A Question on Abiogenesis

[VonNeumann]

You asked another poster a list of questions, amongst them:

1. As my signature says, unquestioning belief is proof not of faith but of doubt. Are you prepared to admit that you do not have faith, but instead have doubt?

2. Do you question whether the universe is governed by laws that are ultimately discoverable and comprehensible? If so, on what basis other than a book written by neolithic sheep herders, who were incapable of even conceiving of the "universe" as we now know it to be?

I don't want to get into an argument about some big dude and stoneaged shepherds, but... I'd like to ask you this:

Do you have unquestioning belief about whether the universe is governed by laws that are ultimately discoverable and comprehensible?

That may be easy for you to answer, I don't know...but maybe this question will help:
1. Do you believe (scale of 1 to 10?) that we will be able to come up with a satisfactory T.O.E. in physics?
2. Do you believe it is possible to come up with a T.O.E. for mathematics (a formal axiomatic system from which all mathematical theorems can be derived)?

 

[VonNeumann]

Oh, I just noticed you clearly answered my question before I asked it:

I have faith that the universe is ultimately completely explainable by rational inquiry; and I welcome arguments that seem to question that faith, it is a tenet of that faith that I do so.

But you already made a blanket statement about "faith" meaning "doubt". You exclude your faith in the prospects of a T.O.E., then, right? You take it on faith and do not doubt it, correct?

 

[cyborg]

2. Do you believe it is possible to come up with a T.O.E. for mathematics (a formal axiomatic system from which all mathematical theorems can be derived)?

Theory of Evolution for... maths?

Um, no.

 

[VonNeumann]

Theory of Evolution for... maths?

Um, no.

No. Sorry.
TOE= THEORY OF EVERYTHING
...that is a unifying theory as in what string theory is supposed to do for physics. I take your answer, nevertheless, as "no" for mathematics.

 

[cyborg]

Mathematics is an artificial construct - more correctly it is a family of such logical constructs.

A TOE for mathematics just doesn't make any sense.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

??? You may want to clarify your question again. I don't think many here believe we have a theory of everything yet. And I doubt many would be certain we're ever going to have it. I would think most think we will spend forever approaching such a thing.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm getting at that, not only is the creation of the universe unexplainable by our current best understanding of how the world works, but there is no realistic prospect that it will ever be explained.

Some questions have no answers. It is just grand that there are things that can never be known, it sets the bar for humility.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Some questions have no answers. It is just grand that there are things that can never be known, it sets the bar for humility.

Just beware of the question that has no answer, that turns out to have been an incoherent question in the first place.

~~ Paul

 

[Schneibster]

I don't want to get into an argument about some big dude and stoneaged shepherds, but... I'd like to ask you this:

Do you have unquestioning belief about whether the universe is governed by laws that are ultimately discoverable and comprehensible?

No. I might be wrong; there might be some laws that are undiscoverable to us, because we are limited to experiencing 3+1 dimensions, or for other reasons, type unknown. But given what we've discovered so far, it seems highly unlikely, almost to the point of ridiculousness.

That may be easy for you to answer, I don't know...but maybe this question will help:
1. Do you believe (scale of 1 to 10?) that we will be able to come up with a satisfactory T.O.E. in physics?

I'd give that about an 8. My answer to your next question will answer why I don't give it a 10.

2. Do you believe it is possible to come up with a T.O.E. for mathematics (a formal axiomatic system from which all mathematical theorems can be derived)?

Absolutely not; and it is a not a matter of belief. The Incompleteness Theorem proves that it is impossible to define an axiomatic system that is both complete and consistent. For this reason, it is possible that there cannot be a TOE in physics.

However, physics is not an axiomatic system; this limitation on mathematics therefore may not apply to it. Math is merely the language in which we describe physics; it is not itself physics. To use an analogy, the same trick that Godel used to construct and prove the Incompleteness Theorem is also possible in Aristotelian logic; a trivial example of a similar trick is the sentence:

This sentence is false.

The truth or falsity of that sentence is undecidable. However, this defect does not compromise our ability to use Aristotelian logic and natural language to describe, for example, a rock; and in fact, to completely describe that rock. So I do not accept that the necessary incompleteness of mathematical axiomatic systems implies a necessary incompleteness of physics. It is possible, but not likely.

 

[Schneibster]

But you already made a blanket statement about "faith" meaning "doubt".

No, I didn't. Read it again.

You exclude your faith in the prospects of a T.O.E., then, right? You take it on faith and do not doubt it, correct?

No. Read it again; and read my previous reply for more clarification on this point.

Faith is not based on unquestioning belief; it is changeable based on new evidence. It is merely the assertion that, in one's own opinion, it is extremely unlikely that such evidence will ever emerge. A statement of faith is not a statement of unquestioning belief; that is what my signature says. Unquestioning belief is not faith; it is an attempt to exclude doubt, which is an entirely different thing than faith.

 

[Schneibster]

Just beware of the question that has no answer, that turns out to have been an incoherent question in the first place.

~~ Paul

Heh, there have been quite a few of those- not to mention, beware as well of asserting what we can never know. A French philosopher named Auguste Comte, credited by some with the creation of Logical Positivism and certainly a man whose writings influenced that movement strongly, asserted in an 1835 book that we would never know the composition of stars. Kirchoff and Bunsen showed in 1859 (fortunately for Comte's peace of mind, after his death, though not so fortunately for Logical Positivism) that every element emits and absorbs light in a characteristic pattern, and so created the science of spectroscopy, in which astrophysicists examine the chemical composition of stars.

So when someone tells me, "we can never know the origin of the universe," I smile.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I stumbled into this thread wondering if anyone would bring up panspermia where the topic is abiogenesis, and see that Skeptigirl did.

Francis Crick ( DNA's Crick and Watson) was of the opinion that there may be insufficient evidence of biogenesis here on Earth. He believed life may have had origins elsewhere and migrated here... even 'directed' here. If you are interested in that idea either to learn about it or debunk it, an intro is at:

http://www.panspermia.org/oseti.htm

Genetic evidence is extremely strong against the panspermia hypothesis. There are a number of unsubstantiated claims on that website such as claims the Mars rock "had" fossils, not, 'might have had', and all sorts of additional unsubstantiated claims of fossils found in meteorites. The site does mention the bacteria which survived for 2 years on humanmade objects in space and which was viable when brought back. That incident is well documented. All in all I find the site too full of false information to be a serious citation for the panspermia hypothesis. It's one of those mis-leading sites which combine facts with fiction.

Organic molecules do arrive from comet and meteoroid material. I think the evidence is stronger biogenesis occurred here as elsewhere. There is the problem of surviving entry through the atmosphere. However it seems there is a huge previously unrecognized bacterial community deep in the rocks of the Earth. If life were within a rock it could survive entry through the atmosphere.

 

[VonNeumann]

No. I might be wrong; there might be some laws that are undiscoverable to us, because we are limited to experiencing 3+1 dimensions, or for other reasons, type unknown. But given what we've discovered so far, it seems highly unlikely, almost to the point of ridiculousness.

I'd give that about an 8. My answer to your next question will answer why I don't give it a 10.

Absolutely not; and it is a not a matter of belief. The Incompleteness Theorem proves that it is impossible to define an axiomatic system that is both complete and consistent. For this reason, it is possible that there cannot be a TOE in physics.

However, physics is not an axiomatic system; this limitation on mathematics therefore may not apply to it.

I put the question about TOE of math to bait you to link math with physics, which you did. My attempt to understand Goedel's proof when I read "Goedel Escher Bach" was successful, but fleeting - my grasp of the proof must have been lost after about a minute, but I was permanently left with the message. Now I am stumbling through "Meta Math - The Quest for Omega" by mathematician Gregory Chaitin. He re-explains Goedel's incompleteness theorem and Turing's Halting problem from the standpoint of a programmer. It looks easy to read, but for me, it is not a simple read. I still don't know how to determine his "omega" - but I'm getting there. It was in Chaitin's book that he called the likes of the attempt by Russell&Whitehead in Principia Mathematica to be a failed attempt of TOE of math. Hilbert, too. ...that it is impossible (still).

An interesting perspective Chaitin talks about is that math is "experimental" now that we have digital computers. And he draws a parallel between math and physics:
PHYSICS: Laws -> Computer -> Universe
MATH: Axioms -> Computer -> Theorems

I find this interesting because it speaks through the worldview I have that the universe behaves as a digital computer. I've found this idea to be generally considered "silly" or worse by so-called skeptics here. I don't know why people aren't more open-minded to it.

 

[Rodney]

By showing that there was no such singularity, which is in fact what most physicists and cosmologists think is the answer anyway. The reason it's "naive" physics is because it doesn't take into account things we already know are true, such as the merging of the electromagnetic and weak forces at high temperature and pressure and over short time periods.

So if the universe did not emerge from a singularity, what did it emerge from? In other words, what immediately preceded the Big Bang?

So it's OK to burn people alive as long as you don't kill as many people as Stalin did? Evil is evil.

First, I'm glad we agree that there is such a thing as evil. Second, my point was that, even if superstition is eliminated from the face of the earth, there will still be wars and the killing of innocents.

 

[CapelDodger]

I find this interesting because it speaks through the worldview I have that the universe behaves as a digital computer. I've found this idea to be generally considered "silly" or worse by so-called skeptics here. I don't know why people aren't more open-minded to it.

Perhaps because the evidence so strongly suggests an anologue computer.

 

[CapelDodger]

Organic molecules do arrive from comet and meteoroid material. I think the evidence is stronger biogenesis occurred here as elsewhere. There is the problem of surviving entry through the atmosphere. However it seems there is a huge previously unrecognized bacterial community deep in the rocks of the Earth. If life were within a rock it could survive entry through the atmosphere.

Off-world life, if and when we discover it, will tell us a lot about panspermia. It will have to be very different from "life as we know it" to decide the issue, though. Panspermia on a solar-system scale would otherwise be possible; if that's not tenable, panspermia on a galactic-regional scale might still be; then on a galactic scale, then on an inter-galactic ...

A carbon base to life is more-or-less a given, chemistry and physics almost dictate that. Ditto the intimate involvement of nitrogen and protein. DNA? Not nearly as clear-cut, but perhaps still dictated.

Life that has clearly taken some other route than DNA/RNA to establish itself is the only discovery that could possibly put panspermia to rest.

 

[Rodney]

And by the way, Rodney, I noted that you did not answer several points. I intend to keep bringing them up until you answer them, or admit that you have no answers, or abandon the conversation because they make you uncomfortable so that everyone else will know you have no answers.

1. As my signature says, unquestioning belief is proof not of faith but of doubt. Are you prepared to admit that you do not have faith, but instead have doubt?

My belief is based on logic and is not unquestioning.

2. Do you question whether the universe is governed by laws that are ultimately discoverable and comprehensible? If so, on what basis other than a book written by neolithic sheep herders, who were incapable of even conceiving of the "universe" as we now know it to be?

I've already stated that, not only is the creation of the universe unexplainable by our current best understanding of how the world works, but there is no realistic prospect that it will ever be explained. The basis is that is where science has led us.

3. Do you deny that what I sense is real, and that what I can deduce from it is also real? If not, then how can you maintain that there's some big powerful dude in the sky, when I can look in a telescope and see there's not?

I don't deny that what you sense is real, but it's absurd to think you would be able to see "some big powerful dude in the sky" with a telescope.

4. What positive argument, other than a book by stone-age sheep herders, can you produce to support your contention that there's a big powerful dude in the sky that we can't see with telescopes? And don't try "god of the gaps," IOW basing your unquestioning belief in a big powerful dude in the sky that we can't see with telescopes on the fact that we don't know everything; it's logically inconsistent, and makes you look ignorant to boot.

It seems far more logical to me that the universe arose by design rather than chance. And, I've experienced a number of synchronicities that bolster this conclusion. Further, many people have had well-documented paranormal experiences. I'm open to alternative explanations, but as former New York Yankees baseball manager Billy Martin used to say: "I could be wrong, but I doubt it."

 

[Schneibster]

I put the question about TOE of math to bait you to link math with physics, which you did.

It shouldn't be a surprise- math is the language in which the laws of physics are described. No baiting is required.

My attempt to understand Goedel's proof when I read "Goedel Escher Bach" was successful, but fleeting - my grasp of the proof must have been lost after about a minute, but I was permanently left with the message.

It's a good book. But there's plenty more to it than just Godel's proof.

Now I am stumbling through "Meta Math - The Quest for Omega" by mathematician Gregory Chaitin. He re-explains Goedel's incompleteness theorem and Turing's Halting problem from the standpoint of a programmer. It looks easy to read, but for me, it is not a simple read. I still don't know how to determine his "omega" - but I'm getting there. It was in Chaitin's book that he called the likes of the attempt by Russell&Whitehead in Principia Mathematica to be a failed attempt of TOE of math. Hilbert, too. ...that it is impossible (still).

Godel proved it impossible, period. A mathematical proof isn't like scientific theories that are open to being disproved later- if you prove a theorem, it either stands up or it doesn't. Some people think that that's the very weakness that makes Godel's Incompleteness Theorem happen in math.

An interesting perspective Chaitin talks about is that math is "experimental" now that we have digital computers.

The part of math that's experimental is chaos theory. As far as anyone has been able to determine so far, the only way to solve chaos problems is to work them- there isn't any shortcut. But the field is young- only a few decades old.

It is important to remember that we have no firm solution, or even methodology for finding a solution, to most integrals. Only certain classes of integrals are solvable. Interestingly, it seems that nature by and large chooses those ones- until you get into particle physics. That's why particle physics is so interesting.

And he draws a parallel between math and physics:
PHYSICS: Laws -> Computer -> Universe
MATH: Axioms -> Computer -> Theorems

Hmmmm. I'm not sure I agree with that, at least not to the extent you seem to be taking it.

I find this interesting because it speaks through the worldview I have that the universe behaves as a digital computer. I've found this idea to be generally considered "silly" or worse by so-called skeptics here. I don't know why people aren't more open-minded to it.

Because digital computers can't do chaos math- they can only approximate it. To do chaos math, you need analog computers, and analog computers don't give exact answers.

 

[Schneibster]

So if the universe did not emerge from a singularity, what did it emerge from? In other words, what immediately preceded the Big Bang?

Ever hear of the inflationary universe?

First, I'm glad we agree that there is such a thing as evil. Second, my point was that, even if superstition is eliminated from the face of the earth, there will still be wars and the killing of innocents.

Sure, but maybe the people who do the killing will be recognized as aberrant psychopaths and put away instead of being allowed to run countries and get command of armies. And if that happens, perhaps there won't be any more wars.

 

[Schneibster]

You know, your question about what preceded the Big Bang, Rodney, indicates that you have a misconception about it. Cosmologists say, "the observable universe was the size of a pea," and people tend to forget that the universe is infinite, or at least that as far as we can tell there's none of the indications we'd expect to see if it wasn't. And no matter how much you compress the matter, it remains so. It's just the universe as far as we can see- as far as light has had a chance to move since things started- that's finite. So that's not the whole universe squeezed down to the size of a pea- it's infinite, it's always been infinite (at least since the beginning of the Big Bang), and nothing can change that. You've got a picture of a universe the size of a pea, and that just never happened- it was very hot, very dense, and under enormous pressure, but it was still infinite even then.