Thought about it for years over lonely lunches.
Most likely nothing new, but maybe my somewhat indifferent stance on it may answer those questions better.
However, I'd need to lean on the foundations of evolution by natural selection, mainly to explain how something comes from nothing (or a needle point). Here's a simplified explanation on it before I go further:-
1a) Evolution is the product of adaptation and imperfect replication.
1b) Adaptation: organisms that survive in their environment stays in the game.
1c) Imperfect replication: genetic mutations, mixed genes, duplication error.
1d) Hence, evolution happens all the time.
2a) Common-sense: complexity arises out of simplicity.
2b) General direction for evolution: simple to complex.
2c) There are less complex organisms in Old Earth.
2d) There are more complex organisms in Current Earth.
Please note: "General direction of evolution"
It doesn't mean that organisms evolve to be more complex all the time. Remember that evolution is just a product of adaptation and imperfect replication. But in general you can assume that it's from simple to complex. Simple or complex, is by no means an indicator of an organism's survivability. Point here is, it would help to think that the origin of life is simple in configuration. It could be complex too, depending on your perspective.
Now onto the main explanation..
The origin of life is the first seed. Doesn't matter if it originated here on Earth. "Origins" of life might even be happening all the time. But here's a definite criteria for the origin of life (that made us):-
- It must be able to survive long enough to replicate.
- It must be able to replicate.
The first life, ironically, doesn't seem to paint a picture of life. It is just a thing that needs to be able to survive and replicate. Let's just call the first life a replicator.
Consider this:-
- The universe is a really huge place. And it's very old.
- Things are happening all the time with or without intelligence.
Imagine if the settings for the entire universe only comprise of the ordered-numbers 1, 2, 3, and absolutely nothing else. It is a very small universe indeed. Now if you break that order of numbers, the setting of the universe changes. You can achieve only 6 settings in this hypothetical universe.
We will have: [1,2,3] [1,3,2] [2,1,3] [2,3,1] [3,1,2] and [3,2,1]
Analogous to the simple universe above, you can think of our universe as a soup of "atomic" configurations, and it's much much larger than just 6 numbers for the entirety its settings. The configurations change all the time - the wind blows, volcanoes erupt, asteroids crashing and adjusting local gravity, etc.
Local configurations change slower, of course. The patch of mud in your backyard doesn't change its pattern and configuration all the time, but hey it might be cooking up a replicator for all you know.
So, the origin of life..
There comes a point in time when something much like an ice-cube mould was formed. Wash liquid over it, and it will replicate ice cubes given the right conditions. Anyway, let's just forget that it's an ice cube mould.
It's just a rough analogy, and the main point is this: one or multiple replicators can arise out of seemingly random "atomic" configurations. Mix the pot for a gazillion years, and what do you get? The first thriving replicator. It only needs a structure that is able to survive long enough and tends to be able to replicate in its environment.
Then, life becomes increasingly complicated. Shit happens, but it's all good.
Disclaimer: I've been involved in engineering, doing stuff like AIs, computer vision, and fault analysis - not for a very long time. But I'm not a biological / life scientist. This write-up is just me being bored during my lunchtime, although my money is 100% into this line of thought! What's yours?
Image credits: Pixabay and here
When I discuss the origin of life and evolution, I like to present this thought experiment:
You have a simple universe, for example, Conway's Game of Life, with a huge playing field, say 1,000,000 x 1,000,000. How would you change the rules, what rules would you add or remove, in order to give the highest likelihood of creating intelligent life - that is, some being that could form an intention and set out to make it a reality. Or even something as simple as a self-replicating factory? It's difficult to imagine what kind of parameters you could put into this universe to make it create something so complex.
It does make me wonder if there is a kind of organising principle in our universe. (Some people might call that God, but I don't think that really adds to the argument.) Some kind of force which causes things to bind together into more complex objects, a kind of "magnetism" that arranges things into fractal structures.
Very interesting thought. That "magnetism" part I haven't quite figured it out yet. Based on what @andarchy would say - first principles - I would say the organising principle could be organised randomness, which can necessarily mean "nodal connection". These "nodes" have the ability to read any signals and be connected to others. If one subscribes to the infinite universes hypothesis, well, it so happens that we're in one with organised randomness, which enables such "nodal connections". It's the basic building block for consciousness as well, with differing degrees (of intelligence) across the gazillion different structures in existence. The most condensed first principle I can think of now is simply energy or signal flow lol, and it doesn't even say much other than being overused.
Personally, I don't really care much about the organising principle. If consciousness is very rare indeed, then it's just something that happens to give rise to this particular universe. Already echoed in creation stories like the first word, logos, etc. The key that made things work as it is.
How this discussion here may relate to "free-will", I've expressed it here: https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kevinwong/the-end-of-criminalization-on-free-will-accountability-and-compassion
How it may also relate to "consciousness", I've expressed it here:
https://steemit.com/consciousness/@kevinwong/let-s-talk-about-consciousness-wtf-is-it
There was a really cool book "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life" by Cairns-Smith. It's really must read for everyone who is interested, you'll be surprised by its logic and conclusions.
Wikipediaed it. So I kinda arrived to the same conclusion mulling it over lunch. 30 years later! But of course, the book's language and terms are much better!
I actually posted this on my Facebook (with some difference) 2-3 years ago, but there were just like 4 Likes, and no response. While I'm not surprised it's not a new idea.. I'm kinda surprised someone gave me such a precise reference! Thank you! :D
Yes, you figured out cristals ) great minds think alike )
oh boy there is a reason why i didn't like so much biology. LOL
just kidding, just kidding :D
And there's no such thing as a blue panda.. unless if it meant a panda that's feelin' the blues :P
here have a blue panda :P
Omg it's a blue panda feeling blue..
hahahahahah all inclusive LOL
Nice tags ;)
Honestly, I don't view it as pseudoscience - it's just that I'm using the terms pretty loosely! But being a layman, I'll stick to pseudoscience ;) lol
I believe it comes from Steem @kevinwong
It came from the future and restarted the universe again.. @bullionstackers
If the universe exist only into your consciousness, then it makes more sense to try to understand what is consciousness, rather than to look for the origin of live or the origin of the universe.
IMO, the universe has been existing even before any form of consciousness came into life to experience itself. So it doesn't only exist in my consciousness, in which I've talked about here: https://steemit.com/consciousness/@kevinwong/let-s-talk-about-consciousness-wtf-is-it
And yeah I agree that the question isn't quite useful or relevant to anything. I just like writing about stuff like these..
excellent congratulations
I recently spent a weekend at this conference on ethics and astrobiology
https://steemit.com/science/@plotbot2015/socia-2016-part-1
There was much talk of the beginnings of life and current ongoing research.
I like your ice cube analogy, though they wouldn't call that "replication" but the larger and looser category of "repetitive creation." Replication would require that the ice cubes somehow participate in their own copying process.
Oh nope, what i've meant is yeap - "repetitive creation", and more passive of an action than participation in their own copying process like you've mentioned :)
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.4. Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise.
Built by @ontofractal
Good read man. Did your research.
Not trying to be "that guy", but I am that guy who never wonders about the origin and stuff. There's only so much I can learn and only so much time I can give out to deal with contradictions.
I say, as a single person, I focus on what's in front of me, be happy and be nice to others. Yep.
But I hope I am alive when aliens visit :P
hello @kevinwong, I stopped back to let you know that your post was one of my favourite reads and is included in today's Steemit Ramble. You can read what I said about it here.
Well lets assume for a few minutes that you know everything you can do anything and you are able of possible and impossible and literally you have all the knowledge there is, what will you do?
Wouldn't you literally start the creation so vast and huge as the universe of ours from nothingness?
Funnily enough given human beings so small and weak unable even to go to the nearest star while there are billions and gazillions of stars and considering our own solar system with hundreds of large planets, moons and asteroids there are even hundred times more of them than all the stars yet we have the audacity to question such a mighty force created all things or even denying (His) existent.
And you can now stop thinking that you know all and capable of all because you can't possibly, free will is the same thing as we can ask these questions but we can't really change things in large scales since every prophet showed up told people very simple things like hey dudes and gals if you do such things and avoid some other things you'll be all right.
I don't know what is so complicated for people to get it? you know you are weak and can't change everything, you know that you don't know much and there are for real forces at work, then stick to the things you were told to( I mean really research and spend time to see what you have been told to do) you'll end up just fine.
Now go around and ask what is the origin of life, you wont get the answers you are hoping since you haven't understand the more simple things yet.