Origin of Life (Pt2) (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 13:00 (5441 days ago) @ xeno6696

I asked Matt a number of questions concerning his system, and again I greatly appreciate the detailed and extremely helpful responses. My thanks also to David for his intervention in the discussion, as I'm in no position to cope with the scientific implications (maybe I will be after reading Chad Orzel's book). It's clear, Matt, that once more we're in agreement as regards the current situation: we simply don't have enough information to make a judgement. There are just a couple of additional comments I'd like to make.-I argued that we have no way of knowing whether the "attempts" took place, and you responded that we know they took place because we're here. That wasn't quite what I meant. It's true, of course, that we're here, but your system will only tell us how many attempts would be hypothetically necessary for chance to create life. A designer might have waited till conditions were right, and then put together his first self-replicating molecule at the first/hundredth/ millionth/billionth attempt. In other words, your system will be confined to calculating the odds for and against chance, and will not be able to tell us whether it actually happened in that fashion. We may, as you say, "be in a much better position to judge", but ultimately we shall still have to rely on "soft and squishy" faith either way.-As regards the Big Bang, I have to accept that it happened, but I do not have to accept that it was from nothing. The belief that the universe, not to mention the laws of physics that enable it to survive, could assemble itself by chance out of nothing seems to me on a par with belief in the chance assembly of the ingredients for life, or in the eternal existence of an infinite consciousness. -Finally, let me quote David's apt response to your comment that "we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing". He says "I can't wait that long. I'll use my authors and methods for now." Those of us sitting on the end of the bench will certainly drop off before your system can come into operation, so like every generation we can only base our beliefs/non-beliefs on the current state of knowledge. You wrote earlier that "from what we currently know from chemistry, it seems preposterous that life came about." Based on what we currently know from physics, would it be fair to say it seems preposterous that the universe came about? From these preposterous premises, I would suggest that it's also preposterous at this time to draw any hard and fast conclusions concerning chance v. design. I know you agree. -As a postscript, let me add to your delightful list of quotes:
 
"Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man." Bertrand Russell- "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." Konrad Lorenz- "Science becomes dangerous only when it imagines that it has reached its goal." George Bernard Shaw-"I have no more faith in men of science being infallible than I have in men of God being infallible, principally on account of them being men." Noël Coward-"All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income." Samuel Butler-And my own favourite:
"Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." Werner von Braun