneously; it happens because bacteria are eating you.

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.

And you have just proven that you are no position at all to lecture me on thermodynamic and chemical laws.    There has been no instance where these "basic drives" has ever been observed to be defied, even in living organisms. No, living organisms don't defy the "basic drives" (laws) of chemistry and thermodynamics. In fact, life as we know it is driven by those self-same laws, albeit applied in clever ways that look to all the world as if they were designed for the purpose. Your body will shut down if the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics were repealed.

The laws have never been defied or contradicted, even in living organisms, though they are often misunderstood, as you clearly have.

That is exactly equivalent to the gas in a balloon compressing itself. 

Bullshit. There's no energy input for a gas in a balloon compressing itself, but living beings all have some sort of energy input. That makes all the difference in the world.

[PopeyesPappy]

A couple of relative papers who's authors don't believe that abiogenesis violates thermodynamics.

Thermodynamic dissipation theory for the origin of life

Statistical physics of self-replication

Can't get the link for the PDF of the second paper to work so you'll have to download the paper yourself from the link above. It is relative to this discussion that the second paper is published in the Journal of Chemical Physics. If you don't have time for the papers read A New Physics Theory of Life. It is as article from Quanta Magazine about Jeremy England the author of the second paper.

[u196533]

I understand that within a system some elements can release energy and increase energy while others can do the reverse.  That’s how energetic molecules such as ATP are created.  In a Goldilock’s environment, it is certainly possible for molecules to “ratchet up” their energy and lose entropy. Their activation energy keeps them from breaking down.   However over time, as they move further from equilibrium they become unstable (like nucleic acids).  They will breakdown and release their energy as soon activation energy is reached.  It is not conceivable for a process to continue to increase the energy and decrease the energy of a molecule for millions of years in an uncontrolled environment.  At some point in the process of abiogensis, self-preservation had to have developed in those molecules if that occurred.   

No, living organisms don't defy the "basic drives" (laws) of chemistry and thermodynamics.
I said defy, not violate.  There is nothing that prevents living things from seeking energy to maintain our low entropy.  Living things are able to defy the drive toward equilibrium (lower energy and higher entropy) via self-preservation.  I am talking about pre-biotic molecules, and I don’t think self-preservation can be explained in simple chemicals.

It is demonstrably false that you will decay as soon as your energy input is cut off, as indicated by the fact that you can preserve food (or people) in a fridge or by drying them out, and will keep for a very long time (thousands of years) provided you keep them cold or dry.
Soon after we die, the cellular machinery decomposes.  The unstable molecules such as ATP breakdown, enzymes normally used as catalysts breakdown other molecules etc.  Bacteria certainly completes decomposition, but once you cut of the energy supply, cells breakdown.

[u196533]

I am familiar with the thermodynamic dissipation theory.  It is interesting, and if there is some breakthrough in that arena I would likely change my views.  (I am not religious, so I don’t have much emotional attachment to these ideas.)  However, that theory has been floating around for a few years, and I am not aware of any empirical experiments and data to support it yet. 
I am skeptical for a few reasons.  If that were true, we would see much more self-organization and energy dissipation in inorganic things.  If it were true, why would animals evolve that consume the plants that dissipate the energy from the sun?  How would life spring up in places with little energy/heat?

I read the other article.  (It takes a while to get through that.)  I missed the relevance.

[PopeyesPappy]

I missed the relevance.

Of which link?