is life really generating order or is it just our false narrative perspective?

Ok they make their own ATP and NADPH also. I admit i am not well informed about their biochemistry.
However, my point is that they just don't convert simple molecules into macromolecules just like that, or because they get solar energy. They do so because there is a complex template already existing in them. Every reaction is happening for a reason because of the template and is unavoidable to happen because of natural laws. A chaos of anabolic and catabolic reactions is happening, and the bacteria leave the culture overall in a mess. You are just ignoring everything else, and just focus on how ordered the new bacteria are.
However, in real life all the by-products of their metabolism (waste, gasses,etc) become food and ingredients for other organisms, so they cannot be excluded from the chemical cycle of life. In reality all organisms are sustained because the ingredients somehow recycle.

This is important because you think that life gets energy and overall forms orderly structure locally. So according to you, when life expands, it adds up its order and the order of the now expanded system has dramatically increased. So life can be formed once in the form of a cell, and then it has the property to multiply order by converting everything it can find.
The "gap" here is that this cannot happen just by putting chemicals in the sun, or if you expose an ordered system to spontaneous reactions in the light, it will naturally tend to decrease its order with time instead of increase.
In reality, all life today (like proto-life) is a big chemical system. Its parts do both anabolic and catabolic reactions, but overall they leave a mess. However, we are super selective and we just pay attention to what look like us functionally, and we see only organisms, etc, ignoring all the chemical flux that is a legit part of the chemical systems exactly like we are. At the end of the day, food is a part of our chemistry. We can't live without it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Technically speaking, you are a chemical system. The entry point of the chemical reactions constantly come from food. In fact, after a few years our entire body is composed of different molecules as our content has changed 100%. The number of chemical interactions involved is tremendous. Some are anabolic, some are catabolic.
I don't see how this is any similar to crystallization or self-organization of organic molecules into polymers or crystals.

The problem is our perspective is anthropocentric and we ignore the parts of chemistry does not fit us or we dont like. So we think that life is an entropy reducing machine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not have to ignore everything else to observe the very complex and high level of order routinely created by the living beings of this world from simple chemicals in disorder - and in fact, in the axenic cultures of algae, very carefully attended to everything else. Most of the work involved attending to everything else. My main focus was on everything else.

According to me the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is unbreakable and universally applicable in all such systems. As I keep repeating to you: there is no "gap".

"We" do no such thing. We certainly do not ignore parts of the chemistry.

What are you talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can find foci of order in every disordered system if you look good enough.
Its a totally different thing to have a foci of order and to have an order producing machine.
I personally don't like the idea that abiogenesis and order creation are two different events, because they both need tremendous amount of luck to happen by chance or by law. I dont say its impossible, but i think its more attractive to see it as a perspective issue...

 

Just dont think in terms of eating, drinking, laughing, sleeping, or other anthropocentric concepts and just think only in terms of chemical systems. What would happen if you had complex organic molecules and energy? See this as an exercize.

This is how i thinkit would happen:
The organic and inorganic molecules would start reacting. Then the spatial conformations, folding, hydrophobicity, would increase the 3D spatial complexity and equillibrium would have been difficult. Organic chemistry would react with inorganics and further increase the organic reserve and the 3D complexity. Then stable conformations would prevail (membrane covered entities, long nucleotides, packing, fast reacting components, division of heavy organic load containing membrane covered sacs, etc, etc, and so on) and evolution and chemical natural selection would have done its job in the long term.

Now imagine that some portion of the end results are the observers. What would they see and how would they perceive the whole system?

Would you rather think that some organic molecules spontaneously started replicating themselves, and some order was written in the code, and then they started doing metabolism and creating order, etc etc?
Would you wanna believe that god kick started life?
Its a free world.

 

Of course its unbreakable. I didn't mean the gap in the sense that it violates the second law of thermodynamics.
I mean it in a sense that you need to invent a series of highly unlikely events to spontaneously occur and be maintained by pure chance or by law. Not impossible, but highly suspicious that there might be a perspective issue here. Just like the case of fine tuning of the universe.

I did not quite get your point. Can you elaborate?

 

In the case of living beings, we have both at once.

That's why Darwinian evolution is significant - it takes away the need for extreme luck.

Nothing like that needs to be "invented", once Darwinian evolution is on the table.

What I think is that Darwinian evolution worked back then, as it does now and apparently has ever since. Why do you find that unreasonable?

That you can stop trying to tell people they are ignoring things they are manifestly paying attention to, and that this event you keep talking about as extremely unlikely - living beings creating very complex order out of simple chemicals and some energy - is routinely observed.

 

I agree! I think Darwinian evolution was there in the form of chemical natural selection from the very first reactions. I even think the first nucleotide synthesis machinery was a result of darwinian processes, not the starting event. However, i disagree that darwinism creates order. It helps to make the system more stable, because in retrospect, thats what happened. The stable stuff got sustained.
And yes, we see very complex structures being created out of simple chemicals and energy, but only because there is a pre-existing complex template, and also at the expense of the creation of even more disorder in the form of waste. Which is not waste in reality because it is part of the chemical system of life, as other living systems use in a constant nutrient recycling.

thats how i see it!
i may be wrong....

 

Your body is continually synthesising proteins, collagen, nucleotides etc, to replace material lost when cells die. These are polymers and other long chain molecules, with similar thermodynamics. That's why it is similar.

 

Therefore, order will eventually emerge from chaos, no?

It would seem strange to assert that evolution into ordered systems generates disorder, no?

IMO, order emerges from chaos, at cost of loss of energy (entropy)

Perfection is a totally ordered state with zero-point energy.
And interestingly, Perfection and Chaos are both extremely sensitive to initial conditions.
But that has nothing to do with order, it has to do with energy, IMO.

If Chaos was orderly in some way, then how does this statement support such an inference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

No super symmetry, no super order, no?

 

A "stable system" is a definition of "order", no?

I wonder if Dark Energy might not be a dimensional field into which our universe's Entropy sheds its Energy? The faster we shed energy (entropy) the faster we expand.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Seriously, you don't LIKE the idea

Seriously, you have not learnt that a non sentinant Universe is impervious to your likes / dislikes

There it is, da dar, god did it.

NO no no and for good measure no I would not wanna believe god kick started life

I personally would LIKE the evidence to show everyone how life started (which it does)

Unfortunately it is a complicated process and still not fully understood

However some people come along and propose a even MORE complicated system - god did it - with NO explanation of god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Breakfast time

 

I quess so!! it means it doesn't get easily affected by the surrounding effects.
The whole system that creates them (life) is a highly disordered set of interactions , that pushes some molecules to become stable.

 

That is a false argument, IMO. It all depends on the scale of the causal disturbance.

By definition; Perfection = Chaos, in the sense that each state is equally vulnerable to external influence.

It takes very little to disturb equilibrium.
It only takes a single quantum event to affect its immediate surroundings.

An A-bomb employs the exponential butterfly effect at quantum scale, no?

A Super-Nova is the result of a small trespass in the balanced stabilizing limits of a star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

 

The whole system that creates them (life) is a highly disordered set of interactions , that pushes some molecules to become stable. They are emerging islets of stability

 

Yes, Order emerges from Chaos . And Chaos emerges from Order. It's a dynamic reciprocal system, where there is only Change,
and...... Change = the Dynamic of Life and Time.........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

agree! and in complex systems you will have both areas of order and disorder.

 

If you haven't seen this yet, this is an excellent scientific affirmation of what I understand from your posts.
It's one of my favorites. Start watching @ 25:15, to avoid a lengthy introduction.

 

I have seen it a little bit. Interesting ideas are displayed. Generally i agree with biochemical natural selection and evolution. Definitely i think Kauffman's ideas are wrong, because spatial effects like tension, hydrophobicity, folding, vessels formation, etc are critical in real biology and life chemistry cannot be represented with some mathematical equations, so his formulas for order creation cannot be applied in real life. I favor a more straight forward pure selection where everything stable will be selected at once and on multiple sights in a step-wise selection. I am also critical about the RNA first hypothesis, because it needs crazy amounts of luck and it doesnt offer a comprehensible way of how everything can start from all this. I also don't like the idea that waiting for long can make impossible things possible. If you do the same thing, you cant expect to have a different result in 1 or 2 or 3 or....10 billion days. There has to be an underlying law.

 

Probability over time and space. At that scale numbers become irrelevant. When the earth, an insignificant planet in orbit around an insignificant star, in a remote corner of an average galaxy, can create or foster life, any question about life on other planets in the entire universe becomes probable, if not highly certain. Eventually, almost all universal potentials for pattern generation will becomeexpressed.

There are not that many combinations necessary. Humans consist of some 300 different molecules, that's it. These molecules consist of a limited set of bio-chemicals.

Moreover, you cannot look at this linearly only, it is vertical as well and on top of that all chemical reactions become exponentially larger over universal time scales and physical resources (3 fundamental particles).