The crux. Laws by their very nature are highly specific - they apply only to a certain type of state of affairs. Boyle's law has nothing to do with Lavoisier's law. And there is a lot of ground in between, and around them. Are there an infinite number of unique laws? Or is there a general underlying Law? — Pantagruel

Ah yes now I understand what you're saying. Yes I agree some laws are extremely specific that they only apply to certain variables under rigid conditions. I would say they are constant and universal (in the sense that boyles law likely applies to any part of the universe and can be repeatkt demonstrated again and again).

But not universal in scope. What they apply to. Boyles law doesn't apply to dna reproduction in any closely associated sense. It may apply indirectly from afar in that it dictates temperatures, pressures and chemical property dynamics that go to make biological systems possible.

So if there are many specific and defined laws which are not directly connected to one another, perhaps there is one vague, ill-defined law that connects all things together.

It seems the more general and vague something is the more applicable it is to larger sets but also less informative to individual cases. And the more specific and defined something is obviously imparts more info about limited things.

Maybe the fundamental law would be so general, so broad, that it is hardly recognisable as anything we could say is a law, or even prove as a law.

It seems like your post assumes that everything must unfold according to a set of underlying laws, all or nothing. — Pantagruel

Well the issue for me is that my concept of "law" is something that cannot be violated in any instance. Something fundamentally delineating the possible from the impossible.

If there are exceptions, then I wouldn't consider it a law I would consider it the most likely case at most times/instances, but not the absolute definitive case. If you get me.

So for me it's hard to imagine a universe with some parts obeying laws and other parts being lawless. As that wouldn't be universality.

I think, emergence, is a good way to navigate how new properties can arise from simple strict laws. And how these properties may seemingly contradict certain laws or act as an "exception" to the rule. But I suspect they don't violate them just as many perpetual motion machines that have been invented are very convincing but ultimately stop, or have a concealed energy source. A gimmick that doesn't violate thermodynamics for example.

There are a lot of illusory phenomenon that arise from just the sheer complexity of variables that are at work within them. I suspect they can be broken down and fully predicted with enough/fast enough computing power.

Look at my icon on TPF. — jgill

It looks like the anatomical structure of the brainstem.

Someone has to call them out for their bad behavior. It's how you do it, not if you do it, that matters. Do it with class and finesse so you don't feel like your hurting them. Say it directly if you're gonna do it to them what they did to you.
8d — L'éléphant

That's a fair assessment and I agree. It is more a case of "how" rather than "should I?"

After all, if you don't correct people, they lose conscientiousness as to the existence of/validity of other people's emotions. In essence, if you don't contest the spoiled, how are they to ever recognise their actions as spoiled?

Its a reciprocal" give and take" scenario that keeps everyone in check.

I feel you jgill. I'm the same. Originally I thought it was so straightforward, precise and non contradictory and simple. A given. Pure logic. The perfect format of explanation/demonstration. But sadly nature doesn't encourage perfect/ comprehensive systems.

I found mathematical paradoxes, in abundance, not to mention numerous unreconciled equations, and as you said, myriad Wikipedia pages and alternative mathematical descriptors up for contention/proofs and now I think it doesn't have quite the oomf/power I once believed it to have.

In any case i still admire the amount of applications maths has. It may not be the "be all-end all" but its certainly a half-way house.

This is a misunderstanding of entropy and theory of heat death of the universe.

Heat death is not energy dropping to zero. There will be just the same energy in a heat death universe as in the current universe. Heat death is the potential dropping to zero (or free energy dropping to zero). — PhilosophyRunner

I already clarified the same thing earlier, this was a simplification/analogy based on punos and my previous conversation. I was trying to explain the difference between potential energy and actualised energy (free energy) and the conversion between them.

I also agree that energy cannot ever be destroyed and the amount will remain the same. But it merely appears to disappear when it is not free (potential), when it is converted back to that original state.

I was saying potential energy does not require time as its not free to act and was suggesting it as the primary existant. And that true nothingness is actually a fallacy.

Pseudoinfinity? Boundless but finite? — Agent Smith

I would say infinite in "change" or qualitatively infinite, but quantitatively finite. Energy has an infinite capacity to transform, assume new states, as it cannot be created nor destroyed, but energy itself is quantized as is shown with light (quanta).

Just as a cycle may be infinite in the number of revolutions it can do, but finite in magnitude.

The opposite of "absolute nothingness" (0) is "absolute somethingness" (1). Between 0 and 1 there is infinity.
7h — punos

That's a good point. So if we know absolute somethingness exists 1, then absolute nothingness 0 would be infinitely away/forever intangible. If we as existants can never prove absolute nothingness as we exist and existant things cannot ever encounter total non existence, nor can it ever be proven because "proof" is a criterion based on existence itself, does it really exist outside the realms of theory/imagination?

I wouldn't fully rely on theoreticals/mathematics as a basis for how reality works. At most I would say maths can be applied to things that exist. Nothingness is outside that set.

True nothingness for me would have to be eternal and outright and never have at any point at which something existed to qualify as truly nothing at all.
We cannot prove infinities outside of maths. As in practically speaking we are not sure if they apply to the real world.

thats a nice and promising idea. I sure hope it turns out that way.

Also if let's say 1 existant exists already and lets say that it has a mass unit of 1, when it creates another existant now there is a mass of 2 in the universe. Where did the mass or energy come from to create the next existant? — punos

Well potential has no mass. As mass requires time (e=mc2, speed is involved here and that requires time and distance).

Potential is massless. Then it creates or better "is converted into" mass when it also converted to energy and time. The dynamic between energy and time is what creates mass. As mass is created, it consumes large amounts of energy in a stable solid form. Thus the total potential of the universe decreases. To move that mass further decreases the potential of the universe.

Potential thus is not infinite. An infinite amount of mass or energy can never arise. The universe is quantised. There are limits. And thats why we have stable physical constants in physics. If the energy and mass of the universe kept increasing, the physics constants would also have to change.

The universe is just a conversion between energy, time, space and matter. They're all co-dependent and that's why e=mc2 has such incredible importance as it describes this relationship in a simply mathematical format.

Think about it, can you have an "equation" or an "equivalence" if the entire equation was not finite/limited?

If all components increased/decrease by the same degree then the equation stands, if they don't increase equally then there is imbalance and thus it's not an equation.

If it was magically increasing in amount, equations would not work. As there would be an innate imbalance as things spontaneously come into existence out of pure nothingness, throwing either side of an equation into unrectifiable dissonance.

Suddenly 8 apples (energy) wouldn't equal 16 half apples (mass) by a function of time and distance and the qualitative difference (probability/potential for conversion between the two states).

I do find it peculiar, I dont think it's wrong despite that. "Where did it come from? " is a natural bias of existant things following cause and effect and assuming there must have been a first and before that nothing.

But there's nothing written in the manual that says there had to be a pure nothingness at any stage in the universe.

Because potential is timeless - as in outside the purview of its offspring - time, it doesn't have to abide by cause and effect. Cause and effect are products of linear chronology, ie the passage of time.

If time doesn't exist for a property like potential, then it doesn't require a prior cause/ reason to exist.

Potential would not be that "potent" if it hinged its properties on a preceding absolute nothingness - which could never confer any such property (a thing) which it doesn't have ("no-thing".. Nothing.)

Potential for energy is timeless. So it doesn't require time to create it. It was always there and always will be. Just as its product - energy, is also always conserved and indestructible: it can only be potential energy (timeless) or energy (during time). In neither case is it destroyed. Just transformed.

Starting from absolute nothing; how does nothing exert pressure? Why does nothing have pressure? What is it about the structure of the "fundamental nothing" that allows for creative "pressure"? — punos

Well as I said earlier it's not nothing. As true nothing would have no characteristics/properties. As any such properties or characteristics would be existants, qualities of soemthingness.

Nothing cannot create existants. Only existants can create existants. Potential has properties. Therefore it is a contender for a primary existant. If it gives rise to time, it is an existant preceding time, with the property of giving rise to time.

absolute nothingness — punos

Well absolute nothingness has no opposite. Nothing could exist if true nothingness was ever possible. As if anything exists, then true nothingness is impossible as it is relative to something that exists.

True nothingness is a state where nothing exists and nothing ever will exist. But the fact that we exist proves that true nothingness is not within the realm of possibility of the universe.

Which is obvious because "possibility" pertains to the potential for existants.

"The impossible is" nothing", the possible is "something". "

I get what you mean. However I cannot help wonder what happens when AI builds autonomously on AI. That is to say it starts it's own evolutionary process outside the purview of Human input. Would it evolve away from its primal programming (whatever benefits humanity) towarfs whatever benefits AI survival.

Would that include us or preclude us?

However, I believe you are thinking of a more philosophical idea. And that's fine, just don't try to make mathematics conform to your notions. :cool: — jgill

That's fair. I certainly don't intend to erode formal mathematics, it is what it is.

I was merely trying to address the gap between mathematical logic and the remaining logics we apply to reality - many of which are empirical yet don't follow/adhere to mathematic predictions. As if they did, I can hardly imagine emergent phenomenon to summate to anything qualitative more than simple mathematical combinations.

Duality seems to prevent anything from being explicitly mathematical in nature. If it were, the hard problem. If consciousness would not be so hard afterall.

However perhaps that's because we haven't developed formal computations complex enough to bridge that gap to subjective states. Maybe AI will demonstrate its possiblez maybe it would. Time will tell.

I always maintain an open mind and will happily stand corrected based on emerging evidence.

Thank you i understood, i just had to read it slowly a couple of times. I was trying to understand what you were saying while attempting to compare it to certain parts of my own model. Something about potential is poking my brain.. i need to contemplate on the concept of potential — punos

No worries. It took me months to wrap my head around what seemed to be a conundrum between time and potential.

But in the simplest explanation: potential is the capacity to act, without actually acting. Like a pressure to exert action.

If you freeze frame a stretch elastic band, it still holds
the "snap-back" stored potential, without time running. The minute you press "play" - Time starts simultaneously with the conversion of potential energy (stored) to actual energy (released).

That's basically what I'm going for here. A state that is independent of time or inversely proportionate to the running of time.

So when heat death occurs - when energy drops to zero, time effectively stops (all motion), which is analogous to actualised energy reverting back to potential (as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only change from one form to another). Potential energy woukd be the start state and the eventual return end state dictated by this fundamental law.

In essence, the only perpetual machine to ever exist would be the universe itself. Everything within a time existant universe is subject to entropy - the arrow of transformation from less to more existants and simultaneously more potency to less potency.

Making someone think s/he's sick when actually not and then prescribing him/her medication to get better? :lol:
1d — Agent Smith

Psychiatry in a nutshell when analysing grief, anxiety and depression. And the diagnosis plus side effects of medication creating more anxiety, depression and grief.a vicious cycle.

I think just because medicines may emotionally blunt you and leave you numb to any and all human feeling does not a cure make.
Many meds take away someone's mental autonomy/sense of self and freedom.

I think perhaps psychiatry should only focus on the most extreme cases of imminent harm to oneself of others. And leave mild - moderate cases to cognitive behavioural therapy, psychedelic therapy, psychologists and social support occupations.

when = specific time — punos

Q. When? Ans: Always.
Doesn't have to be a specific, time place or thing etc as exemplified by the words always, everywhere, everything, every way

At the heart of philosophy is the penis &vagina! :lol: — Agent Smith

Not me waiting for the antinatalists to swarm in lol

where is when? — punos

Or in this case. "So there's a party? Where is it and when (where is when).
This may enable us to further understand the role of verbs like" to be" well as the role of addition (and), subtraction (except/exclusion), division and multiplication in language.

As in the following sentence: the party (what) will be at the beach (where) at 9pm (when), you can get there on bus 43 (how) and (+) you're invited, except (-) your friend, we don't like them (division).

It's as if natural language models and mathematics/physics can be directly correlated which makes sense considering the success of natural language models of AI these days based on algorithms.

Does that mean they're basic consciousness/brains or are we just complex biological machinery? I wonder

they do indeed haha. That's a super interesting matrix. Keen to look through and enjoy the numerous fundamental questions.

I've noticed one commonality, a lot of these are used in day to day language. They're every day things, as well as deep philosophical pursuits.

For example a new substitute teacher going "okay I have this list of names, so, "who is where? " and proceeds to call the roll so students can identify themselves.
And on a deep philosophical level it could be a question like "where does subjectivity come from?" "where does one self end and the next begin" "how does subjective awareness of individuals overlap?"

I'm reminded of the ancient Egyptian god Atum believed to have created the universe by masturbation (self-interaction?). — punos

Oh yes. Refer above to probability and potentials mutual interdependence whilst really just being two sides of literally the same coin. Technically the same thing but interacting with itself.

I guess that's why sex is connected to division and multiplication. Treated as opposites in maths but in biology one leads to the other. How funny

I love the universe! — punos

Same lol.

Do you have a way of explaining or describing how from a timeless state something can happen? — punos

Probability. Potential and probability are somewhat analogous/interlinked.

Rule 1: You can't have Potential if there's zero probability of having such.

Rule 2: You can't have probability is there is zero potential of having such.

In this way they're synonymous.
Potential is the primary existant, a singularity, and the only one that can exist without time, because time is a secondary existant, a tier down on the hierarchy.

Therefore it's not "Nothingness" before the big bang just because it exists outside of time. It's not nothingness because it has a fundamental or primary property: Decreasing probability of remaining Potential (a singular existant) and simultaneously increasing probability of becoming further existants.

So that means as existants increase in number, potential drops. And that's entropy. The system getting "less energetic".

So the secondary existants are 4: Energy (the vector that carries potential), Time (the vector that carries probability), Space and Matter - the vectors that allow for decreasing potential and increasing probability- as matter stores up and confines huge amounts of energy in a stable form (decreased potential) and space allows for that pent up potential to "occupy" increasing numbers of forms "existants" over numerous locations.

This is neatly expressed by E=mc2. Energy = Mass x the speed (Distance or Space/Time) or light Squared (the inverse relationship between potential and probability)

That's why we could never reach the speed of light because time would stop (vector of probability) and all the energy (vector of potential) in the universe would be required.

Hope i explained it a bit better. It's a very difficult subject. Might take a few readings.

I wonder, is there a common root for all such endeavors? Did philosophy begin somewhere? If so, where and how and when and why and who and what — Bret Bernhoft

Philosophy begins at one simple phenomenon: Curiosity. A trait not exclusive to humans by any stretch, but certainly exemplified best, to its furthest reaches, by us.

That all important word "Why?" and its offspring: "who", "what" "when", "where", "which" and "how".

They are all components of how curiosity manifests, and perhaps more importantly all of them reflect fundamentally the nature of the reality/universe we inhabit. The answer to the questions we have.

Who =subjects, what = matter/material/objects, when =time, where =space, which =definition/discrimination/categorisation and how = their associations/relationships with one another, how they interact.

Finally "Why" = the all encompassing umbrella term. The formula for Meaning.

These core concepts are the basis for all possible thought and linguistics and simply put: are all we need to ask about anything at all, the infinity of application of conscious awareness.

Philosophers attempt to use these to ask about their origin. A circular argument: using premises (question words) to find conclusions (what question words represent).
For example: Why is when? (why does time exist), "what is who" (what makes up a person?), where is which? (what is the location of all the pieces of the puzzle/"how" do they all come toghether?)

Notice how the sentences in brackets still use who, what, when, where etc to rephrase or grammatise the questions?

"Why" does something happen vs "how" does something happen vs for "what" purpose does something happen vs for "which" reason does something happen vs "who" makes something happen" vs "when ought something happen?"
Arguably very similar questions that can answered much the same way.

yes ma'am.

I agree with pretty much all you're saying. It's an exciting and beautiful thing to consider.

My only qualm is about heat death. Heat death is only a theory based on observed increasing entropy.

What's the difference between absolute zero (where energy is not manifested, nothing can act and time doesn't occur) and the state of "potential energy" - a possible precursor to the big bang - where no actualised energy exists, only potential, and time doesnt occur.

An analogy is like how an elastic band stretches. It stretches ever slower (rate, time dilation) but it's potential Energy increases ever further.

When it recoils, potential energy becomes actualised energy and time decreases in unit duration ie. Rate increases - the contraction of the second, or a standardised unit of time.

In this case there's no heat death. Only an Interplay between potential and no time, and actualised energy/existence of time.

As an inverse relationship.

IOW, God. Voltaire vindicated. — Vera Mont

Perhaps. An exciting and terrifying prospect in equal measure. Perhaps though competition between AI under the jurisdiction if the same pressures we faced naturally will mean some die out and others succeed or adapt.

I imagine the playing field would definitely be expanded to space. AI could definitely endure much more intense acceleration, lack of need for sleep or could go into hibernation like spores until conditions are right to re-emerge and get to work. Galaxies could certainly be traversed in a time span that is inconceivable to us but one short sleep mode period for AI.

Would be interesting to see if they would ever have the perogative to bring human and animal embryos and plant seeds with them. Or of we could maintain that as their programming over vast acceleration in complexity.

Imagine the chances of humans surviving for long periods if they had establish symbiosis with technologies that could colonise more earth's.

There is likely a critical threshold of capability when a society is dynamic, adaptable and resilient enough that no existential threats other than the universe itself dying could ever snuff out the spark of consciousness that is currently broadening its sphere of influence.

That would certainly drive us to conquer the unimaginable.

The more knowledge humans gain, the more empathetic they become to other species and to each other imo, and they also become more cognisant of their environment and how they need to protect it. — universeness

I'm not so sure. The knowledge of nuclear fission lead to compassionate/productive use: nuclear power plants and malevolent/destructive use: nuclear bombs.

Having knowledge doesn't make anyone any better/more empathetic. It simply acts as a basis for further good or bad deeds.

Knowledge or power/ability is not a reflection of character of a conscious entity.

This is partly the reason for a belief in a benevolent God. Because if its omnipotent/all powerful it could have just as easily destroyed the entire reality we live in or designed one to cause maximal suffering. But for those that are enjoying the state of being alive, it lends itself to the view that such a God is not so bad afterall. As they allowed the beauty of existence and all the pleasures that come with it.

We design AI based on human data. So it seems natural that such a product will be similar to us as we deem success as "likeness" - in empathy, virtue, a sense of right and wrong.

At the same time we hope it has greater potential than we do. Superiority. We hope that such superiority will be intrinsically beneficial to us. That it will serve us - furthering medicine, legal policy, tech and knowledge.

The question then is, historically speaking, have superior organisms always favoured the benefit of inferior ones? If we take ourselves as an example the answer is definitely not. At least not in a unanimous sense.

Some of us do really care about the ecosystem, about other animals, about the planet at large. But some of us are selfish and dangerous.

If we create AI like ourselves it's likely it will behave the same. I find it hard to believe we can create anything that isn't human behaving, as we are biased and vulnerable to our own selfish tendencies.

An omnibenevolent AI would be unrecognisable to us - as flawed beings.

An AGI without the experience of a human, will behave like an alien to us. It would not understand us and we would not understand it. — Christoffer

I'm not so sure I agree, because AGI is being/will be developed on solely human data. Whatever biases we have in our conscious experiences that we cannot depart from are intrinsic to the setup of AI.

We are training it on human data, human behaviour, human values, human language, the meaning of the universe through the lens of human understanding.

True it likely can never be human and experience the full set of things natural to such a state, but it's also not entirely alien.

If i had to guess, our determination of successful programming is to produce something that can interact with us in a meaningful and relatable way, which requires human behaviours and expectations inbuilt in its systems.

However there are fundamental differences that will likely influence its full ability to manifest that possibility, namely that it stands a good chance of permanence, immortality through part replacement and constant access to reliable energy sources.

What that means for me personally is some form of compromised hybrid - something that is similar to humans, maybe even given Android bodies - but much more durable and strong.

As far as intelligence goes, its unlikely that we can create something more intelligent than us as it would require more intelligence than we have to implement. So in the beginning they would be at most equally intelligent.

However we can give it huge volumes of data, and we can give it the ability to evolve at an accelerated rate. So it woukd advance itself, become fully autonomous, in time. Then it could go beyond what we are capable of. But indirectly not directly.

Out of curiosity what do you think will happen and do you think it woukd be good or bad or neutral?

hard to pinpoint any one specific genre to be honest. Music is often functional for me depending on my activities: if I'm out with friends at a dance venue or doing work, meditating or at the gym. The rhythm and pace needs to be appropriate: calm, classical, emotive for contemplation or upbeat, powerful, with a nice drop if out partying.

I have mostly mainstream pop, alternative, 80s and 90s, rock, classical, a few from different cultures: spanish and French mostly, and even a lot of scores from films. Jazz and metal are the only genres I haven't really resonated with and so only have 2 or three songs that could be categorised as such and even then they would be "light jazz" or the mildest of metal, or fusions with other genres.

What about you?

Your music will only become "a formula/algorithm" if you are a lazy sponge. — Banno

That's true Banno. Can't expect unique products if I go to the most mainstream marketplace

That's fair. You're probably right. I'm sure music will be very different in 100 years

Well I don't think she's plays favourites that's for sure. But what she does have is a place, a niche, for every respectable and adaptable species. That is afterall how we assumed our niche in the first place.

Whether we stay there or not is up to whether we can learn how nature operates, as we will never change her. We are bound by the same rules of gameplay as all living things.

The wisest thing to do is obey her rule. The question is have we passed the point when we played by the rules or are we yet to achieve that state. Or is it a cycle of falling into and out of accord with them.

Peace/harmony verses war and revolt.

Is it because of desinformation, incomplete information or simply because it’s part of our nature? — Cidat

Because you cannot grow, learn and self correct without trial and error.
Evolution has been doing it for millions of years so that it can rebrand whenever the environment necessitates it.

We as humans are no different. A life without mistakes - without regret, doubt, frustration, shame, guilt and sadness would be very boring indeed. Without error where is purpose? Where is desire to better ourselves, to improve. What is meaning and free will without the dichotomy of good choices and bad ones, without the ability to make mistakes.

Achievement is meaningless unless the odds were against you.

she scorns badly behaved children, as any self respecting mother ought to do. I don't blame her in the slightest.

Yoi're well-versed with the rules of the game mon ami. — Agent Smith

Thank you I have been thinking about the planet as an organism for quite some time and it naturally leads one to qualify what type of pathology we as humans add to the system.

I think we don't like to think about it that way because it's unsettling/ a tough pill to swallow.

But from the perspective of the planet as a holistic system of checks and balances and natural laws, a fine tuned ecosystem - we have numerous parallels with a cancer.

We reproduce our numbers far beyond the tolerable number of an apex predator. We pillage and plunder natural resources under the thin veil of "self declared ownership/possession" or a false sense of entitlement. We invade, destroy and replace systems with un-sustainable artificial ones that only serve our own needs/ don't abide by the planets carefully manifested setup. We oppress any and all threats to our own longevity, and thus they evolve under that pressure that we apply to build resistance (eg bacteria), in essence we are far from meek, humble or considerate.

We tip the balance very much in our favour, and as a consequence the planet is mounting a natural response as you pointed out.

Every action has an equal and opposite consequence. If you overcrowd you breed infection, if you pollute the vessels and gases of the planetary body you're asking for a fever and self contamination.

Hoarding excess resources (obesity/high bmi), polluting our internal atmosphere with noxious gases (smoking), damaging and dismantling our own systems with poisons (alcohol and drugs) and not respecting our natural repair systems (failure to get enough sleep, enduring chronic stress, anxiety and not allowing for adequate clearance/filtration - drinking enough water and taking in adequate nutrition) leads us ever closer to developing our own internal war.

I wonder what's up with autoimmune disorders? Do you have any idea whether they're linked to cancers? — Agent Smith

All autoimmune disorders lead to chronic inflammation. And chronic inflammation in itself is a risk factor for cancer development. So there is definitely links. Not as strong as other links but they exist.

Diabetes is an immunocompromising disorder. High blood sugar impairs the function of white blood cells and also acts as the perfect nutrient medium for opportunistic bacterial infections both of which likely compound the inflammatory processes that damage healthy tissue and affect dna repair/ increase mutations and cancer risk.

So in summary yes. Autoimmune diseases contribute to cancer - its development, aggressiveness and how well it responds to treatment.

sure let them on. I don't want to offend anyone. Perhaps abiogenesis was done by done divine intervention. Its not entirely outside of possibility. But perhaps (and I prefer this reasoning) it happened as a natural product of physics and chemistry, in either case it is an incredible/remarkable feat of the universe. One to be marvelled at and appreciated for its beauty.

And we can all be unified by awe at the fact that it happened. Regardless of the vast diversity of explanation

I don't think it's that far fetched. Based on our own observations of biology there are living things that can tolerate impressive levels of heat, acidity or generally hostile environments, forming spores to protect themselves until conditions are ripe. And it only takes one to survive and populate a whole planet or ocean or primordial pool.

If such organisms were trapped in the interior of a meteorite, they may survive the atmospheric burn up and impact with the planet surface.

Perhaps the impact may even serve to break up the mass throwing organic replicative materials into a variety of environments, one of which may have been appropriate to foster their survival and evolution.

We cannot scientifically rule it out.

However it begs the question, how did life originally form here or otherwise, and is abiogenesis as common as pamspermic transmission of life?