4 ms·

The weakness may be down to your assumption that the simplest form of life then is equivalent to the simplest form of life you personally can find now. . Life

The weakness may be down to your assumption that the simplest form of life then is equivalent to the simplest form of life you personally can find now. . Life has to do a lot of things now that maybe the first reproducing cells needn't, like defending itself from other life. . There may be simpler forms of life that exist currently that we are unaware of... . ...or maybe not, because each time it gets created it gets eaten by much more advanced life around it. . We don't even know what life really is. etc. etc. I get the feeling you're perhaps paving the way for a theistic argument. If you don't believe that god the creator exists, the proof that life is possible regardless of your stats is all around you. (None of my arguments are novel)

jcims 6y ago
Thanks for the reply. I definitely feel that my idea of where it started is polluted by where we are now. However, the minimum viable product for evolution is essentially 'trait inheriting chemical structure' and even the simplest examples that we have of that today are incredibly complex. >I get the feeling you're perhaps paving the way for a theistic argument. If you don't believe that god the creator exists, the proof that life is possible regardless of your stats is all around you Nope. It's really not. There's no way for me to prove it, and I'm glad you said it out loud so it could be addressed, but it's really not. This honestly came to me out of my career in information security and tangents into encryption. If you think of those 'critical sections' as passwords or encryption keys to life, our current thinking just seems to be totally fucked by impossibly small probabilities. The place where the ball settles in the saddle for me is panspermia OR that there is something that we don't quite understand in general about emergent phenomena that drives 'chance' in a certain direction.

jcims 6y ago

Thanks for the reply. I definitely feel that my idea of where it started is polluted by where we are now. However, the minimum viable product for evolution is essentially 'trait inheriting chemical structure' and even the simplest examples that we have of that today are incredibly complex. >I get the feeling you're perhaps paving the way for a theistic argument. If you don't believe that god the creator exists, the proof that life is possible regardless of your stats is all around you Nope. It's really not. There's no way for me to prove it, and I'm glad you said it out loud so it could be addressed, but it's really not. This honestly came to me out of my career in information security and tangents into encryption. If you think of those 'critical sections' as passwords or encryption keys to life, our current thinking just seems to be totally fucked by impossibly small probabilities. The place where the ball settles in the saddle for me is panspermia OR that there is something that we don't quite understand in general about emergent phenomena that drives 'chance' in a certain direction.