7 ms·

If you're a fan of Moore's Law and the Singularity, you'll love the reasoning of backtrapolating the exponentially increasing complexity of life over time... to

If you're a fan of Moore's Law and the Singularity, you'll love the reasoning of backtrapolating the exponentially increasing complexity of life over time... to get 0 well before the formation of the earth https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513781/moores-law-and-the...

DoctorOetker 8y ago
you mean well before the big bang: e^(a*t) = 0 for t=-infinity
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  well yes; technically they use one base-pair as the origin of life (which is probably still a little too small). From looking at the graph, and the 300 milion year doubling, they seem to put life complexity at about 256 base-pairs at the origin of the earth. There should be a link to the actual paper in the article.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    That goes below a discontinuity, 256 base pairs is well below the smallest organism ever observed. A single gene is on average around 10^4 bases, and the simplest organisms have around 10^3 necessary genes. Life below 10^3 base pairs may not evolve at the same speed. It's certainly not safe to talk about it in terms of base pairs, in that era there might not have even been any.
    - hyperpallium 8y ago
      > smallest organism ever observed ...today. Life was simpler back in the day. For example, RNA world. This more primitive life might not survive more sophisticated life. (thougn it's also possible it's still around, but we haven't noticed it; or haven't recognized it as life). IDK if small enough, but viruses are simpler. If it can reproduce - e.g. a short strand of DNA or RNA or even something simpler - it could form the beginnings of "life" as a precursor, even though it wouldn't meet our current definitions of "alive". There's theories of fatty spheres being the first "cells" (really, "kinda sorta cells").
m_mueller 8y ago
What about Fermi's paradox though? I mean, where is everyone?
- hyperpallium 8y ago
  It's addressed in the article: it takes a long time for complex life to arise, so we are among - or the - first.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    That's the optimistic interpretation. Pessimistic: There's one or more great filters.
    - hyperpallium 8y ago
      No. Assuming this specific paper's thesis, that is the conclusion. There exist other arguments not based on this specific paper's thesis. Of those, I find plausible the observation that as we tame the world to suit us, we shrink. Cities, civilization, supermarkets, products, TV, internet. By this trend, we'll live in dream terranes before long. (BTW as people get richer, reproduction gets less). But we'll need power, and eventually a dyson sphere to capture all the sun's light - perfect for an inward-looking, closed-off people! Then what, I'm not sure. Perhaps long before that, we won't need other suns; we'll have artificial suns (controlled fusion). That's what happens to everyone else: as they grow in technological sophistication, they get better and better at directly meeting their own (previously evolved) needs.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    any evidence to support that extraordinary claim?
- kamaal 8y ago
  I think a lot of answers have existed for that question. In the context of this thread, lets say you are a species which stepped out of your planet, there are plenty of asteroids, and even planets lying around you can mine for resources. You settle billions of your kind in space. You are not running out resources and have no motivation beyond research and science to venture out a little far. Would you, such a race, want to travel interstellar distances? You would travel far distances by organic growth. Also its likely how old the universe is anybody who didn't kill themselves to extinction, is likely at our phase of development. And is likely asking the same questions as us. Those beyond our phase of development are hiding for a good reason.
maxerickson 8y ago
I wonder if scientists in the future will ponder how microchips were invented before the steam engine.
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  "Aliens gave it to them". This puts panspermia in a new light, thank you.
perl4ever 8y ago
That's exactly why I was on the side of panspermia already. But the number of rogue planets makes a nice independent path to the same conclusion. An interesting question to me is - if the Earth was seeded with life, does this mean we will find life elsewhere in the solar system, because they were too, or does it mean we will not find life elsewhere, because a rogue planet collided with proto earth in a very unlikely event, and the rest of the solar system (or at least the potential life supporting objects) came out of a sterile nebula around the sun?

DoctorOetker 8y ago

you mean well before the big bang: e^(a*t) = 0 for t=-infinity

hyperpallium 8y ago
well yes; technically they use one base-pair as the origin of life (which is probably still a little too small). From looking at the graph, and the 300 milion year doubling, they seem to put life complexity at about 256 base-pairs at the origin of the earth. There should be a link to the actual paper in the article.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  That goes below a discontinuity, 256 base pairs is well below the smallest organism ever observed. A single gene is on average around 10^4 bases, and the simplest organisms have around 10^3 necessary genes. Life below 10^3 base pairs may not evolve at the same speed. It's certainly not safe to talk about it in terms of base pairs, in that era there might not have even been any.
  - hyperpallium 8y ago
    > smallest organism ever observed ...today. Life was simpler back in the day. For example, RNA world. This more primitive life might not survive more sophisticated life. (thougn it's also possible it's still around, but we haven't noticed it; or haven't recognized it as life). IDK if small enough, but viruses are simpler. If it can reproduce - e.g. a short strand of DNA or RNA or even something simpler - it could form the beginnings of "life" as a precursor, even though it wouldn't meet our current definitions of "alive". There's theories of fatty spheres being the first "cells" (really, "kinda sorta cells").

m_mueller 8y ago

What about Fermi's paradox though? I mean, where is everyone?

hyperpallium 8y ago
It's addressed in the article: it takes a long time for complex life to arise, so we are among - or the - first.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  That's the optimistic interpretation. Pessimistic: There's one or more great filters.
  - hyperpallium 8y ago
    No. Assuming this specific paper's thesis, that is the conclusion. There exist other arguments not based on this specific paper's thesis. Of those, I find plausible the observation that as we tame the world to suit us, we shrink. Cities, civilization, supermarkets, products, TV, internet. By this trend, we'll live in dream terranes before long. (BTW as people get richer, reproduction gets less). But we'll need power, and eventually a dyson sphere to capture all the sun's light - perfect for an inward-looking, closed-off people! Then what, I'm not sure. Perhaps long before that, we won't need other suns; we'll have artificial suns (controlled fusion). That's what happens to everyone else: as they grow in technological sophistication, they get better and better at directly meeting their own (previously evolved) needs.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  any evidence to support that extraordinary claim?
kamaal 8y ago
I think a lot of answers have existed for that question. In the context of this thread, lets say you are a species which stepped out of your planet, there are plenty of asteroids, and even planets lying around you can mine for resources. You settle billions of your kind in space. You are not running out resources and have no motivation beyond research and science to venture out a little far. Would you, such a race, want to travel interstellar distances? You would travel far distances by organic growth. Also its likely how old the universe is anybody who didn't kill themselves to extinction, is likely at our phase of development. And is likely asking the same questions as us. Those beyond our phase of development are hiding for a good reason.

maxerickson 8y ago

I wonder if scientists in the future will ponder how microchips were invented before the steam engine.

ASalazarMX 8y ago
"Aliens gave it to them". This puts panspermia in a new light, thank you.

perl4ever 8y ago

That's exactly why I was on the side of panspermia already. But the number of rogue planets makes a nice independent path to the same conclusion. An interesting question to me is - if the Earth was seeded with life, does this mean we will find life elsewhere in the solar system, because they were too, or does it mean we will not find life elsewhere, because a rogue planet collided with proto earth in a very unlikely event, and the rest of the solar system (or at least the potential life supporting objects) came out of a sterile nebula around the sun?