6 ms·

> we can be pretty sure it’s the result of random mumbling If you throw construction materials up 1 quadrillion times, how many times can they randomly fall in

> we can be pretty sure it’s the result of random mumbling If you throw construction materials up 1 quadrillion times, how many times can they randomly fall in the form of a house? My response is zero. Building a house is not a product of randomness, it's a product of intelligence and will. Life also can't be a product of randomness. There's some intelligence and will going on in nature's laws to make life happen.

bglazer 4y ago
Are you arguing that there was some direct intervention during the origins of life? Like, an intelligent being stuck a probe into a chemical mixture and tipped it towards generating cells? Or, perhaps you're arguing that the rules of the universe were designed in a way that guaranteed that life would arise? Something else?
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  More on line of the second thought, yes. To me, Universal laws aren't random. If they were, I'd expect them to change from time to time. These laws are immutable and inexorable. They respect, interact and cooperate perfectly with each other. How did they come to exist and be that way if not by intelligence and will? I have no idea how this works or came to exist, but it definitely doesn't look random to me.
  - trasz 4y ago
    They don’t cooperate perfectly; they cooperate somehow. They could be entirely different, and the life would look different - but there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t work.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    Wouldn't this also have to assume a single universe. If our universe is just one of many, then randomness can still play an affect. We just happen to live in the universe with these laws. But the universe next door might have gotten a significantly different dice roll. Does that mean life isn't present there? No exactly, but I imagine it would look much different than us.
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      Our universe is single. The many concept is/was an attempt to make a square fit in a round hole when looking at some perplexing results. To me, Occam’s Razor points to intelligence arguments as simpler rather than the “multi universe” arguments
      - tcmart14 4y ago
        And what evidence do you base that on? The math shows it is possible for multi-universe. No hard evidence exists it. So couldn't just saying the math that alludes to this is wrong is just as equivalent of this square peg doesn't fit into my round hole? And the universe also has a bunch of repeated structures, so why wouldn't a universe also be a repeated structure? A heart is a common one found in many different animals. They are each different in their own way, but it is a structure that is repeated. Same with atoms. They all follow the same basic structure, but it is repeated with just various configurations.
  - 323 4y ago
    There is a physical theory which postulates that life is inevitable and a consequence of the laws of physics: > The thermodynamic dissipation theory thus assgins an explicit thermodynamic function to life; the dissipative structuring, proliferation, and evolution of molecular pigments and their complexes from common precursor carbon based molecules under the impressed short wavelength solar photon potential to perform the explicit thermodynamic function of dissipating this light into long wavelength infrared light (heat). In a general sense, the origin of life is no different than the origin of other dissipative structuring processes like hurricanes and the water cycle, except that these latter processes deal with structuring involving hydrogen bonding while life deals with structuring involving covalent bonding. The external photon potential supplied continuously by the environment (our Sun), and its dissipation into heat by the assembly of dissipative structures, are, therefore, both integral components necessary for understanding life. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/6923 https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/6923 > The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o...
    - cout 4y ago
      If the origin of life is no different than the origin of hurricanes, could this be taken one step further to say that there might be some self- replicating wind phenomenon on some planet out there? We typically assume that life necessarily means self-replicating molecules, but why limit it to chemical processes?
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        wind is self replicating on our planet. it consumes energy from the sun and produces more wind.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Whether universal laws are self evident, random or intelligently designed is irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The laws are there. It is through these laws that life arose. We have a procedural generation algorithm and a seed. Even if you claim there is a single god that created both of these things, backwards deriving the seed necessary to generate the current state, it still routes through this physical process which is describable with physics and could be extrapolated to other starting conditions or future scenarios that humans can utilize. It makes no difference.
    - rmbyrro 4y ago
      I think it makes a difference in that we're discussing the origin of life. Some argue the origin is in the - supposedly random - combination of molecules. Others think the answer is deeper and relates to more fundamental aspects of nature.
      - oneoff786 4y ago
        No, you’re arguing for two separate acts of intelligent design. The laws of the universe and the formation of life. But the fact is that the latter is formable by randomness within the former. It is the expected outcome within our universe that stable structure propagate into something that doesn’t look or feel random. Whether you believe the entire universal rule system is intelligently designed is outside the observable scope of things for now so whatever. Sure. God, simulation, just being like it is. Whatever.
  - sterlind 4y ago
    how do neural networks learn? is it by intelligence and will? no, it's by backpropagation. error is propagated and minimized. simple equations lead to emergent complexity. canyons form as water follows paths of least resistance, and incrementally erode rock. the water doesn't use its intelligence and will to construct a canal, even though the resulting river system looks like a max flow solution. the intelligence and will emerges from the math. simple systems with enough feedback can become very sophisticated.
    - rmbyrro 4y ago
      Do neural networks come to existence by random combinations of atoms? We're not discussing how things act intelligently, but rather why, what's the origin of the intelligence in the process. Some argue there's no intelligence, it's just randomness. Others think this is not a rationally acceptable explanation for what nature is showing us.
  - giva 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
oneoff786 4y ago
That’s my point. Organic chemistry is not like your construction materials (or silicon computers). The organic chem functionality for nucleotides to begin organizing into repeating patterns exists. We know it does. And while we might not know the exact reactions that it took, they are highly likely to exist, and were arrived upon randomly. If you arrange your biological soup a large number of times randomly, you will eventually land on a pattern that causes other nucleotides to arrange in a similar or improved pattern around it. Not too dissimilar from thinking about the creation of specific atoms through various astronomical processes. Even if you need to believe in god for some reason, it’s not incompatible with god defining the organic chemical reactions that enabled life to form via random interactions of nucleotides until they happened to land on god’s lucky number
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  And why is it that they can combine?
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    Because that’s how organic chemistry works.
    - rmbyrro 4y ago
      And do you think randomness is a good explanation for how organic chemistry works? When you see it at work, does it even look random?
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        it's hard to make a non-trivial ruleset that isn't Turing complete. it's similarly hard to have a bunch of chemistry while precluding life forming.
dalmo3 4y ago
> If you throw construction materials up 1 quadrillion times, how many times can they randomly fall in the form of a house? It depends on what you call a house. It will probably never fall in any given expected shape. It may very well fall into multiple configurations that someone arriving at the scene after the fact, and without prior knowledge of what you expected when you run the experiment, would call a "house".
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  Would electricity from the grid run through wires into a power outlet?
  - dalmo3 4y ago
    Is photosynthesis a requirement for life?
    - rmbyrro 4y ago
      In 20 trillion years, or even infinity, would you consider a rational expectation that electricity will ever flow from the grid through wires into a power outlet, by the work of randomness?
      - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
        in infinite time, definitely.
wussboy 4y ago
It will never form a house. But it doesn't need to, and expecting it to is a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. What it needs to form is any kind of a shelter that is better than not a shelter. A 4x8 sheet of plywood that happens to lean against a brick forming a roof is all that is required for a first house. Life is a product of randomness. There is no intelligence or will going on in nature's laws. Neither of those things are required.
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  With that line of reasoning, would we conclude that having H2O formed in the planet 4 billion years ago was a form of life better than not a life? Would we conclude that everything in the Universe is alive? I think that's a pretty interesting way of seeing things. And (to me, personally) it strengthens my view that there are intelligent processes going on in the Universe.
- ako 4y ago
  There is intelligence: solutions can replicate itself, with small variations, and the best variations will be more successful going forward. It’s not complete randomness, it’s an optimizing algorithm.
  - wussboy 4y ago
    I was going to disagree with your definition of intelligence. But Wikipedia says "to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context", and certainly, in a way, evolutionary processes do indeed retain specific ways to do things that can be applied towards adaptive behaviors. So, yeah! :)
- shockeychap 4y ago
  Throwing up materials that randomly fall into the shape of a crude shelter can certainly happen. But without a LOT of evolutionary mechanisms already in place, that crude shelter will just fall apart, and it certainly won't turn itself into something more sophisticated. What is necessary for life to arise from a random stew of disorganized chemicals is far more than just a good arrangement of a few molecules that exhibit some characteristics of life. Since all life dies as part of the never-ending march toward entropy, you also need to be capable of some form of reproduction and able to carry out reproduction at a faster rate than death. What is the minimum complexity involved in such a thing? I'd argue that it's probably more complicated than any house in existence.
chris_overseas 4y ago
> There's some intelligence and will going on in nature's laws to make life happen. And how do you suppose the intelligence you refer to originated? You're not offering a solution, you're merely adding another layer of complexity that still needs an explanation along the same lines.
- rmbyrro 4y ago
  I'm not trying to explain, just expressing that, to me, randomness also doesn't explain. The fact that I see intelligent processes going on is what makes me conclude that.
gls2ro 4y ago
Evolution is not randomness. It is running smaller incremental multiple randomlike experiments and only few pass to the next increment where again a lot of variations will be generated and again selected only some few for the next stage ... So in your example with the house here is how it might be: Throwing 1 quadrillion times materials will they arrange in a fundation? Of course. Then throw again and will there be some kind of wall or pillar? Then you now have foundation and pillars. Throw again a huge number of times, will there be materials that might form a wall? Please also take into consideration that evolution is not only in a vertical progression (from materials to house) but also running horizontally (like creating multiple types of walls of all shapes before going for a roof). But more importantly evolution will not create a house as long as there is not need for one. On the other hand, as we are poaching the limits of science: how do you know that given a close to infinite number of arrangements those materials will not arrange into a house?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Evolution is not randomness. Darwinian evolution in the narrow sense is duplication of life plus random variation plus filtering (that may also be random, but which at a minimum contains some bias which is, if not consistent over time, at least usually changes very slowly compared to the rate of random of variation.) Darwinian evolution in the broad sense is the same thing, but without the “of life” part. But abiogenesis is not Darwinian evolution in the narrow sense, and may or may not significantly involve Darwinian evolution in the broad sense, so arguing about what evolution is or is not in the context of the initial creation of life as opposed to the explosion of diversity of life after its initial creation is, at best, skipping steps.
uoaei 4y ago
Assembly theory from Sara Walker et al. takes a principled stab at questions like this using a combinatorial "assembly" framework of small constructions that recombine into larger ones. The model requires only Markov conditions so fits into this description of probabilities of observing certain assemblages. Intelligence fits into this in interesting ways. One way to consider it is as a guide to the assembly process from less complex from more complex.

bglazer 4y ago

Are you arguing that there was some direct intervention during the origins of life? Like, an intelligent being stuck a probe into a chemical mixture and tipped it towards generating cells? Or, perhaps you're arguing that the rules of the universe were designed in a way that guaranteed that life would arise? Something else?

rmbyrro 4y ago
More on line of the second thought, yes. To me, Universal laws aren't random. If they were, I'd expect them to change from time to time. These laws are immutable and inexorable. They respect, interact and cooperate perfectly with each other. How did they come to exist and be that way if not by intelligence and will? I have no idea how this works or came to exist, but it definitely doesn't look random to me.
- trasz 4y ago
  They don’t cooperate perfectly; they cooperate somehow. They could be entirely different, and the life would look different - but there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t work.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  Wouldn't this also have to assume a single universe. If our universe is just one of many, then randomness can still play an affect. We just happen to live in the universe with these laws. But the universe next door might have gotten a significantly different dice roll. Does that mean life isn't present there? No exactly, but I imagine it would look much different than us.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    Our universe is single. The many concept is/was an attempt to make a square fit in a round hole when looking at some perplexing results. To me, Occam’s Razor points to intelligence arguments as simpler rather than the “multi universe” arguments
    - tcmart14 4y ago
      And what evidence do you base that on? The math shows it is possible for multi-universe. No hard evidence exists it. So couldn't just saying the math that alludes to this is wrong is just as equivalent of this square peg doesn't fit into my round hole? And the universe also has a bunch of repeated structures, so why wouldn't a universe also be a repeated structure? A heart is a common one found in many different animals. They are each different in their own way, but it is a structure that is repeated. Same with atoms. They all follow the same basic structure, but it is repeated with just various configurations.
- 323 4y ago
  There is a physical theory which postulates that life is inevitable and a consequence of the laws of physics: > The thermodynamic dissipation theory thus assgins an explicit thermodynamic function to life; the dissipative structuring, proliferation, and evolution of molecular pigments and their complexes from common precursor carbon based molecules under the impressed short wavelength solar photon potential to perform the explicit thermodynamic function of dissipating this light into long wavelength infrared light (heat). In a general sense, the origin of life is no different than the origin of other dissipative structuring processes like hurricanes and the water cycle, except that these latter processes deal with structuring involving hydrogen bonding while life deals with structuring involving covalent bonding. The external photon potential supplied continuously by the environment (our Sun), and its dissipation into heat by the assembly of dissipative structures, are, therefore, both integral components necessary for understanding life. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/6923 https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/6923 > The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o...
  - cout 4y ago
    If the origin of life is no different than the origin of hurricanes, could this be taken one step further to say that there might be some self- replicating wind phenomenon on some planet out there? We typically assume that life necessarily means self-replicating molecules, but why limit it to chemical processes?
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      wind is self replicating on our planet. it consumes energy from the sun and produces more wind.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Whether universal laws are self evident, random or intelligently designed is irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. The laws are there. It is through these laws that life arose. We have a procedural generation algorithm and a seed. Even if you claim there is a single god that created both of these things, backwards deriving the seed necessary to generate the current state, it still routes through this physical process which is describable with physics and could be extrapolated to other starting conditions or future scenarios that humans can utilize. It makes no difference.
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    I think it makes a difference in that we're discussing the origin of life. Some argue the origin is in the - supposedly random - combination of molecules. Others think the answer is deeper and relates to more fundamental aspects of nature.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      No, you’re arguing for two separate acts of intelligent design. The laws of the universe and the formation of life. But the fact is that the latter is formable by randomness within the former. It is the expected outcome within our universe that stable structure propagate into something that doesn’t look or feel random. Whether you believe the entire universal rule system is intelligently designed is outside the observable scope of things for now so whatever. Sure. God, simulation, just being like it is. Whatever.
- sterlind 4y ago
  how do neural networks learn? is it by intelligence and will? no, it's by backpropagation. error is propagated and minimized. simple equations lead to emergent complexity. canyons form as water follows paths of least resistance, and incrementally erode rock. the water doesn't use its intelligence and will to construct a canal, even though the resulting river system looks like a max flow solution. the intelligence and will emerges from the math. simple systems with enough feedback can become very sophisticated.
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    Do neural networks come to existence by random combinations of atoms? We're not discussing how things act intelligently, but rather why, what's the origin of the intelligence in the process. Some argue there's no intelligence, it's just randomness. Others think this is not a rationally acceptable explanation for what nature is showing us.
- giva 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

oneoff786 4y ago

That’s my point. Organic chemistry is not like your construction materials (or silicon computers). The organic chem functionality for nucleotides to begin organizing into repeating patterns exists. We know it does. And while we might not know the exact reactions that it took, they are highly likely to exist, and were arrived upon randomly. If you arrange your biological soup a large number of times randomly, you will eventually land on a pattern that causes other nucleotides to arrange in a similar or improved pattern around it. Not too dissimilar from thinking about the creation of specific atoms through various astronomical processes. Even if you need to believe in god for some reason, it’s not incompatible with god defining the organic chemical reactions that enabled life to form via random interactions of nucleotides until they happened to land on god’s lucky number

rmbyrro 4y ago
And why is it that they can combine?
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Because that’s how organic chemistry works.
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    And do you think randomness is a good explanation for how organic chemistry works? When you see it at work, does it even look random?
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      it's hard to make a non-trivial ruleset that isn't Turing complete. it's similarly hard to have a bunch of chemistry while precluding life forming.

dalmo3 4y ago

> If you throw construction materials up 1 quadrillion times, how many times can they randomly fall in the form of a house? It depends on what you call a house. It will probably never fall in any given expected shape. It may very well fall into multiple configurations that someone arriving at the scene after the fact, and without prior knowledge of what you expected when you run the experiment, would call a "house".

rmbyrro 4y ago
Would electricity from the grid run through wires into a power outlet?
- dalmo3 4y ago
  Is photosynthesis a requirement for life?
  - rmbyrro 4y ago
    In 20 trillion years, or even infinity, would you consider a rational expectation that electricity will ever flow from the grid through wires into a power outlet, by the work of randomness?
    - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
      in infinite time, definitely.

wussboy 4y ago

It will never form a house. But it doesn't need to, and expecting it to is a misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. What it needs to form is any kind of a shelter that is better than not a shelter. A 4x8 sheet of plywood that happens to lean against a brick forming a roof is all that is required for a first house. Life is a product of randomness. There is no intelligence or will going on in nature's laws. Neither of those things are required.

rmbyrro 4y ago
With that line of reasoning, would we conclude that having H2O formed in the planet 4 billion years ago was a form of life better than not a life? Would we conclude that everything in the Universe is alive? I think that's a pretty interesting way of seeing things. And (to me, personally) it strengthens my view that there are intelligent processes going on in the Universe.
ako 4y ago
There is intelligence: solutions can replicate itself, with small variations, and the best variations will be more successful going forward. It’s not complete randomness, it’s an optimizing algorithm.
- wussboy 4y ago
  I was going to disagree with your definition of intelligence. But Wikipedia says "to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context", and certainly, in a way, evolutionary processes do indeed retain specific ways to do things that can be applied towards adaptive behaviors. So, yeah! :)
shockeychap 4y ago
Throwing up materials that randomly fall into the shape of a crude shelter can certainly happen. But without a LOT of evolutionary mechanisms already in place, that crude shelter will just fall apart, and it certainly won't turn itself into something more sophisticated. What is necessary for life to arise from a random stew of disorganized chemicals is far more than just a good arrangement of a few molecules that exhibit some characteristics of life. Since all life dies as part of the never-ending march toward entropy, you also need to be capable of some form of reproduction and able to carry out reproduction at a faster rate than death. What is the minimum complexity involved in such a thing? I'd argue that it's probably more complicated than any house in existence.

chris_overseas 4y ago

> There's some intelligence and will going on in nature's laws to make life happen. And how do you suppose the intelligence you refer to originated? You're not offering a solution, you're merely adding another layer of complexity that still needs an explanation along the same lines.

rmbyrro 4y ago
I'm not trying to explain, just expressing that, to me, randomness also doesn't explain. The fact that I see intelligent processes going on is what makes me conclude that.

gls2ro 4y ago

Evolution is not randomness. It is running smaller incremental multiple randomlike experiments and only few pass to the next increment where again a lot of variations will be generated and again selected only some few for the next stage ... So in your example with the house here is how it might be: Throwing 1 quadrillion times materials will they arrange in a fundation? Of course. Then throw again and will there be some kind of wall or pillar? Then you now have foundation and pillars. Throw again a huge number of times, will there be materials that might form a wall? Please also take into consideration that evolution is not only in a vertical progression (from materials to house) but also running horizontally (like creating multiple types of walls of all shapes before going for a roof). But more importantly evolution will not create a house as long as there is not need for one. On the other hand, as we are poaching the limits of science: how do you know that given a close to infinite number of arrangements those materials will not arrange into a house?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Evolution is not randomness. Darwinian evolution in the narrow sense is duplication of life plus random variation plus filtering (that may also be random, but which at a minimum contains some bias which is, if not consistent over time, at least usually changes very slowly compared to the rate of random of variation.) Darwinian evolution in the broad sense is the same thing, but without the “of life” part. But abiogenesis is not Darwinian evolution in the narrow sense, and may or may not significantly involve Darwinian evolution in the broad sense, so arguing about what evolution is or is not in the context of the initial creation of life as opposed to the explosion of diversity of life after its initial creation is, at best, skipping steps.

uoaei 4y ago

Assembly theory from Sara Walker et al. takes a principled stab at questions like this using a combinatorial "assembly" framework of small constructions that recombine into larger ones. The model requires only Markov conditions so fits into this description of probabilities of observing certain assemblages. Intelligence fits into this in interesting ways. One way to consider it is as a guide to the assembly process from less complex from more complex.