Theoretical origin of life: constructor theory (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 21, 2016, 20:45 (3108 days ago) @ David Turell

This weird essay makes one assumption after another and finally decides that constructor theory can explain how life initially appeared: - https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-riddle-of-life?utm_source=Aeon... - "the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection - Charles Darwin's momentous leap - shows how those stupendously intricate mechanisms can come about without one. Yet the task of showing how life itself can arise without design is surprisingly vexed. ( me: that is the part he wisely left out) - *** - "all living things rely on a rather peculiar contrivance: the living cell. Cells can self-reproduce, manufacturing new instances of themselves in a process involving, at its heart, the faithful replication of the genetic information contained in the cell's DNA. We find this capacity nowhere in the rest of nature. - *** - "the laws of physics contain no built-in facility for accurate transformations; nor, in particular, for biological adaptations that can bring such transformations about. They are no-design, in this special sense. Thus the problem with living things, expressed within physics, is that they are highly adapted to effect all sorts of transformations to high accuracy, whereas the laws of physics aren't. ( me: there are folks looking at the physics of life) - *** - "Biological replication and self?reproduction are in fact such stupendously well?orchestrated physical transformations that one must explain how they are possible under the simple, no?design laws of physics such as ours. - *** - "In constructor theory, physical laws are formulated only in terms of which tasks are possible (with arbitrarily high accuracy, reliability, and repeatability), and which are impossible, and why - as opposed to what happens, and what does not happen, given dynamical laws and initial conditions. A task is impossible if there is a law of physics that forbids it. Otherwise, it is possible - which means that a constructor for that task - an object that causes the task to occur and retains the ability to cause it again - can be approximated arbitrarily well in reality. (me: what a huge assumption!) - *** - "Constructor theory ..is digitally coded information that can act as a constructor and has resiliency - the capacity, once it is instantiated in physical systems, to remain so instantiated. In constructor theory, that is called knowledge - a term used here without the usual connotation that it is known by someone: it merely denotes this particular kind of information with causal power and resiliency. (me: recognition of the need for information at the basis) - ***
"The early history of evolution is, in constructor-theoretic terms, a lengthy, highly inaccurate, non-purposive construction that eventually produced knowledge-bearing recipes out of elementary things containing none. These elementary things are simple chemicals such as short RNA strands, (me: and where did RNA, which is not simple, come from?) - *** - "the constructor theory of life shows explicitly that natural selection does not need to assume the existence of any initial recipe, containing knowledge, to get started. It shows that, whatever recipes we might find in living things, they do not require ad?hoc, biocentric or mysterious laws of physics in order to come into existence from elementary initial components. They need only the laws of physics to permit the existence of digital information, plus sufficient time and energy, which are non-specific to life. This adds another deep reason why a unification in our understanding of the phenomena of life and physics is possible." - Comment. Hogwash, but atheistic hope springs eternally that inorganic chemicals can magically become organic life. Are the constructor laws built-in? And where do the laws of nature come from. At least she recognizes the need for information, which she has arise magically. The commentaries all agree with me.