I couldn't agree more, this article is pseudoscience garbage. The author appears to be one of the primary proponents of so called 'constructor theory'. I dug a

I couldn't agree more, this article is pseudoscience garbage. The author appears to be one of the primary proponents of so called 'constructor theory'. I dug a bit into their research and it's setting off all of my skeptic alarms. Their primary research papers appear to be typeset in Word for christ sake. To nitpick some particular aspects of the theory and article: From the wikipedia article on constructor theory: "Current theories of physics based on quantum mechanics do not adequately explain why some transformations between states of being are possible and some are not. For example a drop of dye can dissolve in water but thermodynamics shows that the reverse transformation, of the dye clumping back together, is not possible. We do not know at a quantum level why this should be so" [1] An egregiously incorrect statement. This is basic statistical mechanics. The dye dropped into a solution diffuses and doesn't return back into the original drop is very simple: there are very few configurations of the dye/solution system where the dye is in a concentrated drop and a mind bogglingly large number of configurations where the dye is diffused throughout the solution. Nothing in physical law forbids the formation of a concentrated drop from a diffused solution - it's just ridiculously implausibly unlikely. In fact, due to time reversal symmetry we know that the formation of the concentrated drop is explicitly allowed. Here's a little gedanken experiment: put a drop of dye in the solution and let it diffuse. After some time t, reverse all of the momenta of all of the atoms in the solution (you are God). At time 2t the dye will reform in the original concentrated droplet. But here's the zinger: keep watching and that droplet will again diffuse across the solution! Keep letting the clock run backwards and you'll probably never see the drop reform again. One more note on that quote: the last sentence says that this is somehow forbidden by quantum mechanics. Again, this is bogus. Ensembles of large number of particles is the domain of statistical mechanics! Long discussion in of itself but the (semi)classical view is a very useful and valid perspective for many problems! Now a comment about the article: "Here’s where the puzzle arises. Biological replication and self‑reproduction are in fact such stupendously well‑orchestrated physical transformations that one must explain how they are possible under the simple, no‑design laws of physics such as ours. This additional explanation, which was not included in the theory of evolution, is essential for that theory to properly explain how living things arise without intentional design – to close the explanatory gap" 1. Absolute bullshit that one needs to 'justify' how certain physical states that _seem_ improbable are realized. Total garbage. Another core tenet of statistical mechanics is ergodocity [2] which states that ALL states of a system are will eventually be visited (if you have infinite time). 2. My major gripe: (non-equilibrium) statistical mechanics accounts can explain the formation of complexity (such as life)!! It is not mysterious or outside of the scope of our current framework!! By analogy consider a pot of water being heated by a hotplate from underneath: if the hot plate is on low the heat will diffuse up through the water in a disorganized manner; but, at some critical temperature convection rolls will form spontaneously in the water. They form because the increase in energy dissipation wins out over the reduction in entropy induced by their formation. This is exactly the mechanism driving the formation of life! The existence of life is not mysterious, it's inevitable! This article is complete and utter bullshit. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory#Motivations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory#Motivations [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergodic_hypothesis