Paul Davies on the gap between life and non-life

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 14, 2023

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s a big one. Theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist Paul Davies talks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn at Closer to Truth about the conundrums: “What is life and how did it arise from non-life? Is it as simple as the random organization of complex chemicals on the early Earth? What are the pathways whereby chemicals turned into life? Is life inevitable? Or extremely rare? What’s remarkable is how little we know. ”

A reader notes that Davies says at 37m30s: “What life makes is consistent with physics and chemistry, but is not dictated by physics and chemistry.” Well, by a process of elimination, doesn’t that leave information? Design? And how are things designed without intelligence? At this point, one can only say, Keep talking.

Comments

PyrrhoManiac1 @45, Thank you. Not being a philosopher, I've never hear the term. From my ID perspective, I'd approach the problem as if it were "alien technology." In a recent video, Dr. Tour suggests that he would approach the challenge of OOL from a minimalist/essentialist approach. What I see as a conflating factor is what I'd term the "scaffold effect." When a building or a bridge is constructed, a scaffold is first erected, without which constructing the structure WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. When the structure is complete, the scaffolding is removed and the structure is now far more stable than the scaffolding ever was. Life might also have involved scaffolding. But, what evidence outside of historical observation do we have that scaffolds in buildings or bridges ever existed, other than the impossibility of the buildings' construction. For example, it's apparent in even megalithic constructions such as dolmens that massive amounts of sand or dirt were used to position the stones and that neither giants nor differential erosion were involved. If one assumes that dolmens MUSTA had a natural origin, then one would resort to all sorts of theories: differential erosion, massive floods with debris, glacial transport (millions of stones and millions of years), and massive earthquakes. Components for this "alien technology" that we call life also involves information at a massive scale and a way for information to be concentrated from inorganic components. Also consider this: Humans along with their biochemistry have incredible optimization from an engineering perspective. We also have greater endurance than any other animal on the planet! The most efficient organic or inorganic transport machine on the face of this planet as measured in calories/gram-kilometer is a human on a bicycle turns out to be . . . https://streets.mn/2014/05/22/chart-of-the-day-travel-efficiency-calories-per-gram-per-kilometer/ -QQuerius_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

@41
Personally, my perspective on life is a dynamic interaction between many hundreds of highly efficient chemical cycles, the interruption of any of which has a high probability of setting of a failure cascade resulting in the death of a cell or organism, which is the loss of those interactions and the dispersion of information that they contain.
That seems basically right to me as a definition of what life is. It's what philosophers call a constitutive explanation: it specifies what something has to be like in order to satisfy the criteria specified in the concept. (In this case, the concept of life.) The harder question is, what needs to happen in order for those molecules to be organized in the ways that constitute life?PyrrhoManiac1_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

KF @43 I agree.
Without observation, the universe could not exist. Without the universe, observers could not exist.
If the universe creates consciousness and consciousness creates the universe, as Davies proposes, then there is no starting point. It is that simple. If the universe creates consciousness but requires consciousness as its (retrocausal) cause for its existence, then there is no universe to create consciousness, so neither the universe nor consciousness exists. Davies proposes absolute nonsense, he proposes that consciousness is a retro-cause for the universe, but, clearly, in his scenario, this consciousness cannot exist. Perhaps we can go back in time and (by mistake) kill grandpa in his teens, but in order to exist and go back in time, grandpa is still required. Perhaps we can alter the past, but we cannot do so, without a past at all. To go back in time, does not mean that you have no past, does not mean that you come from nothing, as Davies proposes.Origenes_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

FE, retro causation is the not yet causing the chain leading to itself. Something, from non being. KFkairosfocus_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Seversky @40,
Actually, we’re still waiting for a good scientific reason or a good any kind of reason to believe in God.
Obviously, since you resort to a priori rejection of all the evidence you're continually being offered, and reply with unsupported assertions. Your problem is not intellectual, is volitional. You don't want to find any rationale. -Q P.S. Who's the "we" anyway? You and your tapeworm? ;-)Querius_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Actually, I really enjoyed Paul Davies' methodical thinking: clear, cogent, and calm. Yes, he did call on the god-of-the-gaps, MUSTA, but he used MUSTA only for his rationale, but not to slather rationalizations across every gap and hole in our knowledge. I especially liked his heat-seeking intellect zeroing on the essential role of information in the dynamics of life. I think he's on the right track. Thankfully, he doesn't underestimate the daunting complexity of even the "simplest" forms of life. But then, he invokes his god, MUSTA, as the source of this overwhelming complexity through the magical assumptions of Darwinism. Personally, my perspective on life is a dynamic interaction between many hundreds of highly efficient chemical cycles, the interruption of any of which has a high probability of setting of a failure cascade resulting in the death of a cell or organism, which is the loss of those interactions and the dispersion of information that they contain. -QQuerius_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Relatd/30
Without so-called “science” to support this worldview, atheists will be left without a scientific reason to not believe in God.
Actually, we're still waiting for a good scientific reason or a good any kind of reason to believe in God.Seversky_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Davies:
it could be that life explains the universe even as the universe explains life.’48 Thus ‘life’ itself functions as the observer in cosmic quantum mechanics. For Davies, this quantum, backwards self-causation, combined with the concept of an emergent universe, explains all. The universe is forced to propel itself towards the emergence of consciousness by the very consciousness that observes it. Without observation, the universe could not exist. Without the universe, observers could not exist.

So you know what Barrow and Tipler’s solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs)
I have a question for Davies, Barrow and Tipler: Why not propose that humans created the universe AND life through backward self-causation? I mean, if we can create the universe, why not life as well?Origenes_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

PM1 at 37, I'm interested in today. Right now. Your comment about abiogenesis is speculative and not supported by the evidence. An "immaterial intelligence" is vague.relatd_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

@30
Without so-called “science” to support this worldview, atheists will be left without a scientific reason to not believe in God.
That doesn't seem even remotely true or plausible. If scientists were ever to conclusively demonstrate exactly how naturalistic abiogenesis took place, it would not destroy anyone's faith in the God of Scripture. (At most they might need to revise their understanding of what they believe in.) For exactly the same reason, if it became a scientific consensus that an immaterial intelligence was responsible for the creation of biological information, atheists would continue to deny the existence of God. (At most they might need to revise their understanding of what it is that they don't believe in.)PyrrhoManiac1_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Jerry at 35, I have found Bishop Robert Barron to be a little short on Orthodoxy, much like Kenneth Miller. Religion is very important to ID. Even if hermetically sealed off from the world, once word of actual design in nature reaches the average person's ears, do they think: "I don't dare add religion to the SCIENCE of Intelligent Design. That would be bad - wrong." I don't think so. The link is automatic, except, perhaps, for those who look at ID and assign design to aliens, visitors from the future or some other idea. Citing the Bible to support bad or erroneous ideas is not new. I have read, here and elsewhere, out of context quotes from Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Evolution as an unguided process was not the way. If the Creator used a process it was NOT what's in recent Biology textbooks which assign to nothing the development of life on earth and the universe. This is not promoted by the Church. From Communion and Stewardship Excerpt: "It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe." -------------------------------------------------------------- All theories? Don't most people think there's only one? Of course they do. But in his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, Pope John Paul II did say theories - plural. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the full text from where the excerpt was taken from: '64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God." So, what about Saint Thomas Aquinas? Another quote from Communion and Stewardship. "But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).' So the answer is Divine providence all the way, not an unguided process, which goes against the Biology textbook.relatd_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Catholics for Darwin and the natural origin of life have a new video series on science and faith. https://www.wordonfire.org/science/ I mentioned a couple weeks ago that this new video series on science and faith by Catholics was coming out. It has finally arrived and is five 12-14 minute videos on science and faith. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicists-our-universe-might-not-be-special-merely-probable/#comment-774817 To say the least, this is a theistic evolutionist version of Evolution. I just finished one of the videos on Evolution. (the first three are available and another tomorrow and one on Friday) It cites Genesis, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Henry Newman as the source for their beliefs on how life evolved on earth. Essentially they endorse Darwin.
Newman stood on Augustine's shoulders in his openness to Darwin's great idea. Saint Augustine had no idea how nature would produce the human body yet he remained confident that the Creator would have a way to ensure that this would happen. And he was right. The Creator did have a way. Modern science calls that way evolution.
So while they may be wrong, calling those who endorse Darwin's version of Evolution, atheists, is not accurate. These people are anything but atheists. They are citing the Bible for their beliefs. Is this another reason for keeping religion out of any UD discussions?jerry_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious @
If future humans adjusted (designed) our own Universe retro-causally, then how did the unadjusted Universe come to be?
Unadjusted Universe? Don't be irrational, please ;) There is only one universe actualized by human observers. As Davies says: Life explains the universe and the universe explains life.Origenes_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious at 32, There is some fiction that just doesn't work, as you explained. If you exist in the future and change the past, you might end up not existing at all. Like the Multiverse, these ideas are just distractions. They do not amount to anything credible.relatd_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

This retro-causation is like the sci-fi story where someone from the future shows up with a design for something amazing, like an anti-gravity drive. That gets put into production and changes the world. But then the question is, "Where did the design come from?" It cannot just exist in a time loop without an inventor. How would future humans know that the beginning of the Universe needed adjusting 14 billion years later in order for them to exist? In principle, given their future divine powers, they could design some other (future) Universe, but then who designed ours? Or is it turtles all the way down? If future humans adjusted (designed) our own Universe retro-causally, then how did the unadjusted Universe come to be? This sort of boot-strapping is generally looked down upon in science, but seems to be acceptable when the alternative is something beyond materialism. Retro-causality undermines any understanding of cause and effect. That appeals to people who don't want to entertain certain causes.Fasteddious_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

And there are conferences like the following to discuss Origin of Life. https://www.usfq.edu.ec/en/events/origins-2023relatd_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Ba77 at 29, The core problem is this: "The concept of prebiotic RNA replication runs counter to known chemistry and physics, yet remains at the forefront of origin-of-life research because the materialistic worldview lies at stake." Without so-called "science" to support this worldview, atheists will be left without a scientific reason to not believe in God.relatd_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Semi related,
Molecular Infertility: New Long Story Short on RNA Replication and Life’s Origin https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/molecular-infertility-new-long-story-short-on-rna-replication-and-lifes-origin/
bornagain77_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Maybe what Davies believes about Evolution is not what he is saying. In other words to become credible on OOL he has to show his naturalistic credentials on Evolution to be believed on OOL. So he espouses something he doesn’t believe. He obviously can’t justify his beliefs on Evolution but doesn’t have to in the environment of Closer to the Truth. He’s automatically believed by Kuhn who did not attempt to question this statement.jerry_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Maybe there should be a discussion of natural selection as an OP. And no one can provide quotes of others so as to eliminate most of the pixels/opinions of others that may get in the way. For example, suppose there was a system of 26 variables/factors that affected the outcome of each other factor. Let’s call the factors “a” through “z.” Over time the 26 factors become stable and the system doesn’t change. Then suppose one of the factors, say factor “a” changed. This would probably affect some of the values for the other 25 factors. The system would eventually become stable including maybe factor “a” going through a range of values as feedback influences its value. Is what we call natural selection just the new values of each of the factors. So yes, it’s not random but the original changes to factor “a” may be random. So is the final state random when part of the process is both random and determined? Obviously an ecology is composed of thousands of factors. So what is random and what is determined as changes occur? Especially as the changes take place that affect each factor? Aside: Maybe nothing is random as variations to genomes and environments are actually determined but we cannot isolate the millions of changes and their origins. So we call them random. Aside 2: I can imagine a system where nothing is stable as constant feedback continually changes the values of other factors. But it would probably end up with all the factors within a certain range that was stable. That’s what we see in our world.jerry_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

It’s Robert Lawrence Kuhn, not Thomas Kuhn. Get your facts straight, my man.
Thank you Chuck!!!! You just made my point that you have nothing. Your choice of what to attack is what says that everything you have is at best shallow. What would you have said if I had said Robert Kuhn? My guess nothing unless you could find something else derogatory. Remember attacking the person is an admission that the person's argument is correct unless you can tie in the attack with with the argument. My point is that Kuhn is disingenuous by his interviewing techniques and who he chooses to interview. Thus, you cannot take most of what is discussed as relevant or real.jerry_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

CD at 20, Nothing new. In this case, "natural" translates as 'God was not involved.' This after Ba77 has provided a lot of credible information that shows 'natural' can't do the job. As far as how people behave, even if everyone was super-polite, it doesn't change anything as far as the credible information is concerned. But I don't think a super-polite exchange will change anything for you.relatd_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

BA77 @22 So, Barrow and Tipler proposed the exact same thing as Davies. It is a display of utter barking madness. This is what you get when scientists engage in philosophy. I don't even feel the need to argue against it.Origenes_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Jerry It’s Robert Lawrence Kuhn, not Thomas Kuhn. Get your facts straight, my man.chuckdarwin_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

as to: "In conclusion, Davies states, ‘I have suggested that only self-consistent loops capable of understanding themselves can create themselves, so that only universes with (at least the potential for) life and mind really exist.’51 Davies is essentially attempting to circumvent cosmological arguments for the existence of a deity." That is very similar to Barrow and Tipler's attempt to circumvent God,
"So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." – Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics - 6:49 mark - God's Fine Tuning Of The Universe ~ The Anthropic Principle - Michael Strauss PhD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr9q_2sSxs Eye Roll gif https://giphy.com/clips/ComedianHollyLogan-ugh-holly-logan-hollylogan-gZJTClQz02juLMbdda
Verse:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
bornagain77_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

From Davies’ “Cosmic Jackpot
you do know what Davies said was nonsense. Also no one argues against natural selection. It’s a trivial observation. It just says that whatever happens in genetics happens. Whatever result we find is naturally selected. Or whatever is, is. Profound!!! It is nothing more than the change we find in a population must be due to adaptation to an ecology. So here we find a change. That must mean it was naturally selected and the reason for this change must be adaptation. Somehow QED is attached to this as some great insight. Will this end up showing Davies is a hack, saying whatever is convenient at the time?jerry_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

From Davies' "Cosmic Jackpot':
Notice that although variations may be random, [natural] selection is far from random, so that it is not true to say, as is sometimes quipped, that Darwinism attributes the organized complexity of the biosphere to nothing more than random chance.
Where have we heard this before? (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225401882_Understanding_Natural_Selection_Essential_Concepts_and_Common_Misconceptions) That's right--just a couple days ago......chuckdarwin_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

he is one of my intellectual “heroes,”
true to form. Tell me how he intellectually defends Darwinian Evolution? No, that’s impossible because it would make him intellectually bankrupt. Has Thomas Kuhn intervened Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer? That all you have to know. Read next comment for more of ChuckDarwin’s nonsense. He will not be able to defend anything when pushed. He will disappear.jerry_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Origenes Thanks for the dead link. If I had a nickel for every dead link "ID folks" provide, I would be a rich Neo-Darwinist....... :-)chuckdarwin_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

This is what ChuckDarwin's intellectual hero is saying: **the universe explains life, and life (as an observer) retrocausally explains the universe and its laws **
Davies further states, ‘In the eternal quest to explain life, the universe and everything, it could be that life explains the universe even as the universe explains life.’48 Thus ‘life’ itself functions as the observer in cosmic quantum mechanics. For Davies, this quantum, backwards self-causation, combined with the concept of an emergent universe, explains all. The universe is forced to propel itself towards the emergence of consciousness by the very consciousness that observes it. Without observation, the universe could not exist. Without the universe, observers could not exist. The observers of the universe not only actualise the universe itself, but also the laws that ultimately allow for the observers themselves: ‘The universe explains observers, and the observers explain the universe.’49 In this way, ‘the universe has engineered its own self-awareness’.50 In conclusion, Davies states, ‘I have suggested that only self-consistent loops capable of understanding themselves can create themselves, so that only universes with (at least the potential for) life and mind really exist.’51 Davies is essentially attempting to circumvent cosmological arguments for the existence of a deity. —Paul Himes
Origenes_{February 15, 2023
February
02
Feb
15
15
2023
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply