4 ms·

The evidence for small replicators is that we now have large replicators. Whatever the absolute probabilities are, the relative probability of spontaneous emerg

by tlb 5y ago

The evidence for small replicators is that we now have large replicators. Whatever the absolute probabilities are, the relative probability of spontaneous emergence of small replicators is much, much larger than large replicators. Therefore, large replicators most likely evolved from small replicators. Put another way: the most likely ancestor of all replicators was probably close to the smallest molecule that works.

pfdietz 5y ago
Ah, this is the inference "we are here, therefore life must be common". This is bogus, because it ignores Observer Selection. We are not at a randomly chosen planet in the universe (or in a larger multiverse), we are at a planet where there exists observers who could observe life exists. The more uncommon observers are, the more biased our position would be. Ask yourself: if OoL were exponentially unlikely, requiring super-astronomical numbers of tries to get it to occur, far beyond the number of stars (or even atoms) in our visible universe, what exactly would we see that's different from what we do see? If there is no such thing, how could current evidence rule out that possibility? I will totally agree that the mechanism by which life arose should be among the easiest routes to life. But this doesn't mean that process was likely in any absolute sense, just that it was among the least unlikely.
- tlb 5y ago
  I'm not claiming life must be common. The strong anthropic theory explains why we can be having this conversation despite the probability of life emerging being arbitrarily low, so there's no reason to assume the probability of life must be high. But no matter what that probability is, when there are 2 alternative pathways for a step, we should assume the more likely one. I merely claim that inorganics -> small replicators -> large replicators is more likely than inorganics -> large replicators
- freeflight 5y ago
  With people as insistently contrarian as you seem to be, I really wonder what alternatives, of how life came about, you are proposing? Is it really just pure agnostic nihilism along the lines of "We know nothing!"? Or do you know of more reasonable alternative explanations, not investigated in experiments like this?
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    I have a strong objection to claims that are based on specious logic. Why are you so tolerant of such claims? You seem to be suggesting that a bogus conclusion is better than admitting we don't yet know. This is dishonest and I reject it.

by tlb 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago

Ah, this is the inference "we are here, therefore life must be common". This is bogus, because it ignores Observer Selection. We are not at a randomly chosen planet in the universe (or in a larger multiverse), we are at a planet where there exists observers who could observe life exists. The more uncommon observers are, the more biased our position would be. Ask yourself: if OoL were exponentially unlikely, requiring super-astronomical numbers of tries to get it to occur, far beyond the number of stars (or even atoms) in our visible universe, what exactly would we see that's different from what we do see? If there is no such thing, how could current evidence rule out that possibility? I will totally agree that the mechanism by which life arose should be among the easiest routes to life. But this doesn't mean that process was likely in any absolute sense, just that it was among the least unlikely.

tlb 5y ago
I'm not claiming life must be common. The strong anthropic theory explains why we can be having this conversation despite the probability of life emerging being arbitrarily low, so there's no reason to assume the probability of life must be high. But no matter what that probability is, when there are 2 alternative pathways for a step, we should assume the more likely one. I merely claim that inorganics -> small replicators -> large replicators is more likely than inorganics -> large replicators
freeflight 5y ago
With people as insistently contrarian as you seem to be, I really wonder what alternatives, of how life came about, you are proposing? Is it really just pure agnostic nihilism along the lines of "We know nothing!"? Or do you know of more reasonable alternative explanations, not investigated in experiments like this?
- pfdietz 5y ago
  I have a strong objection to claims that are based on specious logic. Why are you so tolerant of such claims? You seem to be suggesting that a bogus conclusion is better than admitting we don't yet know. This is dishonest and I reject it.