I have no idea what your words are supposed to mean.

You need to clarify.

Hi Aryamoy Mitra

You are again resorting to relative measures, which can be subject to many unknown influences - including your supposition that your measurements of distance between these objects is accurate - which you cannot know.

You may be correct, but your theory still lacks firm evidence to discount the more natural observation based on an undisputed absolute - the width of the universe. For the moment - that's where I place my preferences.

Valid for what? — tim wood

A logically viable explanation.

As T Clark suggests, we should acknowledge proven undisputed evidence, and then distinguish it from theory and speculation. All are fine so long as we recognise what each element represents.

Science is confident about the minimum size of the universe today in absolute terms. It is also confident about what the speed of light can achieve in normal circumstances today. Clearly the maths which T Clark pointed out is self explanatory if you believe in the Big Bang. The universe must, in absolute terms, have expanded faster than the recognised maximum speed of light.

As I have pointed out in other threads, the principle that 'the speed of light was the maximum that could ever be achieved', was and remains speculation. It's not been a bad supposition for our limited circumstances and for our development of such things as atomic energy, but that doesn't have to extend to the cosmos.
When the evidence clearly says that, in certain conditions, it must be possible to travel faster than the speed of light in absolute terms, then we are fools to ignore it.

Indeed, in this respect, relativity is open to too many variables to provide a comment on this - when by its nature, any 'absolute factor' must take precedence over relative readings. The width of the universe is such an absolute - and a figure that wasn't available to Einstein.

The inflation of space was a notion dreamt up purely to preserve the notion of a fixed value for the speed of light as currently measured. It has no evidence to support it and only exists to preserve doctrine over substance.

The conversations on this thread have also blurred a number of other factors.

There is a difference between:- material moving outwards; a shock wave; and space itself expanding.

I feel that in normal language, suggestions of a shock wave would need some medium in which to generate the wave, (as others have suggested). You may argue that Dark Energy might constitute that wave, but Dark Energy is just theory and has no physical evidence to support it either. So it may not be correct - and I give an example of a simple alternate theory below.

However, for the moment, I'd like to set the context for all potential explanations. The 9 year results of the WMAP programme clearly stated that the dimensional lines run straight and are not bent as far as we can tell. Therefore by implication, they run to infinity and so space itself may genuinely be infinite.

Whether that means that space is 'something' rather than emptiness is hard to fathom. Finipolscie speculated that space may represent the framework for existence - quite apart from any material or energy that might occupy it.

His logic was along the following lines :-

If you were on the leading edge of the expanding material from the Big Bang and could see a location ahead of you which you can identify and move towards, then that space must exist in some form. He also pointed out various ideas that say there are a small number of core factors in existence which shape everything else. I think he said there were 6 - which he likened to settings on the 'control panel which governed the rules of existence'.

I have found other authors who make the same point. There 6 parameters, and each of them could, theoretically, have had any of a whole range of settings - each potentially resulting in very different manifestations of the universe..... but why they settled on the settings that they did, is unknown.

However we are also unsure of what makes existence conform to those settings, and therefore we speculate about a framework for existence, although we don't know how it might be imposed. It is this which suggests that space may be more than simply 'location' - and not just the material or unidentified Dark Energy which may occupy it.

The idea of Dark Energy was entirely driven by the finding that the redshift was increasing - from which people assumed that the expansion was accelerating. However, there is no need for Dark Energy if the original Bang-Crunch model of the universe is applied fully.

Think about it. The increasing redshift could just mean that we have entered the crunch part of the cycle in which case, Gravity would be causing that acceleration - there would be no need for Dark Energy.

As I said - CERN believes that it has uncovered proof of a new (5th ) force in nature.
I first heard about it on the BBC - but here's another article from a quick search of the web.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/evidence-emerges-of-brand-new-force-of-nature-at-cern-1.5360051

Many of the scientific results that appear to break known scientific principles could easily be explained by missing factors such as a different type of stuff that underpins existence and any associated force which it might exert. Here we have evidence for the existence of the force.

That is why I was excited by the recent preliminary findings from CERN, about a 5th force in nature that was previously unknown.
— Gary Enfield

Can you provide a link or summary please? — Pop

My pleasure - here's two:-

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/evidence-emerges-of-brand-new-force-of-nature-at-cern-1.5360051

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/23/large-hadron-collider-scientists-particle-physics


A lot of experimental results that seem to break the Laws of Physics, can either be explained by ridiculous notions that desperately try to preserve scientific doctrine over common sense, or we can accept simpler and more obvious possibilities - that other factors (forces and, by implication, other types of stuff), might exist.

The CERN findings are perhaps the first scientifically undeniable proof that other factors do exist.... which may ultimately, in turn, lead to potential explanations for consciousness etc.

When new fundamental aspects of nature are uncovered we need to investigate the properties of those things - which will inevitably open up new potential, without having to junk our hard-won understanding of Matter/Energy, as it is proven to work in the totality of our experiences.

Hi Aryamoy Mitra

There is a place for relativity, and it is a good place, but it is a toolset like any other and it must always be compared to absolute values if they are available, as a means of calibration and verification. That is the case here.

Nobody is discounting the contribution of Einstein, but I'm sure that he would also acknowledge the basics in this case.

So I say again....

...if you wish to contradict the fundamental definition of 'Distance divided by Time = Speed' then the emphasis is not on me to uphold the basic truth of the definition - but on you and others to prove that the 'inflation of space' is real... in order to simply preserve a fixed C.

Steven Hawking and all other serious commentators have said that this basic truth is problematic.... and they weren't kidding.

The evidence is on my side guys.... and Gisin's experiment only reinforces it.

Hi Pop

I think there is a misunderstanding about Dualism here.

If the 2 main monist views are either that :-

a) there is only physical Matter/Energy (Materialism) or
b) there is only Thought (Idealism) which can fashion our imaginings and give a perception of solidity,

then an' information layer' as you describe it, which shapes everything, is either close to the Idealist view, or a full embodiment of the Dualist perspective.

Materialists are not dualists.

Pop

As you will have gathered from my other posts, I do believe that various effects in nature, (beyond any man-made influence), point towards some basic levels of awareness, control, and even consciousness which in turn suggest some additional factors in existence that have not yet been explained by the official models of science.

That is why I was excited by the recent preliminary findings from CERN, about a 5th force in nature that was previously unknown.

However it is not clear that those unexplained 'awareness' influences were present from the start of the Big Bang, or evolved from Matter/Energy at some point later.

However, materialism/determinism does have a large degree of validity within purely physical realms, and those who say that such principles apply to everything, may yet discover evidence that proves them right.

I do like that you have been trying to narrow-in on base factors that may resolve some of these issues, but you lack evidence which would disprove other possibilities, and have an inclination to follow the option of an 'information layer' even if that isn't proven.

A lot of organisation in the universe, including shapes, has been explained through physical factors, including competing energies/forces. Your leap to an information layer of existence, (plus some factor that can rationalise and shape it), may be true - but it is a big leap none-the-less, given the level of evidence available.

Hi All

Your examples are based on relative positions rather than absolute ones - and as a result are subject to various potential distortions.

That is why I prefer to stay with the basics in absolute terms.

If there was Big Bang from a singularity at a point in space, and the Universe is now at least 98bn light years across after a period of 13.7 billion years from the big bang, then distance divided by time gives speed - and that says matter/energy in the universe travelled faster than the standard speed of light to get there.

That fundamental relationship between distance, time, and speed is more believable than some notion that you can preserve a fixed C by inflating space - for which there is absolutely no evidence.

If you wish to contradict the basics of distance divided by time = speed then the emphasis is not on me to uphold the basic truth of the definition - but on you and others to prove that the inflation of space is real... in order to simply preserve a fixed C.

Steven Hawking and all other serious commentators have said that this basic truth is problematic.... and they weren't kidding.

The evidence is on my side guys.... and Gisin's experiment only reinforces it.

In short - no I don't find it convincing. It may be that I missed some point in your very complex post, but the gist seems to again be playing to some of the standard misconceptions.

A lot of the ridiculous theorising (eg. wave - particle duality) is formulated to preserve certain principles over others, when there is no basis for choosing one over another. The whole principle of wave particle duality breaks every other thing that we know about matter/energy. So why are physicists so keen to embrace this nonsense?

To my mind it is there to simply preserve the philosophy that there is only one type of stuff that underpins existence, even when various experiments now show that this is ever-more unlikely.

Yes - it has been well known for some time that some of the permutations of the double slit experiment (eg. quantum eraser experiments), have led to bizarre findings - but they are only bizarre in the context of the assumptions that rule out other considerations.

Why do we have go into such bizarre territory as wave-particle duality when there is an obvious possibility that would explain everything we know in standard ways, instead of contradicting everything we know?

As Finipolscie said, all normal descriptions of 'a wave' occur when an object (eg particle) travels through a pool of other stuff.... like a train through air, or a ship through water. It is the air and the water which produced the wave... not the train or the boat, which never transform into a wave. Yet wave-particle duality is effectively saying that it is the train or boat which miraculously transforms into a wave and back again for no apparent reason - yet with perfect timing and co-ordination. It's nonsense.

But if you follow the logic of undisputed reality - if another hidden pool of stuff/energy is present, and a particle passing through this stuff creates & rides the waves in this hidden pool, then all results from all experiments are easily explained.

Yet scientists won't go there, because they are not prepared to accept the possibility of a 2nd type of stuff underpinning reality. They even prefer the absurdity of wave particle duality rather than admit that simple option!

By refusing to budge from established theory, scientists are falling into the same trap as as religious zealots - denying new evidence to preserve the false gods of the past while trying to smear and destroy those who dare to suggest anything else.

For this reason, it was refreshing to hear from CERN this week, that they may grudgingly have to admit that another previously unknown force may exist in nature. This may fit in with the long term concerns about our inability to detect something that should be everywhere - and in profusion - Dark Energy.

Perhaps now some basic common sense may re-assert itself and some of these observations may start pointing us towards a more simple and believable possibility. There are other basic factors underpinning existence than the official models currently acknowledge.

Pop / Adughep

I am still unclear about what you are saying. Perhaps you are trying to say that information is a distinct thing in its own right and that consciousness is merely an expression of this underlying information.

If that is really what you're saying then I think that is a big leap - even if it may be one form of the Idealist perspective - which tended to use Thought instead of information.

I did not perceive that overlapping energy waves were necessarily information.
They could just as easily be a quick way to explore possibilities to find the most stable form/combination of physical things, quickly.

Put another way, there is nothing to suggest that physical existence is dependent on such an information base - and if Matter/Energy can exist independently then there is no basic requirement for an information layer to existence.

In the same way that a car collision detector can be aware that 2 objects have collided, it is possible in physical terms, to have a level of awareness without consciousness or information. Hence the need for more simple building blocks - based on purely physical mechanisms - not information.

However if you are then saying that some emergent property can develop an information capability from some sort of physical interaction, then I would point out that there is still a difference between stats and facts vs interpretation and purpose - which you are implying by suggestions of self organisation.

Tim / Aryamoy Mitra

I gave my understanding with several examples which did include evidence and rationale.
You may not like them, but unless you can show they are not correct, they remain a valid interpretation in their own right. I don't need to cite anyone else.

The only reason why you feel that C remains insurmountable is through your choice to believe it - despite the evidence I gave.

A fixed C was always a presumption, and now that the evidence exists to question that assumption, various people have tried to distort the basic facts in the hope that it might preserve their treasured belief in an insurmountable C instead of accepting another, more simple possibility - that it is possible in certain circumstances to go faster than light.

I really don't see why faster than light possibilities are such a feared thing to consider.

The video which Tim suggested, does present such a distortion to preserve C by arguing, without evidence, that space is expanding - what more do I need to say? There is no proof that space is expanding.

Even if you truly believe that space does expand, something must be causing it to expand, and the combined effect of thrust and expansion would be what makes things travel faster than light in absolute terms compared to the point of origin. I don't see how you can deny that.

The rest of us do what scientists always should do - re-consider the new evidence to see if it requires us to change our understanding. Many people, including Gisin and several cosmologists are suggesting that the speed of light could be different in certain circumstances.

Hi Both

the video which Tim provided is, I think, flawed, because it mixes concepts and ignores the basics.

Firstly, the guy talks about space expanding, when space is probably not expanding - but the objects within it are just spreading out. That is an important difference. (If space were truly expanding, the objects within it would also be expanding/swelling - and they're not).

Secondly, he layers 'Dark Energy' on top, (when it is no more than a concept that is not proven, and just a theoretical way to plug a gap in our understanding based on the strengthening redshift of galaxies - which can be interpreted in other ways). He then says that the combination increases the spread beyond what it was before.

The overall effect is still that things had to travel faster than the speed of light to get from the Big Bang point, to the extremities of what we can see and theorize about in the universe, in absolute terms. Nobody knows how big the Universe is because we can't see its outer limits (if indeed, there are any).

I could add that the notion of curved space has also been largely disproven by the 9 year results of the WMAP programme which concluded, (with a small margin of error), that the dimensional lines are straight and therefore that space is potentially infinite.

I feel that the best way to think about things is that the most distant objects we can see are in a place where they existed 13billion years ago, not the present day. We are also in the middle of the expansion, and because we are surrounded by material evenly on all sides, it is logical to assume that if there was a Big Bang, (which also seems likely), that the material emitted before us came out faster than us, and the material that came out after us, was travelling more slowly.

That being the case, if you try to argue that the speed of light is the maximum that anything could go (also just a theory), then we are still faced with the dilemma that the universe shouldn't be more than 27.4 billon light years across, no matter what.

However the announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about!
— Gary Enfield

I cant see anything on their website? — Pop

Pop - I got it from the BBC headlines.

Pop & Adughep

Looking over your recent posts there was a strong emphasis on the nature of consciousness and the way in which the underlying, but unknown, mechanisms which might create it, influence the development of life.

Can I ask that when delving into that subject, you separate the factors which existed before the first cell (first life as we know it), from the evolutionary developments that occurred afterwards? I find it very confusing when the two are blurred.

Almost everyone accepts evolution as a process of change and increasing complexity, once the first cell existed - but things must be very different before life - without an alternate evolutionary mechanism - just basic chemistry (with lightning or without it).

The scientific method is always to try and break processes down into their fundamental components, and people have, in their different ways, distinguished between factors that might combine to generate consciousness. I felt that your discussion was weakened by treating consciousness as a single thing.

Finipolscie talks of 3 components - Awareness, Control, and Thought.
I think he settled on these three because they are all scalable, and seem to reflect different properties that could potentially be attempted by mechanical/chemical processes.
Other authors may find different ways to sub-divide consciousness, but ultimately an explanation must be found in the basic processes of nature.... and I don't see you focusing-in on what the necessary base-level requirements might be.

Whether you go via interacting energy waves or some sort of influence from this new force, what do you hope it/they would bring to the party?

Hi Becky

“ Electrical sparks simulated lightning to provide energy. In only about a week’s time, this simple apparatus caused chemical reactions that produced a variety of organic molecules, some of which are the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids” https://bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu/module-1-evolution/origin-of-life/ — Becky

They’ve actually been able to create cells from inorganic “Scientists in Scotland say they have taken their first tentative steps towards creating 'life' from inorganic chemicals potentially defining the new area of 'inorganic biology'.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm — Becky

Hi Becky - as has been mentioned elsewhere in this topic, the variants of Stanley Miller's experiments have never achieved all of the necessary Amino Acids from one original chemical mix, and literally NONE of the necessary nucleotides have been produced. From this you can't even construct a single protein, let alone an entire cell with all of its complexity.

That argument still holds true for the experiments in Glasgow, if you read the article. They are hoping for breakthroughs but are not even close yet.... and similar experiments have been attempted for decades.

The difficulty that you face with your argument from base chemicals is that there is always a conceptual point for which no chemical solution can be expected, because the issues break the principles of Matter/Energy as we know them - from codes, to control, to a direction for evolution.... the things that you didn't discuss.

This is why Pop and Adughep are talking about controlling influences similar to consciousness.

The newly discovered force may help to introduce a missing factor into the mix, but in the meantime do you have any thoughts on the difficult bits?

Counterpunch -

I see that you are resorting to a 2019 clip by a disgruntled scientist whose only comment is that he believes that CERN is looking in the wrong place - while ignoring the discovery of the Higgs Boson, as well as the current discovery - neither of which seen to be being challenged by the scientific community....

To answer your actual question in the OP....

No, equations to not tend to prove anything. Equations merely try to describe what is observed.

They may provide a theoretical explanation at best, but the only thing which acts as proof is evidence and examples in the real world.

The two basic examples which break the principle that the speed of light is the fastest speed that anything can travel are:-

1 - the size of the universe, which on current estimates is more than 98bn light years across - and therefore more than 4 times the widest spread that could be achieved by an exploding singularity at the speed of light.

2 - the faster than light experiments conducted by Nicolas Gisin across lake Geneva which demonstrated that particles of light travelling away from each other in opposite directions (twice the speed of light) were still able to communicate instantly - (or technically, at least 10,000 times the speed of light).

The fact that your equations can't cope with this means that they are not proof of reality.

The announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force in nature, exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of the missing factor that could explain everything we have been talking about!

The announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force in nature, exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of the missing factor that could explain everything we have been talking about!

Apologies to all for not being part of the debate recently.
For some reason my system did not update for your messages over several days and I had assumed that the subject had gone cold.

I still need to read all of the posts - but from the early ones which I saw, I would like to say that the 'self-organisation' of chemical elements into molecules as complex as Amino Acids, was always portrayed by materialists as a purely inevitable result of their chemical structure and the energy levels within the molecule that forced other elements to come in and fill the appropriate gaps.

That always seemed, to me, to leave a step in the conceptual logic unanswered:- ie. why other elements didn't fill certain gaps in the molecule, instead of the same chemicals for Amino Acids each time.

If we add to that, the continuing questions about the source of the unexplained observations from nature and lab experiments, that cause seemingly impossible effects within the confines of matter/energy alone, then it seemed to me that there was at least one factor missing in our equations. That in turn might be the missing factor/influence for crude awareness, all the way to the Mind and Consciousness.

Technically such a suggestion made me a 'dualist', even though I didn't necessarily attribute god-like status to the missing factor, and I was thinking of something more mundane.

However the announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of that missing factor to explain everything we have been talking about!

Hi Josh S

Thanks for the quote - it must have taken a while to copy out.
I haven't seen it before, but I think Goodman is mixing concepts with no sense of ideological discipline.

He is not recognising the distinction between things that are conceptual and relative vs physical and definable. He evens transitions from where something is, to whether is it an object or not - without logic or context.

I think he is just trying to justify a need for meaning when things might exist without any meaning.

Equally, I do not see how my statement is invalidated. If something is a fact then it is not in dispute and can be something 'firm' around which we can hang interpretation and meaning.

I stand by my comment that "if someone chooses to place a different interpretation on the same facts, the facts haven't changed".

Hi Pop and Adughep

One day soon, Sutherland says, someone will fill a container with a mix of primordial chemicals, keep it under the right conditions, and watch life emerge. “That experiment will be done.” — Pop

Just because Sutherland says it, doesn't make it true.
People have been trying since the 1950s and Stanley Miller's first experiment. They have tried different mixes, different heat, and different re-activity agents - all failed spectacularly to even make all of the necessary amino acids.
As I said before. I think you are better at making your own points with your own preferred & specific evidence, rather than quoting dubious sources.

I would also say that the problem in expanding your 'evolutionary test bed' to the whole of the universe is that the distances are too great, and the conditions too extreme in deep space, to allow anything living to survive for the period and circumstances required to get to our Earth.

I personally feel that if the conditions here were the only ones suitable for life to emerge, within many light years of distance, then you basically have to start your speculation about the emergence of life with processes here - and within the timeframes that science has identified for our solar system and planet.

I fundamentally disagree with you about the nature of evolution. I do not see how you can equate cooling rocks, (which just lose energy), with a process of replication and increasing technical complexity. Magma does not replicate anything. Nor does it become more sophisticated. And while chemistry alone can explain the organisation demonstrated by the formation of crystals; and the nuclear process of suns can forge sub-atomic particles into bigger natural formations, I don't see self-organisation in the sense you imply, before the living cell.

At best, chemicals will make one-off arbitrary changes based on reactions that will occur if they come into contact with other chemicals. Until they achieve a viable level of complexity within the timeframes, they will not create any form of ongoing process for life as we understand it.... unless you have another mechanism to hand.

Put another way - if you wish to keep your timeframes reasonable they can't be based on chance encounters, and simply saying that the universe self-organizes without any process to do so, (other than the inevitable mechanics of chemistry), takes us nowhere that materialists haven't been before.

To limit evolution to animate matter suggests a predisposition to a dualistic understanding where life is something separate to the rest of the universe, rather then a monistic understanding of how elements of the universe evolve to life. — Pop

While I suppose I do incline towards a loose dualistic interpretation, it is because certain facts break other models of existence in some fundamental respects. In basic terms - if one type of stuff can't do it, then you either need to change the definition of that stuff, or you need at least two types of stuff.

However, I really wouldn't mind if there was a monist explanation based on physical matter - but if we are being honest about things, the idealist concepts (even if you look at Metaphysical Solipsism), are probably the ones which come closest to a full monist view.

Frankly I am just looking for something potentially viable, rather than philosophical point scoring.
What I dislike are exponents of certain philosophies that deny evidence which counters their preferred view.

If you can explain your concept of self organisation in any other way than chemistry, but within Matter/Energy, then fine we can bring things within a monist outlook - but at the moment you have some big gaps in the thinking which you have articulated here.

Hi Enrique

No matter what TClark tries to imply - no mechanism even vaguely exists within these explanations. It is just wishful thinking that something might emerge in future that conforms to your principles. Yet a splitting membrane does nothing for DNA replication - which is the real issue.

There have been several theories about the nature of the first membrane and there are several simple ones which begin with fatty globules - but strategically they all have to encompass the right machinery which must be one that is already self-contained once it is encompassed.... because there would be little scope for interaction afterwards.

I do agree that some intermediate steps might be possible before the first cell as we know it.
I also agree that we don't know what those steps might be.
I also agree that the residues on the rocks might not be evidence of the first cells - although you are the first person I have come across who is prepared to put that in writing.

However, if those residues are not evidence of the first cell, it would suggest to most people that the origin of life on earth took a lot longer than 100m years. I'm not sure where that would leave us, as it would mean that a driving process was less evident.

But the point I was originally making was that you need the first cell for all of the other evolutionary steps you mentioned.

The trouble with dismissing the emphasis on Amino Acids and Nucleotides is that those chemicals remain part of the only mechanism that is known to work, and as some Amino Acids do form spontaneously, it is hard to imagine that something would 'strive to achieve' other forms through some 3rd evolutionary process. Put another way, I can only imagine that natural processes working towards the first replication mechanism, would use things that exist, not things that have yet to be developed.

People have done lots of research on nucleotides and nucleobases as the primordial 'starter points' for RNA and nothing comes close to a replication mechanism. Dismissing them is wishful thinking until you can find an alternate mechanism.

I am quite prepared to accept another viable alternate mechanism for replication and evolution - but the killer for me is that materialists can offer no mechanism for providing an evolutionary direction even if they do come up with a 2nd means of replication .... as I posted in the OP.

Crude mechanisms for awareness outside the strictures of physical Matter might be one avenue - as Agudhep pointed out - whether it is by interacting energy waves or something else. But most materialists are not prepared to go there as yet.

Your vision has too many gaps. We need materialist thinking to plug a few, rather than deny the gaps exist..

Tom

I find myself agreeing with your point about terminology, but my gut instinct is that materialists won't accept any evidence that apparently contradicts their view, no matter how you label it. They are in denial.

That is why I prefer to emphasize issues, rather than labels.

If we are honest about the issues, we may begin to work towards a solution.

Hi Tom Storm

Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing? — Tom Storm

I think that part of the problem here is how you define 'spiritual'.
I find that most materialist label things as spiritual when examples fall outside the abilities of Matter/Energy, and they want to smear a person rather than answer the points being raised.

I believe that I have given examples. As I have pointed out several times, the actions of motor proteins when transporting cargo in containers (vessicles) from a place of manufacture in a cell to another place where they can be used in a cell, across an ever changing structure and road network, is one of the great mysteries. The control factor seems to defy explanation by chemical means and so the computing/logical ability has been labelled as spiritual by materialists wanting to avoid the issue.

I have given another example in the actions of a small number of enzymes repairing DNA in a process labelled Homologous Recombination. As there are again no chemical explanations for what we see, materialists have again tried to dismiss the evidence as wild notions of spirituality, instead of acknowledging the issue, and considering possibilities beyond Matter/Energy.

Adughep was brave enough to look for practical solutions to this. Would interacting energy waves represent spirituality in your book?

Hi Present Awareness

quantum fluctuations split no energy into equal ammounts of positive and negative energy
— scientia de summis

One may not split zero into anything, because by it’s very definition, zero energy means that there is no energy there to split.

When you talk about quantum fluctuations, you are talking about “something” whereas I’m talking about “nothing”. — Present awareness

I think there is potentially a good debate here, because various famous names including Steven Hawking, have offered the 'splitting of nothingness into matter and anti-matter' as a way to have spontaneous creation, (seemingly out of nothing), but in a way that preserves the balance of mathematical equations. They do this because they struggle, like everyone else, with matter of origin.

What I don't see, is how this relates to the subject here. If you wish to pursue it, can you either explain how it is relevant here, or set-up a new discussion thread? Thanks.

Hi JoshS

So there no such thing as a fact in itself independent of a particular interpretation. Change the interpretation and you change the fact. — Joshs

I'm sorry but I think that is just plain wrong.
If you have an experiment that (say) mixes two chemicals under certain precise conditions, and you then measure the outputs - identifying any new and residual molecules and their quantities, then the results of the experiment are facts that need no interpretation. They stand alone, because that's what happened.

If we then choose to put an interpretation on them, then fine. To that extent, we are agreed that interpretations do change quite regularly.

But if someone chooses to place a different interpretation on the same facts, the facts haven't changed.

This seems particularly true in the realm of QM where there are lots of recorded facts and a lot of very wild theories/interpretations to try to make sense of them. But it is also very true of the analysis of life - the subject of this thread. That is why I am keen to establish facts that we can all use to test 'the next explanation' and be clear about what a new theory has to satisfy.

Hi Adughep

I think that your post deviated from the initial theme of water quite a bit, and you diverted onto....

animal or plant "conscience" — Adughep

.... by which I think you meant consciousness.

You made a number of points that some people may find rather weird, but I think you touch on some interesting ideas.... if I try to put the gist of what you said into my language.

The nature of consciousness and awareness has not been established by science, and yet we know that they exist in creatures like ourselves - so they are not fantasy. I have also given several examples where single celled creatures without a brain, and individual molecules within cells, can seemingly exhibit properties of logic and awareness.

It may well be that the factor which enables any consciousness can be applied at any level of existence, but with different levels of sophistication.

If so, then your point about interacting energy waves might be one way to explain it. Over time, there would be no reason why the crudest mechanism of interacting energy waves might become more sophisticated and evolve in a separate manner over time. It is one of many possible theories. However you need specific examples to give substance to your ideas if they are to be taken seriously.

We enter the realms of high philosophy if we try to debate whether a conscious influence, (even a very mild one, that is driven by interacting energy waves), came before physical matter.

However, I don't see the point in such a debate unless you want to try to prove the existence of God within interacting energy waves.

I would suggest that all you would need to argue is that the two influences were interacting with each other.

Hi Pop

To say that evolution acts only on animate matter implies evolution has an ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate matter. Is this what you are suggesting? — Pop

I didn't say that - indeed I think that in various posts I said quite the opposite.
I said that evolution was only possible when the mechanism got going - and the only known mechanism ever, is the living cell.

I also made the point that Darwin and Dawkins both invoke survival and 'positive selection' as a means of accelerating and guiding evolution in a certain direction. Both would seem to require a degree of Thought or Awareness as part of the process... and to date, people have only associated those things with full living entities - whether individual cells or group of cells.

" there is only one known mechanism in the whole of existence - the living cell"

That is not so. A living cell is self organizing, but so is any random group of elements within a membrane. That they self organize is a mechanism - an omnipresent mechanism acting on everything in pockets of the universe that are not chaotic. So I think this is where you should start your enquiry. — Pop

Your quote misses the context of the earlier sentence. What I said in total was that the only known mechanism for evolution in the universe was the living cell.... and that is correct as far as I know.

I didn't say that they were the only things to self-organise - although your membrane example wasn't strong in my opinion.

Many membranes are either made of living cells, or they are pure chemicals/fats which have been generated by the cells. It is the cells that evolve not the membranes per-se.

A living cell may be a highly evolved version of a random group of elements within a cell - I'm not saying I can prove this, but this is one of the possibilities. If the right elements found themselves trapped in a cell and had to self organize, life may well emerge - in the right situation, at the right time. — Pop

I think you may need to re-phrase this as, at headline level, I can't see how a cell be something within a cell. Perhaps you meant that the elements finding themselves in a cell spontaneously self-organise?

Again, you need to provide specific examples because I know that many materialists will say that the chemical paths which undertake the tasks of metabolism and reproduction, conform to a fixed template and follow a sequence that is self-regulating because of the set structures in which they operate (whether membrane channels, or the structure of catalysts and other proteins which act on each other in fixed ways).

This avoids the question of how such structures came about (which is part of the emergence of life) yet you will know that in various posts made by me, I have given specific examples where molecules vary their actions in response to dynamic situations that would seem to break any static chemical make-up. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry say that they should only work one way - but they don't.

However, returning to your point, I am absolutely sure that no matter how long you left them, if you put all the elements that make up a living being in a container, they would probably never make a living entity.

Again - Stanley Miller tried this in the 1950s and just got 5 Amino Acids after decades of waiting, (the same 5 Amino Acids he had achieved within the first 2 weeks of his experiment). Later chemical analysis on the residues from his experiment showed the presence of a few more Amino Acids, but it was suspected that this might be down to contamination.

Other experiments that applied different, more reactive mixes, got more Amino Acids, but never a complete set necessary for life.

The point is, that I feel that chemistry has been shown to fold molecules and position their atoms in particular ways/places because of their sizes and energy levels. This seems to be what happens with crystals and a small number of molecules with a degree of complexity. We also know that gravity can pull material together and this can lead to the formation of new heavier atoms in stars.

However, when you talk about self-organisation, and even information-based activity in the natural world, you seem to be making bigger claims than just chemistry and energy levels, but I can only see your statements. I do not see the underlying examples and logic of what you mean by it. Responding to you without a specific context and examples is difficult, if not impossible.

Hi JoshS

When an experiment produces results, those results become a fact that has to be explained. Other than discovering error or fraud in the reporting of measurements etc., those facts become a permanent and unchanging record - and every relevant fact must therefore be accommodated within any explanation.

How we interpret facts is ever changing as new philosophical ideas emerge - but the facts themselves don't change and it is both misleading and dishonest to only incorporate some facts when presenting a theory. All theories are born out of philosophies that are then applied to facts.

An explanation of facts can lead us to a concept of what may be occurring and we can be so familiar with some theories that we can regard them as fact, when they aren't. As an example, the Big Bang : Big Crunch Theory had virtually been regarded as a fact by many people until it was discovered that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. Now we see new theories emerging.

New evidence/facts can emerge that can change the emphasis of our interpretation, but the old facts don't go away, and must still be accommodated by any new theory.... however it should be equally true when we see evidence that is not disputed scientifically, (like the process of Homologous Recombination in DNA Repair), it should be acknowledged and not skated over for the purpose of maintaining an old materialist theory that may have had its day.

I say this because the scientific analysis of living processes constantly throws out issues which seem to break the mould of established theory. Until we are honest about that, we are likely to hold ourselves back.

Hi Enrique

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm glad that my other activities are not so intense at this moment - allowing me to respond quickly myself.

True, we have not generated what is obviously living from what is indisputably nonliving in the lab, but one would expect it difficult to extrapolate modern cells back to at least 550 million years ago, when the Cambrian explosion happened and macroscopic eukaryotes emerged. But the first signs of fossilized protocells are roughly four billion years old. — Enrique

The residues from what is believed to be the earliest cells (based on carbon residues and apatite in rock layers), do seem to date back between 4bn and 4.1bn years. (There are no fossils as such). If correct this means that the emergence of the first cell occurred between 100 and 200m years after rocks cooled to bearable temperatures.

Multi-Celled life based on Eukaryotes began just 800m years ago and since then, I agree that evolution seems to be the mechanism that has driven most of the diversity in life that we experience today.

By implication, it took 3,200m years between the time that the first cell emerged and the first multi-celled creature came to exist. However - all the steps in that evolutionary process were cells, and even the most basic original cell had to achieve the sophistication that we see in the most basic cells today, (whether you choose Archaea or Bacteria). In terms of chemical processes, and the formation of DNA-based replication - they were all fully formed and therefore highly complex mechanism/organisms.

It doesn't matter if you theorise about the nucleus or mitochondria coming as an absorption of other cells - those earlier cells still had to emerge and exist with full functionality from base chemicals.

The cytoplasm is full of both DNA and RNA, though we haven't discerned much of its function to this point. Cells are a teeming genetic ecosystem more than a kind of machinery, undeniably having arisen from membranes combining, dividing and engulfing at their characteristic speedy pace to proceed from the chemically simple to the more complex. — Enrique

There is a great deal of DNA whose function we do know, and none of it is computational. A great proportion seems to be unused historic versions of genes which were superceded through mutation.

We do know the different functions of all RNA (at least as it is currently used by cells), and it is generally used to transcribe sections of DNA in a different code, and also to label/tag Amino Acids so that they can be used in the replication process. A small number of specific RNA sequences are dedicated to Ribosomes with their unique functions... and which still have no apparent evolutionary path, (each of the 3 types of cell having their own unique form of ribosome).

None of these chemicals have a computational (computer-like capability) and yet the processes within a cell do contain molecules which appear to rationalise and exhibit traits that have the appearance of awareness - as discussed in other posts. I am sure that this will be a key factor if we can initially acknowledge what is happening. There may be subtle QM effects to explain it in future - but QM displays randomness rather than rationality - so to me that seems unlikely.


In relative terms, the 100m yr development from base chemicals of the first living cell seems remarkably quick, given the timeframes for evolution we considered a moment ago. To me, that suggests that a process must have been in operation - but what? To others it might be evidence for a God - although God does not wish to identify himself. So I am more inclined to explore more mundane possibilities.

If we go where the evidence takes us, something does seem to be providing molecules, and single celled creatures without a brain, with clear abilities well beyond their chemical make up.

If we can distinguish that factor, then we may have a basis for non-chemical influences on the early development of life.... both in terms of the emergence of RNA; proteins to copy; self-replication mechanisms; metabolism etc.

In a similar experiment to Stanley Miller's work on spontaneous emergence of Amino Acids, similar tests were done to see if any nucleotides emerged, (the basis of all RNA and DNA) - entirely without success. (In fairness one nucleobase did appear as I understand it, from one particular chemical mix - but that would not have been conducive to the other nucleobases... and none of the nucleotides.

Indeed, to this day, labs still use living cells to generate nucleotides and Amino Acids for experimentation, as the only technology that we have to synthesis them from base chemicals is : highly elaborate/sophisticated; highly inefficient and expensive; relatively new (within 10 years); and bears no relation to any process in the natural world. Add to that, the chicken and egg situation with protein development and you have a real set of problems.

However, looking for base factors to identify, I quite often perceive that there is an element of 'direction' that is required - eg. to push any evolutionary process in a consistent path towards the reality that we see. Yet we struggle to know what that factor could be.

Without this direction all of your processes could be expected to take one step forward and then one step back - and get nowhere other than through ridiculously obscure odds - which would mean that one occurrence could never realistically be expected to repeat itself.

Hi Enrique

Thank you for your long and considered reply. Your description is, of course, quite close to the hopes of many scientists researching Abiogenesis, but it is based on a lot of assumptions, for which there is virtually zero evidence.

I will expand on that in a moment, but I would first like to say how much I appreciated your efforts in trying to establish the key factors we would need to overcome to make it work. I hope you will see my comments below in that light, because many of the terms you used appeared to describe things and mechanisms that were complex from the start.

The debate will only move forwards when we are able to articulate the core factors that are pivotal to any answer, and my instinct is that there might only be a small number of these - enough to get a process going in primordial conditions.

People are often nervous about speculating - but it is only through speculation and subsequent follow through, that we can hope to reveal what may truly be the key factors - so I hope you will re-post with a set of refined criteria - representing the factors that are essential to your vision.

The following headlines are some of the factors that people will throw at you when challenging any solution to the origin of life.. so I ask that you take them in good spirit.

There is no evidence for base chemicals working in the way you describe, anywhere - not in the lab and not in nature as far as we can tell....certainly not in any in hidden corners of our vast environment that have so far been investigated. Your hoped-for mechanisms do not seem to exist.

In the lab, as I understand things, a very simple molecule of no more than a few atoms, (not resembling Amino Acids at all), was able to replicate itself exactly for a very small number of times in perfect conditions (no more that 16 times before it failed). The failure was because the tiniest detail changed and so it no longer worked. Put another way, as soon as it mutated it was dead. So there is certainly no evolutionary mechanism.

Yet it is the only simple molecule that has shown any ability to replicate at all, though it is acknowledged that such a chemical would have no contribution to make to the debate, other than demonstrating a possibility for something more useful.

So there is not even a viable replicating mechanism, even in the lab, prior to the first cell. Without a replicating mechanism your theory is dead in the water.

Even if there was a viable mechanism, it can only replicate what exists and there is no theory on how the first complex molecules emerged in order to then be replicated - ie. in order for them to then find a working partner to provide the biological loops you refer to.

I am not trying to dismiss what you say, I am crudely trying to hone-in on the factors that would allow your theory to work - but I hope that I have illustrated the tip of the iceberg, and why may people seem skeptical of this approach, without being able to offer anything better.

I'm intrigued to see how you distill the essence of your argument.

And what the frick frack does "a smattering" mean here? — T Clark

For those that lived through the misrepresentations of the materialist community 30 years ago, a 'smattering' was used by them to mean that we just needed all the Amino Acids to form spontaneously (nothing else) and evolution would take over to form everything else... which of course was rubbish on many levels - not least because Amino Acids do not form the whole structure of the key component in replication, (ie. the ribosome).

Here is a link to an article that uses the purported impossibility of life self-generating to support the young earth argument. The process described is similar to the one you describe in the OP.

http://members.toast.net/puritan/Articles/HowOldIsTheEarth_A.htm — T Clark

You leave me astonished that you provided this link, as you clearly haven't read it properly or understood it, because you still seem to believe that they are advocating a solution by chance?

Let me help you. They are, like other creationists, taking the piss out of materialists for suggesting that chance can account for the emergence of life - and having presented the stats in the article, they even say that such an idea is nonsense - proving that God is the only logical way to explain the origin of life..... their beliefs not mine. You really should pay more attention to the articles you quote.

A quibble - It is misleading use the word "evolutionary" in this context. It leads to confusion between two completely different processes - evolution and abiogenesis. The heart of our dispute seems to be that you are unwilling to acknowledge that. — T Clark

Don't try to taint me with your own failings. I understand the distinctions very well, and I also read things properly. If you had read the OP, you would know that I explained why Abiogenesis, for various reasons, needs to have a perfect replicating mechanism for complex molecules. It currently doesn't have one prior to the living cell. How many more times does it have to be said?

Okay so you are arguing from a position of ignorance, saying in essence "I don't know therefore nobody will ever know". — Olivier5

No - and any rational person would also know that my comments did not say or mean that.

It is perfectly valid to acknowledge that we have not yet reached the end of the investigation, and I have no problem in saying that a conclusion may be reached one day.

My point, which you obviously don't like, is that we use the evidence generated by science to eliminate certain theories of origin because the facts dispute them... and this is what is currently occurring with yours.

But there is plenty of that. DNA and their proteinic maintenance machinery has be used to make computers. — Olivier5

What on earth does that mean?

DNA is a static template for a design. It has no logic and just leads to the manufacture of new cellular components using a fixed process with a mysterious and unexplained origin.

There is no computer - so how does the logic of the HR process work, in purely chemical terms? There is no explanation from science - so what did you mean when you said "there is plenty of that".

The whole purpose of the continuing research is because they have found nothing to explain it.

And does your theory explain the origin of RNA, pray tell? — Olivier5

I have not offered a solution, and as you will see from the other posts - I am wanting us to try to identify the base-level points that need to be resolved.

What I can say, like anyone else who is able to understand the evidence, is that we know that your claims of a certain type of solution are no more than wishful thinking. If you want to prove your case, please try to narrow-in on the factors that chemistry has to solve within your concept.

Oliver, I find it bizarre that you still don't see the issues.

Homologous recombination does not break any rule. Rather, it creates a new rule, which is that diploid organisms -- those having two genomes instead of one; two sets of chromosomes, one inherited from the mother and the other from the father of the organism -- can repair one broken chromosome by copying the corresponding section of the other. — Olivier5

The chemistry described says how some chemical bonds can be reformed, but is says nothing about how sterile chemicals - single molecules - identify what might be missing and then go looking for the appropriate piece of code that is missing in order to replicate it (not a simple process in itself).

You just admit that the enzymes are observed to undertake a series of logical steps, adapting their behaviour, but offer no suggestion as to what guides them - when there is no known chemistry or computer to undertake the logical process involved. When one is offered, then fine. But ignoring the issue because it doesn't suit your philosophy isn't helpful.

How can you make a statement like "it creates a new rule" when materialism says that nothing in life can break free of the one set of rules that underpin Matter/Energy?

Oliver - RNA hypothesis works on the concept that if RNA is the intermediate code between DNA and Proteins, it is likely to come first, and that DNA (a more stable but less reactive form) is more likely to be a later development.

I have no problem with the suggestion, but it's only a theory, and does nothing to explain the origin of RNA or any ability to reproduce in isolation.

It also doesn't explain the origin of the proteins that are the actual work horses of life, which can only be conceived to naturally experiment with each other once they exist.

So no, I don't believe that my summary ignores anything.

T Clark

I have looked back at your single post to me at the start of this debate, and you basically said that you agreed with the point that the evolutionary mechanism couldn't account for the origin of life, but that no reputable biologist had ever stated that claim. Fine - but I never made that comment about biologists.

That said - until the emergence of Abiogenesis some 40 years ago, there were plenty of scientists arguing that we need look no further than evolution with a smattering of 'spontaneous creation' re: Amino Acids. Several of these scientists were very eminent, even if you obviously do not regard them as reputable!

Did you really need me to make that point again when others had done so?

The other point you made was...

You have misrepresented the current scientific understanding of potential mechanisms for abiogenesis. No current biologist proposes that cells are built up from constituent chemicals "by chance alone." The only ones I've seen who do are creationism apologists trying to undermine the credibility of current science. — T Clark

I was was hoping that you'd since realised this was gibberish and I was hoping to spare your blushes by not specifically pointing it out. But if you insist....

Creationists believe that there is no chance mechanism, and that there is a bigger mind/influence at play - generally a God figure to bring about life.. So your logic is out by some 180 degrees.

You also do yourself a disservice by implying that any argument that challenges the current materialist thinking must be creationist. You are either badly informed or worse, deliberately trying to smear others..... as was also pointed out by others.

To return to your comment, biologists may believe that there is some underlying process that avoids chance - but the fact that Abiogenesis research has failed to come up with an alternate evolutionary mechanism (they are not even close) is not a misrepresentation by me.

Indeed, my example of the 22 Amino Acids referred to the emergence of the basic components of proteins (which incidentally are not simple molecules in themselves), because Stanley Miller's experiments were held out as the excuse for saying that the spontaneous emergence of life was chemically simple and expected - when that was a complete fallacy, put forward by materialists.

Hi Pop

Are we talking at cross-purposes here?

The significance of this is that something has to bring the whole lot together because it is only as a whole, that life has viability - and therefore some mechanism/process needs to bring all the separate elements together in one place. But what could drive that circumstance other than chance?
— Gary Enfield

Evolution is well established from observation of evolving organic systems like Covid19, so the proposition in the OP "without evolution" is not an option.

Evolution has been extensively described and documented in detail, in countless studies. It is not theory but fact. The greatest surprise is how quickly it occurs. The evolution of human consciousness is surely something everybody can immediately relate to. — Pop

I have always said that I believe in Evolution once the mechanism got going, (and as stated in the OP - there is only one known mechanism in the whole of existence - the living cell).

The issue is that there is no such mechanism prior to the first living cell. So what could bring life into existence without it? Chemical chance, given the odds, is not an option.

I know that you keep saying that the universe is self-organising, but you never say what might be driving that. I have tried to point out some scientifically proven traits that might illustrate what you are hinting at, but we need to narrow down, through conversation and debate, on what the core characteristics might be to achieve this.

The original theory of evolution talked of 'mistakes in chemistry' to achieve mutations, supported by a selection process based on either general survival or specifically from Thought, (ie. positive selection of a mate with desirable characteristics).

However, if we look carefully, most aspects of survival in any living organism require choices. By way of example, (poached from elsewhere), a bigger more powerful arm would be a hindrance rather than a help without Thought to guide it to achieve better survival. Thought - or at least, whatever underpins it, has been a pivotal factor in the the theory of evolution, and may be even more important before that mechanism kicked off.

That's confused verbiage. Give me an actual example or reference text. — Olivier5

How was my comment confused?

Oliver I have given the same example time and time again - the DNA repair mechanisms - particularly Homologous Recombination. It is there for you to look up if you care to do so.

I first found it in Finipolscie's book (well explained for laymen), and then followed his source to a leading Biochemistry text book (Alberts) in which scientists give the findings from the latest research.