holographic origin of life

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • Author
    • #16929

      When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happens with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way…..Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.What would that mean to the way that we see the world?First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally during a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place any chemical reactions inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals.But maybe not.If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.

      ..The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions.Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
      The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seem

      s to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.

      Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees things in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.

      ..entropy of life 1)what is the difference between a man that is alive and a man that is dead?In both cases the body is consisted from the same elements and compounds.But in the first case these compounds are reacting with each other and the structure of the body changes every moment.In the second case the chemical reactions of the body are lead to an equillibrium and so the composition of the body remains unchanged.The structure of a dead man cannot change if there are not microorganisms in its environment.
      The relativity of entropy

      What happens with the entropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next toother to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively to the whole system of the birds.

      the illusion of life

      living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.The complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
      the position to answer if the spores that some microorganisms forms(e.g. cryptobiosis,anhydrobiosis etc) are living forms.If their metabolismis not zero, if it exists but it cant be detected because it is so weak, then they dont differ in anything from the other organisms.If their metabolism is absolute zero, then the answer gets more complicated.The fact is that it doesnt matter what it is, because the question is useless.Life as we see it is simply the result of the chemical reactions on earth.As we said ,we are part of the system and we dont realize it, but if we were alien forms of life for example, and we were watching the earth from outer space, then we would see only a very complicated network of reactions that are becoming more and more because of the energy of light.This system would have different structural forms, colours, etc.So, what happens with the spores is that because they face very unfriendly conditions ,the certain chemical reactions stop happening or they are lowering their rate.According to our definition, they are not life, but what is life?Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look likeus, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.

      We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.

    • #112782

      You can pretty much support any hypothesis if, in the first step, you just redefine the basic terms…

    • #113274

      i agree with you, but this one is fully testable, falsifiable and can be used in everyday practice.
      Despite my bad English i will try to explain what i mean with a simple example:
      If you consider that an organism is a system of multiple reactions, then the following are happening: If a substance A is reacting with substance B ,lets say they give us C plus D.And then C plus D gives us E.If you make it more complicated, A+B gives C+D and then E+F+G and then M+N+O and then P is excreted.
      We have an extremely simple organism that is composed by C,D,E,F,G,M,N,O reacting.If you change the amounts of A and B, you can change the properties of the organism ,as well as the amount of the substance P that is excreted.By playing with the amounts of A and B, as well as with the timing that you add these substances, you can determine the properties and the longevity of the system.
      Now, lets go to our point:If you have an isolated organism, and you are playing with the timing and quantity of food, you can test whether this is behaving like a system of reactions only or as a smart self sustainable and self organised system.For instance, if the first case is the true one, you expect that there is a certain recipe and velocity of giving food, that leads to an extraordinary rise in its life span, because this is determined by reactions in a mathematical way and not adjusted by the organism.
      Also, when you study the organisms that are found in extreme conditions or pretty far from the surface of earth, one can easily study if the whole system, the density of ecosystems and the complexity in the animal structures found there, is decaying as if there they are just reactions ,or something else.Is it a patterns of decaying reactions or not?

      Lets see now if this idea can be used in everyday practice:In my opinion it doesnt just offer solutions, but its the only solution if we want medicine to make steps forward.If the whole idea is true, then how can a simple substance like a medicine ,can interfere so dramatically with this storm of reactions that an organism is?It may offer some changes that are temporary, but they cannot fix the system and cannot return it to the way it was before.(i am not talking for substances that kill invader organisms like antibiotics).
      In my opinion this is the reason why despite our progress in understanding diseases and despite the exaggerated announcements of researchers, in fact the progress in treating serious diseases, has been extremely low.In fact, if they tell you to imagine how medicine will be in 50 years wont it be like this?Everyone will have a full analysis of the reactions of his body, and the follow up will be by means of detecting changes.Of course cures will be personalized!

    • #113275

      Brief review:
      i am arguing that life is an open system that is getting energy from the sun.BUT i am also arguing that if you consider life as a WHOLE (without dividing it into species ,organisms, etc) ,you get a sum of just RANDOM chemical reactions.
      The natural history of these reactions led to the forms we see today.Through our perspective, while we are studying this history, we see it as evolution. We see everywhere determinism, but its only because we are the results of all these.

    • #113504

      question:if the sparkle of life is a simple chemical transformation(e.g.prions), then what about a simple chemical reaction happening in a lab?is it life?

      The reactions of life don’t differ in quality than those of simple reactions that have nothing to do with life, for example fire, or creation of water, but they are far too simple to be perceived as life, or else, they don’t look enough like us.
      For an observer, like a stone in the ground, all our reactions have no meaning at all, and they dont differ from the ones taking place in the lab.
      But human cannot be objective observers to phenomena which they are a part of.(we are a system of reactions moving forward to space and time)

      question:How can random reactions lead to the repeatability we see in life forms(organisms replicate themselves) ,that is so crucial in what we define as life?

      . I think its obvious that in a chaos of chemical reactions, only those with some kind of repeatability and periodicity will not lead to a dead end and will be able to continue In the long term.So, generally, these are the ones that survived, and that’s what through our perspective receive as reproduction.

    • #113505

      ok , the basic forms of life is chemistry , but as we go higher , we find levels of organisation.

      no!!there is no organization the way we mean it……….functions like killing, walking ,talking etc gives some reactions an advantage to survive over others.But ,surviving is only important because of us.If you ask an observer outside the system of life, he will not find any organization in these functions, because their results mean nothing to them.

      What is the meaning of all these non human observers?

      .If we always trusted our eyes , we would still believe earth is flat and sun is rotating around earth.All major scientific steps were made by seeing the world less anthropocentric!!
      I believe there is still way to go in this direction………..

      I am looking forward for your feedback…..

    • #113886

      question:what is the point in making theoretic definitions if a virus counts as life or not.Isn’t a virus simply a virus regardless what we call it?How can hypothesizing hypothesis can lead us t any good point?

      Answer:If you want to create novel theories in physics, you must study phenomena observed while subatomic particles are colliding in large particle accelerators such as the LHC.We must do that because that is scale where our current theories collide and become useless.We compare what is predicted, and what happens instead.By analyzing the new data, new theories can be formed to provide more complete explanations that can include a wider range of phenomena.
      Similarly, the scale of viruses, prions etc is the point where our human made definitions about what is life collide and become inadequate.In fact , they are the real time and real life experiment that rules them out.Based on what we see in viruses, we can create novel approaches and then generalize and see if our new model is consistent with reality at first , and after that we go and test it to see if it leads us to repeatable and predictable results.

    • #114101

      From a rock’s point of view, (that is not involved in anything that has to do with life), the chemical reactions that compose life have no meaning and therefore from its point of view they can be even be considered random.But how can this be possible since a stone has no mental processes and therefore has no perception?
      A rock has no mental processes but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be used as an observer.There are physical laws in relation with it.For instance, according to mars or venus, the sun is moving.That doesn’t mean that venus or mars have mental processes to realize sun’s motion.
      Living creatures follow a very sophisticated path from the moment of conception to the moment they die.Why don’t just try to discover this sophisticated programm?Isn’t this the role of science?
      Science tries to find simple laws behind sophisticated programms, not sophisticated programms behind simple laws.One must preferentially avoid attributing human qualities to everything that is unknown.

      Many scientific conceptions in the past were abandoned simply because they were limiting the creation of new ideas.Based on the old concepts, no new theories could be created.Similarly, this theory as a final explanation of what is life ,despite the experimental avenues that it opens in terms of practically improving human live, from a philosophical point of view, the options for further understanding the universe and creating new theories of everything become deteriorated.
      This theory is not an end theory.On the contrary, it opens new avenues of thinking because it introduces the notion of human not being the absolute observer.This means that observership can be expanded and removed away from anthropocentrism. Thus, new concepts can be created in other scientific fields as well(e.g. physics,cosmology etc) .

    • #114269

      And now some technical stuff
      Proposed experiment no 1:
      Nick Lodding cited my work in an article he wrote about the genus daphnia and the differences with other mammals. A characteristic of daphnia is their relatively short lifespan and the fact that they are temperature dependent. For example, some live only 29 days at 28 °C (82 °F). Another characteristic of daphnia is that they are almost transparent, and their internal organs can be easily observed while working. These characteristics makes them ideal candidates for the following experiment.
      If a living organism is a sum of chemical reactions, then the components of food intake are the first substrates and the excreted products are the last elements. If identical organisms eat exactly the same food with the same manner and same pace under identical conditions, then the excreted products will always be the same and predictable.
      If we have clones of the same organism and we study them into the same conditions and we give the exact food, then if these organisms are just random chemical reactions, their lifespan could be predicted as a result of multiple linear regression. The dependent variable y (or else the lifespan) would be: y=a+a1x1+a2x2+…….aνxν+aωxω+ε where ε is the error variable and x1,x2…xν the various explanatory variables and a,a1,a2…av the effects or regressor coefficients and aωxω measures the feeding speed effect.
      If these clones share everything in common(e.g environmental factors, temperature etc) except the pace with which they are fed, (as measured by bowel movement speed), and if we secure that actually these organisms absorb exactly the same nutrients, but differ only in the pace they absorb them, then all the parameters of the linear regression will be the same for all clones except the speed factor, or else lifespan=y=aωxω+B+ε (where B=a+a1x1+a2x2+….avxv and it is the same for all organisms), or else we have a simple linear regression. Thus, if we avoid extremes in feeding pace and we assume no collinearities caused by it, then at a certain pace range we would expect lifespan to be linearly correlated with the feeding pace (or bowel movements).

    • #114465

      If life as a whole is a sum of random spontaneous chemical reactions then they should have been created gradually from some simple primordial reactions that became more and more crowded. Isolated random reactions leads to equilibrium, so this means that an external source of energy must existed to sustain and further promote the reactions. The most likely candidate is solar energy. But what are the implications of all these and how can we test if this is a real scenario?
      This means that during unhostile eons for earth (with growing biodiversity) the sun will boost complexity in terms of number of chemical reactions on earth. The latter must be constantly increasing according to a specific pattern (geometric or exponential ). And I say specific because random reactions constitute an automaton system and will pose a predictable pattern.
      To use mathematics, the total number of cells on earth times the number of reactions in every cell must be constantly increasing.
      But even in this case, eventually there will be a time when the number of reactions will remain constant because the number of reactions leading to equilibrium will equal the new forming ones. There can even be setbacks like in the ice ages.

      The random chemical reactions hypothesis says that life explosion depends on the conditions on earth. There are ups and downs. For instance, the Cambrian explosion of biodiversity can be explained because the conditions were friendly with a dramatic boost in life evolution and diversity. Reactions flourish and everything speeds up. On the contrary, the classic evolution theory cannot explain this fast leap because evolution is supposed to be a slow procedure and not condition dependent regarding its pace.

      b) One of the major problems with the current interpretations of life has to do with this: how did the eye or the ear evolved? Random mutations were supposed to slowly cause the evolution of a process that lead to the creation of eyes, ears, etc…But if this took millions of years to happen, what about all these years? Did organisms had a limited visual capacity or limited interpretation of visual stimuli?

      Our random chemical reactions hypothesis suggests that vision is the way we perceive the interactions between electromagnetic waves and systems of chemical reactions. To our own eyes, this seems a rather sophisticated process, but we are the result of this. No matter how this process has occurred, we would idealize it because this is the way we can interact with the external environment. Once again, for a non living being such as a stone, human eye is nothing but chemicals and chemical reactions.
      So the random chemical reactions point of view suggests that living creatures had perfect visual and auditory capacities throughout the ages and its our own place in the system that makes us idealize our current model.

    • #114949

      Also the random chemical reactions scenario explains the concurrent evolution of human in all five continents through the eons although they were unable to interact with each other due to the existence of the oceans.
      In addition, the random chemical reactions scenario explains our inability to develop gene therapies all these decades because it suggests that any organism is a system of complex reactions. A gene is just a part of the pathway. Not the starting point. There are no starting points in random reactions. Changing a gene causes only minor changes in the organism and replacing a missing gene doesn’t make everything alright.
      All our troubles in understanding cancer might also reflect this fact. There are many discoveries regarding the complex interactions between the DNA of cancerous cells and the surrounding stroma. DNA alone cannot be the sole culprit.
      This can explain the limited success of newer molecular therapies till the present moment.
      Additionally, the random reactions scenario predicts that newer technologies like the second generation sequencing, will only provide a modest benefit in treating diseases compared to the degree of enthusiasm their existence causes.
      Also, it suggests that all research regarding life extension is doomed to only limited success, because the change of a single pathway cannot significantly affect countless other reactions.
      Regenerative medicine can improve disease management, but only to a limited degree as well.
      Conclusively, the random chemical reactions scenario, if true, suggests that only the whole mapping of reactions can significantly alter the future of humanity. All other efforts are doomed so we must not waste time. Technological leaps during the recent years shows that the creation of such technologies are possible. In fact, they are only a matter of some years if we want.

    • #115241

      Further proposed experimental testing:

      A If a living organism is a sum of automaton chemical reactions, then the components of food intake are the first substrates and the excreted products are the last elements. By changing the food and also the pace of feeding, one can observe the way the organism performs some functions, for instance if the organism is an automaton, in certain feeding conditions one can observe extreme reproducible outlier values in the performance of some functions. The latter won’t be observed if the organism is self-regulating (self sustained).
      B) Testing if feeding identical organisms (clones) with the same food in an identical manner and under identical conditions would produce exactly the same amount of waste products plus the error factor ε, or noise, produced by various unpredictable factors. Only if the organism is a system of random chemical reactions, it will behave mechanistically and will produce reproducible results.
      The factor ε must follow a normal distribution as known by statistics.

      C) One can also test the way the living forms and their functions are decaying when they move to more hostile conditions on earth, such as extreme temperatures, deep ocean etc. Do they decay as if they where random chemical reactions or in an other way, e.g. self-sustaining organsms?

    • #115271

      I’m puzzled. What has this to do with a holograph?

    • #115272

      Now that I think about it.. actually nothing. In fact its quite the opposite because I claim that living chemical reactions exist anyway. On the contrary our own interpretation, our intelligence and our point of view is what is elusive.
      I only used the term to underscore the illusion that our subjective point of view causes when we are analyzing such fundamental questions in which we are involved and judge as inside observers.

    • #115602

      Can life start locally and then expand?
      Recently space missions have detected ten-fold spikes in methane in the atmosphere of Mars. If life forms are eventually found somewhere locally, this means that my arguments about chaotic complex chemical reactions are proven wrong, because if life is actually arbitrary reactions as we explained, these cannot be sustained only locally. Due to a problem of space, arbitrary reactions will drop away and equilibrium would occur. Additionally, chemicals would diffuse around not allowing complex reactions to be sustained. Complex arbitrary reactions can be sustained only in an isolated place (remember the paradigm with the flask), but not for long because of the lack of chemical resources. So my described model can only develop everywhere on earth simultaneously (slowly reaching higher levels of complexity) or not at all.
      Well, at least my arguments are falsifiable…

      I think a very crucial question is this: If every life form suddenly disappeared from half the earth, what would happen? Would life eventually overcome this problem and re-expand to cover everything and how quickly or will it rather disappear? The chemical reactions scenario i think says that even if life overcomes, it would be slowly and only at a cost of a great decay of the existing life in the other half.

    • #115603

      I think that a main difference between the two scenarios however ( random chemical reactions and mainstream view) is that there is a difference in the pace in which life has created in the first place.
      Suppose we have the case that there were chemicals in proto-earth reacting with each other arbitrarily (in random) and this system was becoming more and more complex. The same things happens in a flask with chemicals if we continuously provide external energy in the long term. The system will react arbitrarily and will become more complex. Some pathways will be more favourable (especially due to repeatabilty, adhesive properties, polarity etc) and will prevail in the long term. If the chemicals of the system is used as a reference frame, what will happen? To its own viewpoint, the resulting system will perceive the whole history of the reactions that happened in the flask from the beginning, as something like evolution (of chemical reactions). Additionally, all other properties of life are there (throught their perspective), like reproduction (repeatabilty of reactions) and so on. In other words any complex system of reactions can perceive itself as life in exactly the same that we, as chemical reactions ourselves, study life and evolution, or else the history of the whole chemical reactions (I e. life) that created us.*
      In this case its obvious that complexity in proto-life was growing very fast, because reactions were not restricted locally and everytime the system was becoming more complex, this bursted further complexity (until it finally became a dissipative system). So if there was a way to measure the changes in complexity of that system, like the energy coming from the reactions of life back then (eg. Heat), or a way to measure how complexity dependent products changed (eg atmospheric synthesis) we must have seen hyperbolic-like changes.
      On the contrary, if the mainstream view is correct and life originated somewhere locally and then it expanded to cover everything, then we would not expect to see so fast changes in proto-earth. Instead, the expansion would have been much more slow (geometric?), because bacteria must assimilate nutrients for food from the surrounding environment while growing in numbers.

      *[If anyone wonders how anything can be used as a reference frame and have a viewpoint, keep in mind that we don’t use in the anthropocentric way, but remember theory of relativity that is solely based on reference frames. Abandoning the idea that we have the absolute position and we are not moving, lead us to understand that we do not live in the center of the universe. However, we still think that our viewpoint is absolutely objective, which in fact leads us to still believe that we live in the center of existence.]

    • #115683

      Ok! And here is a list of recent scientific advances that (to my opinion) support my theses as life being a collection of arbitrary reactions with incredible complexity that actually gain a meaning only because we are the observers. Arbitrary random chemical reactions that prevail over time and living beings are the two sides of the same coin. They survived and their properties make them survive over others….!! Its all a matter of perspective how you see the picture. Any system of complex chemical reactions would perceive itself as having the properties of life.

      However, this is not the mainstream viewpoint of the scientific community, although reactions in living beings actually do happen arbitrarily, and the observers of the system are we ourselves, that are composed of chemical reactions inside the system of chemical reactions in which we are included.
      However, recent scientific findings gives us some further clues:
      1)In a paper recently published in “Nature Chemistry”, chemists from UK have found a novel way to create complex organic precursors of the building blocks of life, by using simple initial substrates. Organic macromolecules are commonly found around the universe, as they are found in meteorites, and possibly even in Mars. This experiment, along with others underscores the ease in which these molecules can actually be created. However, these organic macromolecules by themselves cannot create life by themselves. In fact, organics can be created in billions of different ways, through various chemical reactions. So, the question is not how organics were created in the first time on earth, as organics can be created anytime and everywhere.
      And once again, the question is:
      What is more likely the case?
      a)Organic macromolecules were initially created in the form of building blocks that came together and in some way, under unknown conditions and unknows ways, they slowly created life?
      b)Complex chemical reactions lead to the prevailance of organics in the system of reactions, due to the latter’s properties, and that’s why organics are the phenotype we see today, in a frame in which life is just the arbitrary reactions that happened through history and we as the ending results, judge the system from an anthropocentric point of view, since we are the results of this. And actually any system of complex chemical arbitrary reactions would perceive the whole process that created it as having the properties we see in life.

      2) A new study published Feb 25 in the journal Nature, reports that emulsifiers that are added in most processed food can alter gut microbiota. This alteration can cause inflammatory bowel disease and metabolic syndrome, which in turn can be responsible for heart problems, liver problems, etc.

      In general, this underscores the importance of the composition of gut microbiota, and the food processing by the bowel, in the overall function of the organism. Every system of the body does not seem to be that much self regulated and independent after all, but seems to be influenced by other systems in a chain reaction way, starting from food intake.

      And to me, the fact that initial substrates that come into the organism with the digestion of food (influenced by gut microbiota), is an indication that the chemical reaction system that we described previously, theoretically predicts some things that recent research shows that apply pretty well with what happens in reality.

      3)In a study published these days in “Science”, Shubhroz et al. found that in drosophila, the timing of feeding had a great impact in age-related cardiac decline.
      Despite the fact that the research make efforts to uncover the complex underlying genetic and molecular pathways behind this, from a chemical reaction-only perspective, it is quite obvious (and expected) why this happens.
      4)Scientists from the Scripps Research Institute published a paper showing that only a single base substitution causes major unexpected changes on phenotype, as it causes multiple changes, other than that are connected with the activity of the gene. This chaotic behavior underscores the unimaginable complexity and the inter-reactions between molecular pathways. The more we uncover the hidden complexities, the more complexities we found, which to my opinion will eventually lead us to a model in which we will only have chains and systems of chemical reactions that inter-react.

      5)In a new study published in PNAS, scientists from UMMS found that long-lived mutated roundworm, despite the fact that they lived longer, they spent most of their life in a frail condition. This means that longevity is not synonymous with well being.
      This supports the chemical reaction model that we described, because if you intervene with chemical reactions just to make them last longer, inevitably you pay the price for it (e.g slower reactions, creation of other pathways and thus frailty, etc). Its not just that you intervene with stem cells that rejuvenate the body and everything starts from the beginning as time has not passed at all.

    • #115773

      Is life really associated with negentropy?
      According to the common viewpoint, life is an open system that interacts with external energy. The mainstream viewpoint is that this interaction causes a decrease in its entropy, enabling life to emerge on the first place and to sustain itself, thus avoiding chemical chaos. In return, the system releases entropy to its surroundings so that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated.
      However, was this ever supported by any real experimental data? Is negentropy supported by evidence based facts?

      The common view that the origin of life is characterized by accumulation of order, as order means lower entropy.

      However, the term order can be very subjective, as an object non involved in life such as a rolling stone can say that it sees no order or no meaning in living systems’ chemical reactions. Just chaotic chemistry. So lets just leave order on the side and calculate entropy changes directly.
      Does the entropy in living systems actually increase or decrease? If it increases, is it doing so in a pattern that suggests an arbitrary system?

      Question: The more a system is far from its equilibrium highest entropic state, the more order does it have. If we let alone a cell in an isolated box, the result will eventually be a chemical mixture and not the organized cell. The final disordered mixture is more entropic than the the organized cell. Doesn’t this prove that lowering entropy is a hallmark of life and every organism spends an amount of energy to increase its order??

      Answer: Not necessarily. The story of any individual living being actually is a journey towards gradual decay into disordered chemistry. In the beginning it’s a zygote in which so much information is disclosed about future events, patterns, etc in a very small space. So we can say that a zygote has less entropy compared to later stages. This entropy gradually increases as we become infants, childs, teenagers, adults, etc, because less and less information is carried over time…
      A simple cell in isolation will indeed decay quickly, but don’t forget that cells never exist in isolation, and higher organisms are much more complex and they interact with external energy. So the fact that they don’t instantly decay doesn’t necessarily mean that they use energy to decrease their entropy. Never underestimate our inability to fully comprehend the value of huge numbers.
      I will explain:
      Lets assume that a human body everyday degrades towards a higher entropic state. Lets assume for this reason, that after each day, the body loses, lets say 100 thousand of chemical reactions. Suppose we have an 80 years old man. He has lived 29200 days. This means that he has lost nearly 3 billion reactions during his lifetime. If the total amount of chemical reactions he has is, lets say 1 trillion, then after 80 years he will be composed of 997 billion reactions, which means virtually still 1 trillion. So the impact of the whole process on the chemical reaction count will be almost negligible.
      Of course, if we stop giving him food, he will degrade faster, but this is an example how can life can be compatible with a gradual loss of entropy.

      Question: Isn’t a cell is much more ordered than its components?

      Answer: A cell is much more ordered than its components, but what you forget is that a cell never exists in isolation. It owes its existence and its properties to the fact that it belongs into a more generalized phenomenon that is called life, which is an open system and interacts with external energy.
      Imagine you have a flask with water that is heated with fire. The molecules of water will start speeding randomly toward various directions. Virtually, what you are doing here with the cell argument is ignoring the fire and the majority of other water molecules and focusing only on subset of 2 specific molecules. These molecules will be perceived as gaining speed without an obvious reason, thus seeming to decrease entropy, as well as other known laws is such a way that it has to be characterized as an independent phenomenon that has to be studied….

      Question: Isn’t glucose and oxygen more ordered than CO2 and water?
      Answer: In order to build a house, you take the bricks and put them together. But you don’t build a cell in that way. A cell or a living being is the way it is because of the other living beings, ie because of the existence of what we call life on earth. Cells or living beings never exist in isolation.

      Question: Isn’t it difficult to experimentally measure changes in order in particular organisms or cells?
      Answer: Yes, but if life as a whole is a sum of entropy decreasing entities, then the entropy of the whole system will be decreasing accordingly over time. In this case, the total amount of entropic releases in the environment will be changing over time accordingly. I think this can be measurable….

Viewing 17 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.