How Does Life Come From Randomness?

[Atlan0001]

Quanta Magazine has an interesting video showing at this time called 'How Does Life Come From Randomness?' You might enjoy it.

My view of life in the Universe, separating it from sentiment and so on, is that it (at base) is a principle anti-entropy force of the Universe. The constant of 'life force', or the sole source of "animation" of the Universe.

I've often wondered how a constant of Big Bang (BB) would manifest itself throughout the Universe. The Big Crunch (BC) as an infinitesimal / infinite is easy in comparison. To me a constant of Big Bang has to source, as well as symbolize, the life force (force of life) of the Universe. It is all that can exist as the animate nemesis of entropy.

It is the only animate force. If the Universe has a fundamental life force to go with the other fundamental forces, the Big Bang belongs to it entirely / it belongs entirely to the Big Bang. I herein presuppose both the Big Crunch and the Big Bang to be timeless, neither being "cyclic" or being anything like a "one off event." Back of all life / in all life, all animation regarding the Universe, is a life force [in and as] a constant of Big Bang event.

I put it, the Big Bang, on and in the Horizon of the Universe (thus also the most distant horizon of the universe (I've called it "The Fountain of Youth" (thus "Life")), but we never escape a horizon we are always in: One always being a timeless constant to us, horizon to horizon to horizon. Because it is a constant in energetic event, and an energetic force, its manifestation in energetic life (as we understand energetic life) throughout the Universe is an energetic inevitability.

 

[Truthseeker007]

From my best research on the subject so far. I think consciousness is what creates through the imagination and thought. What our consciousness can imagine is what we can create. Consciousness has created this 3D reality to enjoy senses and experience and learn and grow. And I do think there is an infinite number of ways consciousness experiences and this is just one through this body that we are experiencing right now. This is just one possibility in the infinite number of possibilities we will enjoy or not enjoy.

 

[Catastrophe]

How Does Life Come From Randomness?

Given enough time (like a few billion years) I would say inevitably.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

Quanta Magazine has an interesting video showing at this time called 'How Does Life Come From Randomness?' You might enjoy it.

My view of life in the Universe, separating it from sentiment and so on, is that it (at base) is a principle anti-entropy force of the Universe. The constant of 'life force', or the sole source of "animation" of the Universe.

I've often wondered how a constant of Big Bang (BB) would manifest itself throughout the Universe. The Big Crunch (BC) as an infinitesimal / infinite is easy in comparison. To me a constant of Big Bang has to source, as well as symbolize, the life force (force of life) of the Universe. It is all that can exist as the animate nemesis of entropy.

It is the only animate force. If the Universe has a fundamental life force to go with the other fundamental forces, the Big Bang belongs to it entirely / it belongs entirely to the Big Bang. I herein presuppose both the Big Crunch and the Big Bang to be timeless, neither being "cyclic" or being anything like a "one off event." Back of all life / in all life, all animation regarding the Universe, is a life force [in and as] a constant of Big Bang event.

I put it, the Big Bang, on and in the Horizon of the Universe (thus also the most distant horizon of the universe (I've called it "The Fountain of Youth" (thus "Life")), but we never escape a horizon we are always in: One always being a timeless constant to us, horizon to horizon to horizon. Because it is a constant in energetic event, and an energetic force, its manifestation in energetic life (as we understand energetic life) throughout the Universe is an energetic inevitability.

Life does not come from randomness, because there's no such thing as randomness. The contents of our big bang came with 'order' and batteries included.

The video suggested the early earth was random. This is not so, all the order (information) for life and batteries was already present in that molten lava. With strict adherence to cause-and-effect, everything followed from there to the present state of things, nothing random.

Also, things such as crystals can form without sunlight, contrary to what's suggested in the video.

 

[Helio]

It may be how we define random. If it is just a statistical distribution then it may be useful to the OP.

All things dynamic include some level of randomness, often it's a high level. Stars form from randomized gas cloud distributions, but the incredible tuning of the forces and parameters intrinsic to BBT amazingly can build from this randomness. The Goldilocks level of matter attraction (gravity) is just right to allow stars to form, which produce fusion from their core's energetic protons as they randomly impact one another releasing energy. In a randomized distribution of planets around stars, there are some that happen to be in orbits where starlight provides the right amount of available energy to serve life, whether in abiogenesis or not.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I think like dice rolls on the right table, sooner or later you get the right set of rolls and life happens.
Going from very primitive life to anything advanced i think is another new table and new much larger dice set.

Got to be a pretty amazing zoo of life in the universe because every table and dice set is unique.

 

[Ken Fabian]

My own take on the odds of life originating by chance alone is to look at the scales of things -

1.3 billion cubic kilometres of liquid water (on Earth ie one planet)

= 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml

About 1,000,000 bacteria per ml live in sea water, so if the chemical precursors for those are present in primordial sea water we get enough to make...

= 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria's worth.

Give it 500 million years of chemical reactions that happen at much faster than 1 per second per ml rates

I'll be very conservative and say only 1 reaction per second... rather than the millions or more I suspect would be the case -

= 15,750,000,000,000,000 seconds x 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria's worth

= 20,475,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities for random chemistry + selection make the appropriate complex chemistry for earliest ‘simple’ life.

Now this isn't intended to be definitive by any means - add or subtract a few zeros if that makes you happier. It is just an attempt to see how "very unlikely" fits with extremely large numbers of opportunities for "unlikely" to happen.

(Note, I posted this elsewhere and repost it here. I had some version of this in "Abiogenesis - science or faith?" thread, but Search is not bringing that up, nor does it appear any more in my contents pages. Don't know why.)

 

[David-J-Franks]

It may be how we define random. If it is just a statistical distribution then it may be useful to the OP.

All things dynamic include some level of randomness, often it's a high level. Stars form from randomized gas cloud distributions, but the incredible tuning of the forces and parameters intrinsic to BBT amazingly can build from this randomness. The Goldilocks level of matter attraction (gravity) is just right to allow stars to form, which produce fusion from their core's energetic protons as they randomly impact one another releasing energy. In a randomized distribution of planets around stars, there are some that happen to be in orbits where starlight provides the right amount of available energy to serve life, whether in abiogenesis or not.

"All things dynamic include some level of randomness,"

I suggest that every last particle in 'All things dynamic' and indeed the whole universe is interacting according to the laws of physics and cause and effect. The properties of a particle only change if there's a cause such as a collision or interaction with a field etc. So, the whole of the gas cloud is behaving in a deterministic manner because all its constituent parts are.

Random behaviour would require that a particle could be moving along and suddenly on a whim change direction without a cause or reason.

If you want to include QM, I suggest the same applies, every quantum or field fluctuation will have a cause to it, ie from a neighbouring fluctuation or whatever. Like waves on the sea, a peak isn't random, it was caused by a neighbouring trough.

Stars form from randomized gas cloud distributions,

I don't believe the gas clouds are random. Your existence is down to long chains of cause and effect going back all the way to the cloud (and indefinitely into the past) which formed our solar system. Therefore all the order to create you was encoded in that cloud.

To demonstrate this, think of the butterfly effect (or the pinball effect). Now, imagine if some of the conditions in this gas cloud were slightly different from what they were, the following chains of cause and effect would produce a slightly different outcome for 'now'. You might have different coloured eyes for example. In turn, I think the structure and form of the gas cloud are also due to chains of cause and effect, meaning it depended on the structure and form of what preceded it. I believe these chains of cause and effect go back unbroken and indefinitely, meaning 'order' has always existed. We are just a rearrangement of an already pre-existing order and not from randomness.

 

[Catastrophe]

Here we are again - the assumption that one miniscule form of life in an unbelievably large Universe has the only viable concept of randomness. If, indeed, randomness has any meaning at all.

Even worse, that there is only one form of life, and that has to be as we know it. Intellectual myopia gone mad.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Google provides this rather interesting statement:

"In the common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but since they often follow a probability distribution, the frequency of different outcomes over numerous events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. "

 

[Helio]

To demonstrate this, think of the butterfly effect (or the pinball effect). Now, imagine if some of the conditions in this gas cloud were slightly different from what they were, the following chains of cause and effect would produce a slightly different outcome for 'now'. You might have different coloured eyes for example. In turn, I think the structure and form of the gas cloud are also due to chains of cause and effect, meaning it depended on the structure and form of what preceded it. I believe these chains of cause and effect go back unbroken and indefinitely, meaning 'order' has always existed. We are just a rearrangement of an already pre-existing order and not from randomness.

The Butterfly Effect is worth noting. It is meant to argue that tiny changes are not just complicated to account for in their long term effects, but impossible to account for what changes they would cause. It argues against deterministic viewpoints.

From MIT...
Lorenz's early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study... In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

[Atlan0001]

The Butterfly Effect is worth noting. It is meant to argue that tiny changes are not just complicated to account for in their long term effects, but impossible to account for what changes they would cause. It argues against deterministic viewpoints.

From MIT...
Lorenz's early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study... In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

An infinite Universe (U) (1) of infinite many finite universes (u) (0). Impossible? You are trying to beat infinity with randomness and you aren't going to do it. All possible paths are already there, already exist, already taken, in an infinite Universe (U) (1). All possible potentials are fulfilled (1). All possible dimensionality is encompassed and incorporated (1). Non-locally! Just not locally. That is the relativistic. The non-relativistic is that we, and everything else, move among the infinity of universes, from this path crossing over to that path, this potential to that potential, this dimensionality to that dimensionality. Horizon universe to horizon universe, to horizon universe, to horizon universe, to.... The infinite Universe (U) (1) of an infinite many finite universes (u) (0) will have it both ways, all possible ways, at once.

 

[David-J-Franks]

The Butterfly Effect is worth noting. It is meant to argue that tiny changes are not just complicated to account for in their long term effects, but impossible to account for what changes they would cause. It argues against deterministic viewpoints.

From MIT...
Lorenz's early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study... In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Just because something is unpredictable doesn't mean it's not deterministic.

Are you suggesting that some atoms or molecules in the gas cloud or weather atmosphere suddenly break away from cause and effect and disregard the laws of physics and change direction or properties without a cause or reason?

The butterfly effect properly known as chaos theory works side by side with determinism and doesn't argue against it. Lorenz may be right the weather "may be fundamentally impossible to predict" but that doesn't mean it's indeterministic. Every particle in the weather system is strictly complying with cause and effect and the laws of physics, which means the whole weather system is deterministic.

I would, of course, be interested If you could show me any articles which shows chaos theory argues against deterministic viewpoints.

 

[Catastrophe]

Was it Laplace in it the 18th century who said "give me the direction and motion of every atom in the Universe and I will give you the whole of the future"?

Still does not work.

Cat

 

[Helio]

An infinite Universe (U) (1) of infinite many finite universes (u) (0). Impossible? You are trying to beat infinity with randomness and you aren't going to do it. All possible paths are already there, already exist, already taken, in an infinite Universe (U) (1). All possible potentials are fulfilled (1). All possible dimensionality is encompassed and incorporated (1). Non-locally! Just not locally. That is the relativistic. The non-relativistic is that we, and everything else, move among the infinity of universes, from this path crossing over to that path, this potential to that potential, this dimensionality to that dimensionality. Horizon universe to horizon universe, to horizon universe, to horizon universe, to.... The infinite Universe (U) (1) of an infinite many finite universes (u) (0) will have it both ways, all possible ways, at once.

I'm unclear how my randomness view might counter a multi-verse view. Couldn't they be formed from randomness, each having a random set of parameters and force values?

Regardless, there is no objective evidence that demonstrates even one other universe. Suppositions can be very helpful but some can become genuine hypotheses. So far, there is only one observable universe, which is why it's called the observable universe.

 

[Helio]

Just because something is unpredictable doesn't mean it's not deterministic.

But what use is deterministic work if it is indeed unpredictable? Chaos has limits in what it can predict.

Are you suggesting that some atoms or molecules in the gas cloud or weather atmosphere suddenly break away from cause and effect and disregard the laws of physics and change direction or properties without a cause or reason?

Physics, unlike math, addresses things that don't offer a million decimal place accuracy. The vectors of a given set of bouncing balls can be determined, using Newton, if the initial conditions are well established. The more balls the more critical are those decimal places.

The butterfly effect properly known as chaos theory works side by side with determinism and doesn't argue against it.

There are both deterministic and non-deterministic chaos, apparently.

Lorenz may be right the weather "may be fundamentally impossible to predict" but that doesn't mean it's indeterministic. Every particle in the weather system is strictly complying with cause and effect and the laws of physics, which means the whole weather system is deterministic.

It's not about any violation of the laws. The greater the number of particles, the greater number of the initial condition decimal places you will need to exactly model what takes place over time. The longer the time requires even more decimal places. Lorenz, I think, recognized that such efforts aren't just impractical but impossible to go from a butterfly flap to a tornado. Just take one single gram worth of hydrogen (6.02x10^23) atoms at at temp. of 0 K, then heat it to room temperature and, at a moment of your choice, give a 3D coordinate location of each. Print those coordinates for each on paper, 100 lines per page. You will have a stack of paper that would reach > 50 light years distance, if there were enough trees, not that other problems wouldn't occur.

I would, of course, be interested If you could show me any articles which shows chaos theory argues against deterministic viewpoints.

If you search using "non-deterministic chaos" you will get > 3 million hits.

 

[Helio]

Was it Laplace in it the 18th century who said "give me the direction and motion of every atom in the Universe and I will give you the whole of the future"?

Still does not work.

Yeah. This was a huge issue in the classic battle between Bohr and Einstein. Einstein didn't like the fuzzy, non-determinism, being presented in QM. Bohr would produce a clear and powerful argument and Einstein would dream-up a counter argument. This would stress Bohr, but he would then take Einstein's example case and demonstrate its error. It's a great story, not to mention Einstein's only Nobel Prize was in QM.

 

[Atlan0001]

This still applies:

How Mathematical ‘Hocus-Pocus’ Saved Particle Physics

Renormalization has become perhaps the single most important advance in theoretical physics in 50 years.

www.quantamagazine.org

And Hawking's statement (in answer to Einstein) about the dice always being played but always being "loaded" also still applies.

 

[David-J-Franks]

But what use is deterministic work if it is indeed unpredictable? Chaos has limits in what it can predict.

Physics, unlike math, addresses things that don't offer a million decimal place accuracy. The vectors of a given set of bouncing balls can be determined, using Newton, if the initial conditions are well established. The more balls the more critical are those decimal places.

There are both deterministic and non-deterministic chaos, apparently.

It's not about any violation of the laws. The greater the number of particles, the greater number of the initial condition decimal places you will need to exactly model what takes place over time. The longer the time requires even more decimal places. Lorenz, I think, recognized that such efforts aren't just impractical but impossible to go from a butterfly flap to a tornado. Just take one single gram worth of hydrogen (6.02x10^23) atoms at at temp. of 0 K, then heat it to room temperature and, at a moment of your choice, give a 3D coordinate location of each. Print those coordinates for each on paper, 100 lines per page. You will have a stack of paper that would reach > 50 light years distance, if there were enough trees, not that other problems wouldn't occur.

If you search using "non-deterministic chaos" you will get > 3 million hits.

"But what use is deterministic work if it is indeed unpredictable?"

Who said it was any use? It's more of a name for a type of philosophy rather than an indication of what you can do with it. It's a proposition of how the universe works.

There's too much confusion between the word random and unpredictable. Chaotic systems rapidly become unpredictable because not enough initial data can be gathered and there's not enough computing power and time available to predict. The system is unpredictable, not random. Being unpredictable due to practicalities does not mean there is fundamental randomness.

"Physics, unlike math, addresses things that don't offer a million decimal place accuracy."

If physics isn't offering million decimal place accuracy then your not going to get a 100% accurate description of reality. The philosophy of determinism is dealing with 100% accuracy. It proposes that an exact set of initial conditions obeying the laws of physics will lead to an exact future. Of course, that's unpredictable but the point is that there's no inherent randomness.

The vectors of a given set of bouncing balls can be determined, using Newton, if the initial conditions are well established.

This is another area of common confusion. So, no the vectors of a bouncing ball can't be determined, because the exact initial conditions can't be well established. Any measuring instruments will only ever give approximate data, and no numbering system is capable of giving an exact representation.

Measurements in your ball example and a chaotic system both start with errors, the only difference being in the ball case the errors become greater proportional to time, but in the chaotic system, they become greater at an exponential rate.

The more balls the more critical are those decimal places.

Exactly, In your example, you say the balls are following Newtons laws - that's deterministic, not random isn't it? Now can you tell me how many balls you have to include before your vision of random comes into play? 2, 10, 100 or a trillion. I suggest that a trillion balls are all doing what you say ie following newtons laws, and therefore it's deterministic with no randomness, just unpredictable.

It's not about any violation of the laws. The greater the number of particles, the greater number of the initial condition decimal places you will need to exactly model what takes place over time. The longer the time requires even more decimal places. Lorenz, I think, recognized that such efforts aren't just impractical but impossible to go from a butterfly flap to a tornado. Just take one single gram worth of hydrogen (6.02x10^23) atoms at at temp. of 0 K, then heat it to room temperature and, at a moment of your choice, give a 3D coordinate location of each. Print those coordinates for each on paper, 100 lines per page. You will have a stack of paper that would reach > 50 light years distance, if there were enough trees, not that other problems wouldn't occur.

Great, if no laws are violated, then it's deterministic. All you've pointed out here is that you can't exactly model a complex system and that you can't represent it on paper. That's fine, but you still haven't demonstrated this proves inherent randomness. Again unpredictability doesn't prove randomness is at play.

Just take one single gram worth of hydrogen (6.02x10^23) atoms at at temp. of 0 K, then heat it to room temperature and, at a moment of your choice, give a 3D coordinate location of each.

Of course that's impossible to predict, but as above, every atom is following the laws of physics the same as for the bouncing ball, so the gram of hydrogen is still behaving deterministically.

 

[David-J-Franks]

An infinite Universe (U) (1) of infinite many finite universes (u) (0). Impossible? You are trying to beat infinity with randomness and you aren't going to do it. All possible paths are already there, already exist, already taken, in an infinite Universe (U) (1). All possible potentials are fulfilled (1). All possible dimensionality is encompassed and incorporated (1). Non-locally! Just not locally. That is the relativistic. The non-relativistic is that we, and everything else, move among the infinity of universes, from this path crossing over to that path, this potential to that potential, this dimensionality to that dimensionality. Horizon universe to horizon universe, to horizon universe, to horizon universe, to.... The infinite Universe (U) (1) of an infinite many finite universes (u) (0) will have it both ways, all possible ways, at once.

I don't think your sums add up.

There are an infinite set of types of infinity and each set is infinitely bigger than the preceding one, the size being called cardinality. The lowest cardinality called aleph 0 is also called 'countable infinity'' this includes the set of natural numbers because you can start counting them, the next size up is called uncountable infinity or the continuum infinity, this set includes all rational numbers. Its's easy to visualise with a ruler. The countable infinity is whole number divisions 1, 2, 3, etc while the continuum infinity is represented by the space between the whole numbers. Each of these spaces can be divided indefinitely, you can always divide any division indefinitely, and this continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than the countable infinity. Don't ask me what the next level is, I don't know.

Before any one jumps down my throat, I'm not an expert but I think I've got the essence of it right if not the details.

Back to your sums. An infinite number of finite universes (u) belong to the countable infinite set ie the smallest cardinality. The number of variations (or paths and potentials as you put it) for each universe (u) belongs to the continuum infinity and is thus infinitely bigger than the countable infinity of finite universes (u) and so won't fit in. All possible variations cant fit in all at once in the Universe (U).

Another way of looking at it is to imagine that I can always add another unique universe (u) to your Universe (U) because there's an infinitely greater number of variations for me to choose from. So, because another different universe (u) can always be added to your Universe (U) proves it didn't contain all possibilities to start with, and nor can it ever do so.

The bottom line is that our Universe (U) is only playing out one scenario of a continuum type infinity of other possible scenarios. This really bugs me, I'm lost from here on.

 

[Atlan0001]

I don't think your sums add up.

There are an infinite set of types of infinity and each set is infinitely bigger than the preceding one, the size being called cardinality. The lowest cardinality called aleph 0 is also called 'countable infinity'' this includes the set of natural numbers because you can start counting them, the next size up is called uncountable infinity or the continuum infinity, this set includes all rational numbers. Its's easy to visualise with a ruler. The countable infinity is whole number divisions 1, 2, 3, etc while the continuum infinity is represented by the space between the whole numbers. Each of these spaces can be divided indefinitely, you can always divide any division indefinitely, and this continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than the countable infinity. Don't ask me what the next level is, I don't know.

Before any or jumps down my throat , I'm not an expert but I think I've got the essence of it right if not the details.

Back to your sums. An infinite number of finite universes (u) belong to the countable infinite set ie the smallest cardinality. The number of variations (or paths and potentials as you put it) for each universe (u) belongs to the continuum infinity and is thus infinitely bigger than the countable infinity of finite universes (u) and so won't fit in. All possible variations cant fit in all at once in the Universe (U).

Another way of looking at it is to imagine that I can always add another unique universe (u) to your Universe (U) because there's an infinitely greater number of variations for me to choose from. So, because another different universe (u) can always be added to your Universe (U) proves it didn't contain all possibilities to start with, and nor can it ever do so.

The bottom line is that our Universe (U) is only playing out one scenario of a continuum type infinity of other possible scenarios. This really bugs me, I'm lost from here on.

There is nothing new in an infinite Universe. There never was. There never will be. Therefore, it is all new. Always was. Always will be.

I'm not sure you understand what Einstein meant when he said dice aren't played with the Universe, or what Hawking meant when he said that oh yes dice are played with the Universe but they're loaded (meaning the game will always be fixed no matter how the dice land). The game is strictly closed (U) (1). The game is wide open (u) (0).

 

[maggags02]

I suggest that every last particle in 'All things dynamic' and indeed the whole universe is interacting according to the laws of physics and cause and effect. The properties of a particle only change if there's a cause such as a collision or interaction with a field etc. So, the whole of the gas cloud is behaving in a deterministic manner because all its constituent parts are.

Random behaviour would require that a particle could be moving along and suddenly on a whim change direction without a cause or reason.

If you want to include QM, I suggest the same applies, every quantum or field fluctuation will have a cause to it, ie from a neighbouring fluctuation or whatever. Like waves on the sea, a peak isn't random, it was caused by a neighbouring trough. I don't believe the gas clouds are random. Your existence is down to long chains of cause and effect going back all the way to the cloud (and indefinitely into the past) which formed our solar system. Therefore all the order to create you was encoded in that cloud.

To demonstrate this, think of the butterfly effect (or the pinball effect). Now, imagine if some of the conditions in this gas cloud were slightly different from what they were, the following chains of cause and effect would produce a slightly different outcome for 'now'. You might have different coloured eyes for example. In turn, I think the structure and form of the gas cloud are also due to chains of cause and effect, meaning it depended on the structure and form of what preceded it. I believe these chains of cause and effect go back unbroken and indefinitely, meaning 'order' has always existed. We are just a rearrangement of an already pre-existing order and not from randomness.

Makes all the sense. Our world exists out of so many possibilities, where it may not have existed..or just in some other form, this itself shows a certain order that has been followed. Though I believe there could've been multiple orders since the inception of these chain reactions. And we and the world we live in is just one of the several possibilities where a few details would've altered, minor or maybe major ones.

 

[Catastrophe]

How Does Life Come From Randomness? This is the question.

"A statement by the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. "

Therefore we can accept the assumption that there is life, We represent life.

There remains the question "has life come from randomness.

I would like to return to the following:

In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

I submit that this description of "randomness" is preferable.

This reduces the question to "Did life arise by chance"?

Since we exist, the answer must be “yes”. The only alternative is to have some supernatural ant deciding to initiate life, in which case there is still the chance whether it did or not.

Thus the question is answered. Finito.

Cat

 

[David-J-Franks]

There is nothing new in an infinite Universe. There never was. There never will be. Therefore, it is all new. Always was. Always will be.

I'm not sure you understand what Einstein meant when he said dice aren't played with the Universe, or what Hawking meant when he said that oh yes dice are played with the Universe but they're loaded (meaning the game will always be fixed no matter how the dice land). The game is strictly closed (U) (1). The game is wide open (u) (0).

I think you are misunderstanding. In my post, no 20, which you quoted, I was not talking about randomness, (Einsteins dice is another subject) I was putting counter-arguments to statements from your post, no 12, which are -

"All possible paths are already there, already exist, already taken, in an infinite Universe (U) (1). All possible potentials are fulfilled (1). All possible dimensionality is encompassed and incorporated (1)."

and -

The infinite Universe (U) (1) of an infinite many finite universes (u) (0) will have it both ways, all possible ways, at once.

In response I'll say again;

All the possibilities a universe (u) can take on, belongs to the 'continuum infinity set', this set is infinitely bigger than the 'countable infinity' set of all the universes (u), which you are calling the Universe (U). Therefore all possible universes cannot all fit into the Universe. It's simple arithmetic. In other words, all possible things that can happen don't happen, there aren't enough universes (u) in the Universe (U). so your statements can't be true.

 

[Helio]

There's too much confusion between the word random and unpredictable. Chaotic systems rapidly become unpredictable because not enough initial data can be gathered and there's not enough computing power and time available to predict. The system is unpredictable, not random.

Right, so it's hard to not to use an "indeterminate" label for systems that become unpredictable. It's also reasonable to describe gas particles bouncing around in a box as having random results. If random, however, is defined in the sense that a particle moves in violation of physics, then I agree, but it's not hard to use that term just as if those wild motions appear random. Perhaps other terms need emphasis to avoid the confusion.

Of course that's impossible to predict, but as above, every atom is following the laws of physics the same as for the bouncing ball, so the gram of hydrogen is still behaving deterministically.

My point is that it appears illogical to state an object's motion is "impossible to predict" and also claim it's motion behaves "deterministically", things that can't be determined should not be considered behaving in a deterministic manner. It's semantics but why don't we have a better word that argues that non-predictable results aren't in defiance of physics?