Logic as Clue to Origin?

  • Thread starter Tomhendricks474
  • Start date



T

Tomhendricks474

Guest
Here's a way of looking at the origin of life through logic:

1. Must have variations to select from.

2. The variations must be as a reaction to a heat cycle in the environment. If not then the
environment would either
a. continue getting hotter and hotter until all is literally burnt up.
b. continue getting colder and colder till all is inert.

3. The heat cycle must be reasonably consistent or there would be nothing to adapt to
a. IF completely random - no chemical system can adapt
b. IF completely unrandom - sooner or later no variants are produced.

4. The Sun heat cycle seems to be the only heat cycle or force that fits:

a. gravity - a virtual constant (and very little force on molecules so small. b pH - mostly constant
- seldom cyclical
b. thermal vents - heat cycle - but too changeable due to techtonic plates
c. lightning - unconstant heat/power source
d. radiation from the earth - constant power source.
e. tides - reasonably constant and cyclical but unstable and much less stable than sun cycle.

Early earth was faced with only one cyclic heat source of consequence. It was the force that any
chemical system had to adapt to to exist. It was also the force that kept the earth in the liquid
water zone.

Comment?
 
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, TomHendricks474 wrote:

> Here's a way of looking at the origin of life through logic:
>
> 1. Must have variations to select from.

Hmmm.. life without variation? OK we don't see it / can't imagine it so lets ignore the possibility.

> 2. The variations must be as a reaction to a heat cycle in the environment.

Wha? This is logic? What about the variation in an 'inital population'?

> If not then the environment would either
> a. continue getting hotter and hotter until all is literally burnt up.
> b. continue getting colder and colder till all is inert.

OK, this is a fair point, we dont have any dynamics when it gets too cold (at the molecular level) -
nothing can move - nothing can interact - no information is exchanged - no structure can evolve, and
no processes can take place.

When it gets too hot, everything becomes increasingly chaotic - information exchange abounds, but
there is no structure, no memory - everything that happens is lost - there is no stablity.

But why cycle? Crystals growing at equlibrium can exhibit exactly the 'inbetween' behaviour hinted
at above - the boundary between order and chaos - the crytical point where memory of the system is
maximized AND dynamics of the system is maximized - computational capacity of the system tops out,
and lots of really neat things can start to happen - In my mind this situation is life.

You know the surface of a 3d crystal is 2d? Physicists have speculated that the universe could be
the surface of a 4d crystal!

> 3. The heat cycle must be reasonably consistent or there would be nothing to adapt to
> a. IF completely random - no chemical system can adapt
> b. IF completely unrandom - sooner or later no variants are produced.

This sounds related... although I think you have missed the importance of crytical systems at
dynamic equlibrium - else I have totally misused the term equlibrium...

The rest (below) is just a nice story again. You have asked me to read your past posts, but I am
very lazy, so please explain how this is a scientific theory - or (sorry) kill your baby! - you say
you have been working on this for 30 years, so I am sorry to ask you to do this, but kill it,
abandon it to fantasy, and move on (sorry).

Unless that is you can show clearly how this theory makes all kinds of predictions - Just one will
do for the time being...

Ta, Dan.

> 4. The Sun heat cycle seems to be the only heat cycle or force that fits:
>
> a. gravity - a virtual constant (and very little force on molecules so small. b pH - mostly
> constant - seldom cyclical
> c. thermal vents - heat cycle - but too changeable due to techtonic plates
> d. lightning - unconstant heat/power source
> e. radiation from the earth - constant power source.
> f. tides - reasonably constant and cyclical but unstable and much less stable than sun cycle.
>
> Early earth was faced with only one cyclic heat source of consequence. It was the force that any
> chemical system had to adapt to to exist. It was also the force that kept the earth in the liquid
> water zone.
>
> Comment?
>
 
<<
> 2. The variations must be as a reaction to a heat cycle in the environment.

Wha? This is logic? What about the variation in an 'inital population'?

Can't have a population before you have life. I'm talking about pre-life conditions.

> If not then the environment would either
> a. continue getting hotter and hotter until all is literally burnt up.
> b. continue getting colder and colder till all is inert.

OK, this is a fair point, we dont have any dynamics when it gets too cold (at the molecular level) -
nothing can move - nothing can interact - no information is exchanged - no structure can evolve, and
no processes can take place.

When it gets too hot, everything becomes increasingly chaotic - information exchange abounds, but
there is no structure, no memory - everything that happens is lost - there is no stablity.

But why cycle? Crystals growing at equlibrium can exhibit exactly the 'inbetween' behaviour hinted
at above - the boundary between order and chaos - the crytical point where memory of the system is
maximized AND dynamics of the system is maximized - computational capacity of the system tops out,
and lots of really neat things can start to happen - In my mind this situation is life.

I don't see it as life.

snipped

Unless that is you can show clearly how this theory makes all kinds of predictions - Just one will
do for the time being...

Life needs water - liquid water. Liquid water exists only in a very very very very narrow range of
temp. from 0-100C Every other place in the universe is ruled out.

If the heat cycle continues to warm - no water If the heat cycle continues to cool? - no water If
the water always stayed exactly the same temp no change - no variations to select from.

What's left?.... Exactly


Ta, Dan.
 
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, TomHendricks474 wrote:

> <<
> > 2. The variations must be as a reaction to a heat cycle in the environment.
>
> Wha? This is logic? What about the variation in an 'inital population'?
>
> Can't have a population before you have life. I'm talking about pre-life conditions.
>
>
> > If not then the environment would either
> > a. continue getting hotter and hotter until all is literally burnt up.
> > b. continue getting colder and colder till all is inert.
>
> OK, this is a fair point, we dont have any dynamics when it gets too cold (at the molecular level)
> - nothing can move - nothing can interact - no information is exchanged - no structure can evolve,
> and no processes can take place.
>
> When it gets too hot, everything becomes increasingly chaotic - information exchange abounds, but
> there is no structure, no memory - everything that happens is lost - there is no stablity.
>
> But why cycle? Crystals growing at equlibrium can exhibit exactly the 'inbetween' behaviour hinted
> at above - the boundary between order and chaos - the crytical point where memory of the system is
> maximized AND dynamics of the system is maximized - computational capacity of the system tops out,
> and lots of really neat things can start to happen - In my mind this situation is life.
>
> I don't see it as life.

It't an argument of semantics, one way or the other ;)

>
> snipped
>
>
> Unless that is you can show clearly how this theory makes all kinds of predictions - Just one will
> do for the time being...
>
> Life needs water - liquid water. Liquid water exists only in a very very very very narrow range of
> temp. from 0-100C Every other place in the universe is ruled out.

OK

> If the heat cycle continues to warm - no water If the heat cycle continues to cool? - no water If
> the water always stayed exactly the same temp no change - no variations to select from.

Last point, I don't agree. A growing crystal (phase transition) is a continious stable state with
tons of variation.

> What's left?.... Exactly

OK so you insist on a cycle - where does this get us?

Cheers, Dan.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ta, Dan. >>
>
>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back