Groundbreaking chemist defines all of life in 2 words

Groundbreaking chemist defines all of life in 2 words | Lee Cronin

Рет қаралды 376,146

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 1 600

@allanwrobel6607 5 ай бұрын

I’m sorry but I always come back to a sentence I’m unable to attribute but it goes something like this, ‘chemistry tells you how ink binds to a newspaper, it doesn’t give you the headline.’

@ivonmorales2654 4 ай бұрын

This guy doesn't explain anything. He said obvious things narrated from front to back. If I applied this stupid concept, quantum mechanics would ask, Into how many states must I divide quantum coherence for it to be incoherent, that is, to exist here... What a stupid way of looking at things.

@b_liv_u59 4 ай бұрын

do you have a headline if no chemistry? I"m sorry too

@allanwrobel6607 4 ай бұрын

@@b_liv_u59 Agreed, but my point was, life is information, a blue print one might say. Chemistry doesn't generate information.

@JuraGaga 4 ай бұрын

He is pointing out that life is a form of existance. As if butter would be a form of milk. No brainer, NASA can not find any cows on Mars producing butter.

@30ftunder39 4 ай бұрын

@@ivonmorales2654 he couldn't hold his position if he was saying otherwise. What about this: According to Roger Penrose, Consciousness is not reducible to algorithms, it can't be generated by computations. What if, Life and Consciousness are strictly equivalent? Then Life becomes irreducible to algorithms either. This supposes the existence of a non-computable physic, as Penrose posited...

@mariafernandahernandezgarc1836 4 ай бұрын

While Assembly Theory (AT) proponents might argue it offers a fresh framework, the critique by Dr. Zenil and his team pointing out its equivalence to Shannon entropy and LZ compression (AT being weaker) is not only valid but insightful. AT doesn't introduce fundamentally new insights but rather repackages existing ideas without proper acknowledgment, and claims to do what it can’t fundamentally do. This isn’t merely a matter of academic credit; it’s about maintaining scientific rigor and credibility. By presenting AT as novel without clear citation, its advocates risk misleading the community and distorting the understanding of complexity in biological systems. Moreover, overstating the impact of AT can dilute the significance of more robust, well-established (and more rigorous) methods and concepts.

@revcrussell 4 ай бұрын

Yeah, I could tell AT was BS by his definition. Crystals can form at great scales and are complex. There is nothing new here, move on. _Life_ is a null-word and at this point is defined by everything descended from LUCA.

@RC-qf3mp 2 ай бұрын

So you’re saying AT is derivative and just ripping off and repackaging older theories.

@julioivansalazar9853 5 ай бұрын

Researchers from King's College London and the University of Oxford have formally demonstrated through published papers and blog posts that Assembly Theory (AT) is formally equivalent to existing work (Shannon entropy and LZ compression grammar) without proper citation, and is a weaker version of these established theories. This raises significant concerns about AT's originality and scientific merit, and also highlights the importance of not exaggerating intended scientific work, much less if it is not original and does not explain what their authors claim to explain. Publications include a paper in npj Systems Biology and Applications: "On the salient limitations of the methods of assembly theory and their classification of molecular biosignatures". "Assembly Theory is a weak version of algorithmic complexity based on LZ compression that does not explain or quantify selection or evolution", published in the arXiv and two medium post by Dr. Hector Zenil, broadly explaining why Assembly Theory and its marketing campaign are seriously damaging the image of science as a whole.

@aroemaliuged4776 5 ай бұрын

Assembly theory is not necessarily a “weaker” version of LT compression; it is a different approach with its own strengths and applications. LT compression is more general and abstract, dealing with the compressibility of data in a broader sense. Assembly theory, on the other hand, is more specific and focused on the process of assembly, which is particularly useful in studying molecular and biological systems. Thus, while there are similarities between the two concepts (both deal with complexity and information), they are fundamentally different in approach and application, so one is not simply a weaker version of the other. They are tools designed for different purposes, though they may intersect in certain contexts, especially when analyzing the complexity of biological systems.

@ralphlorenz4260 5 ай бұрын

I'll look those up. Sometimes in science the right connections come up at the wrong time. I dabbled in this stuff a bit, see my piece "Zipf, Zipping and Melting Points: Entropy and DNA". For its stated astrobiological application, viz. the classification of molecular complexity by assembly steps, and in particular the relationship to cracking patterns in mass spectrometry, I think Assembly Theory is really quite brilliant. As an architect of a NASA astrobiology mission (Dragonfly) I wish I'd thought of it myself.....

@davesmith826 5 ай бұрын

@@ralphlorenz4260 The principle behind it - to decenter our understanding of life by moving it away from earth and what we know of its life to more general principles - is sound. The merit will only be determined when/if we start to find alien life.

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

@@ralphlorenz4260 Integration (assembly, summation) is dual to differentiation (differences) -- abstract algebra. Your brain/mind has the goal, target or objective of creating or synthesizing reality -- a syntropic process, teleological. The purpose, function, aim, intention or goal of your brain is to create reality, all observers have targets and this is teleological or syntropic. Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Integrating information to make predictions is a syntropic process. Mind (syntropy, synergy) is dual to matter (entropy, energy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! In Shannon's information theory messages in a communication system are predicted into existence using probability and this is a syntropic process, teleological. Syntax is dual to semantics -- communication, language or information. Information is dual -- syntropy, entropy. Objective information (syntax) is dual to subjective information (semantics). Syntropy is a much better and accurate word than assembly as it means a tendency to converge. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Biological cells (neurons) are using messages to communicate -- syntax is dual to semantics!

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

Messages in all communication systems are predicted into existence using probability and this is a syntropic process, teleological -- Shannon's information theory. Syntax is dual to semantics -- communication, languages or information. Assembly theory AT is dual to Shannon entropy. Syntropy is dual to entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!

@superstrada6847 4 сағат бұрын

The greatest lightbulb moment! Thank you Lee. Copying and existence needs near endless time to do so. Life never gets bored!

@robertarvanitis8852 5 ай бұрын

The connection is clear: Life is a local reversal of entropy. As long as rivers flow downhill, watermills will put the energy to work.

@samhartway437 5 ай бұрын

Can you expand on this? It seems very interesting

@rafadydo555 5 ай бұрын

Life increase entropy, every night vision goggles can prove

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

Anti-entropy is syntropy. Integration (assembly, summation) is dual to differentiation (differences) -- abstract algebra. Your brain/mind has the goal, target or objective of creating or synthesizing reality -- a syntropic process, teleological. The purpose, function, aim, intention or goal of your brain is to create reality, all observers have targets and this is teleological or syntropic. Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Integrating information to make predictions is a syntropic process. Mind (syntropy, synergy) is dual to matter (entropy, energy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! In Shannon's information theory messages in a communication system are predicted into existence using probability and this is a syntropic process, teleological. Syntax is dual to semantics -- communication, language or information. Information is dual -- syntropy, entropy. Objective information (syntax) is dual to subjective information (semantics). Syntropy is a much better and accurate word than assembly as it means a tendency to converge. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Biological cells (neurons) are using messages to communicate -- syntax is dual to semantics!

@themogget8808 5 ай бұрын

I fundamentally disagree. Life is powered by entropy, and creates even more entropy around it. Entropy is never reversed.

@robertarvanitis8852 5 ай бұрын

@@themogget8808 Incorrect. Life is powered by higher energy flowing into a lower energy state, and in that flow, creating higher local order. That is, a more ordered subset of the space, as that life. Yes, overall, order decreases. A watermill taps some of the energy of a flowing river, and may grind grain, or cut lumber. A local increase of order at the cost of a higher general rise in disorder.

@pmarchitect9866 4 ай бұрын

"... That's all life is." I am always wary of people that make such sweeping reductionist statements. "...nothing more than..." "...simply..." "...only..." If only

@HRoy-ot7hy 3 ай бұрын

Blah blah ….., life is only stuff that makes complex stuff, that’s it - and I figured this out, …..blah blah blah….NASA are so stupid but they ask me to help them. ….Blah blah….

@lokilawson 2 ай бұрын

I think his definition is all that is required to distinguish life from a mess on a plate. Existing as a mess on a plate is one thing, but can it reproduce another mess on another plate?

@pretzelogic2689 2 ай бұрын

I would be easy to define life in these simple terms if the biochemical operations did not operate as the kluge that they are. The entire conglomeration of a single cell, considered as a design, would require an engineer named R. Goldberg. All that is happening is that biochemistry has found A way to obey the 2nd law.

@ramirosenoret7995 2 ай бұрын

It's about how life started.

@Euro_notus Ай бұрын

But logic works that way, Implication,; implies that, double implication if and only if; iff, and or xor.

@hanzuilhof8903 3 ай бұрын

If one looks at crystal growth, these are characterized by copying (e.g. the crystal structure of a seed crystal), and yield a new crystal (persistent existence). Yet this process of copying and persistence does not make rocks alive. More than two words needed, clearly.

@markusbaker1161 5 ай бұрын

Thank you Lee Cronin. When you speak I listen attentively. You’re a wonderful science communicator. I love and respect the Origin Of Life research community and their efforts.

2 ай бұрын

I laughed a lot watching this absurd video. The guy has no idea what is fundamental (and was promised in the title of the video). He spends 7 minutes with some truisms and supposed news, in both cases starting from the same banal error: evolution would occur FOR some result, as if the organism could anticipate precisely what it has no way of knowing: what is evolutionarily advantageous. Now, as Darwin explained, he will only "know" post-factum, as a survivor. This Mr. Cronin has an attitude that is inversely proportional to his contribution to knowledge.

@environmentaldataexchange3906 7 сағат бұрын

Tosh.

@VeniceInventors 4 ай бұрын

Matter simply complies with the laws of physics, gets pulled down by gravity and mindlessly sits there indefinitely until some external force moves it around. Life, however, does its best to defy the laws of physics, by lifting itself away from the ground, regardless of gravity, moving without external forces, jumping and even flying. It's just fascinating. And that's only one small mechanical aspect of life. Add beauty, emotions, genders, thoughts, communication, intentions, memory, etc... and life is far more complex than everything else (we know of) in the universe!

@horacefleming4481 3 ай бұрын

Consider one example of what you describe as aspects of "life." Consider and probe the Diabelli Variations, Op.120 of Beethoven, a composition for unaccompanied piano. It is a late work and one that puzzles and astonishes by the sound waves it produces. And it remains unsounded after two centuries, but seems to resist explanation as "merely music" the chemistry of which seems to accommodate the laws of physics as well as emotion & intellect.

@VeniceInventors 3 ай бұрын

@@horacefleming4481 Thank you for the pointer, I'll try to find it and listen to it right now. 👍

@jbustergrant 27 күн бұрын

I disagree. The brain is made of matter that is not mindless, if you don't mind me saying. Also, subatomic particles know when they are being observed, and change their behavior as a result. Mindfulness is built into the universe just as surely as gravity.

@horacefleming4481 27 күн бұрын

@@jbustergrant Rather than "mindful, perhaps Gravity too is like Time itself, and may be an illusion. Or maybe all is an illusion from where we view it. But the product of imagination may be something other than illusion. Just a surmise. For instance, gravity is only a pattern of behavior responding to the curvature of the universe which also happens to contradict classical geometry in the human (and Greek) perception/conception of it. The 33 variations of the Diabellis are merely responses to a theme which is a mere trifle in itself as the great artist actually admitted.

@sherrybutts5947 Күн бұрын

Well said

@etmax1 5 ай бұрын

So here's one spanner in those works, life needs a range of chemicals that can produce an array of chemical bonds, and until recently we figured the only 2 elements were silicon and carbon. Now after many years we find that nope, only carbon offers the right reactions. That then narrows things down to a relatively small range of elements that work with carbon appropriately. These are elements like nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, hydrogen and sulphur. These have to be in quantitative ratios that don't cause the system to break down but support it, and it turns out we can get an idea of what elements prevail and in roughly what ratios for all the planets in our solar system and other galaxies and only earth seems to have suitable gravity, the right elements, an internal nuclear generator to keep a magnetic field running to protect us from the cosmos and have a close satellite that keeps on stirring the honey pot and the more we look out into the unknown, the more we are disappointed by what's there. Basically life is not inevitable, there are countless things that have to be just right for it to happen. I used to believe there was a good chance of life out there, but as time goes by and we learn more I become ever more cynical of that possibility.

@posteroonie 5 ай бұрын

I'm glad that we know the gravity, elements, and core heat of all the planets in other galaxies. That's a significant breakthrough, not sure how I missed it. I don't think the earth has nuclear fusion in its core though. Edit: Sorry I thought there was enough scientific literacy here to recognize that I was being tongue in cheek, let me expound. First, our home galaxy the Milky Way has some 100 billion stars. We have *no clue* about the planets circling all but a tiny number (like, dozens) of them, all close by. We are nowhere near being able to detect planets in other galaxies. And second, if the Earth had a nuclear core, it would be a star. Earth's core is hot molten iron, mainly. There is no nuclear reaction going on -- remember the idea of critical mass? Hydrogen fuses into heavier elements inside stars but that isn't happening in planets. They're formed of heavier elements that were already created in stars and, hmm let me check Wikipedia, ejected by supernova explosions?

@MikeViker 5 ай бұрын

I agree, I also used to think the old way which today seems childish to me. Life is not inevitable.

@WayneLynch69 5 ай бұрын

"Scam" is one word. 'Origin of Life science is a scam"---Lee Cronin BUT IT PAYS GREAT!!

@danbridges4755 5 ай бұрын

Maybe one day we'll figure out paragraphs.

@etmax1 5 ай бұрын

@@danbridges4755 I'm not writing a book, I'm trying to put a point across.

@domingoaerden 3 ай бұрын

Great theory: " Rocks, by grinding together step by step undergo selection and produce complexity step by step" The origin of life explained. Wow! Why didn't I think about it earlier.

@briancordero7674 3 ай бұрын

If someone working at McDonald's said that, you would slap him.

@kenknight5387 3 ай бұрын

Agree. The Professor’s description of ‘assembly theory” is a Kamala-worthy word salad.

@pinchebruha405 2 ай бұрын

…I’m lost😅

@nankerphelge3771 2 ай бұрын

@@kenknight5387 Come on Ken! We all know that "assembly theory" sounds like a synonym for the "weaving" done by the Swampdaddy of Lies.

@axle.student 4 ай бұрын

6:30 on: Lee has his finger on the pulse. First time I have publicly seen someone that "gets it". The ability of complexity to arise out of simplicity, the ability for selection to choose something that is more than the sum of it's parts, and the ability for that selection process to persist. It's something that I often mention in physics discussions. The rules of the game change as complexity emerges. Each level of complexity is more than the sum of it's original components. I guess this could be just shortened to a statement that "Complexity itself is the ability of a group of particles have emergent behaviors beyond the sum of each individual component behavior" This is the magic of the universe and also the magic of life :) > So, I guess the most difficult question is what are the minimum components required that complexity (more than the sum of it's parts) will naturally emerge. At the extreme can space and time combined form the fist step of complexity. > P.S. There are possibly some hidden drivers at the lowest level of the existence of the universe that we may not easily recognize. I expect that (or those) drivers to be so simple that we could easily dismiss it without realizing.

@noplanetb2293 4 ай бұрын

I've thought about 'life' vs 'inanimate'... and remember the concept of entropy... when there is no longer life...the fragile complexity ...begins to break down... What has fascinated me for years --- a living organism, even at the cellular (bacteria, eukaryotic) has a means by which it builds complex molecules from simple ones...which requires energy ...but then there is the virus...what drives the virus?... RNA/DNA ......?

@axle.student 4 ай бұрын

@@noplanetb2293 "..but then there is the virus...what drives the virus?" Indicators are that it is the other way around. Viri are what drive single cell organisms. In simplistic terms we could think of a single cell being an extension/evolution that allowed for improved replication of the viri and improved persistence. So somewhere within the virus or just below will be potential indicators of this complexity we call life. I first discovered this some 20 years ago when looking for the answers as to how we can create "Self Aware" AI, while working on AI rather than biology. > The driver for this comes back down to some of those lower layers in physics and most importantly how we frame the concept of physics. Determined: Everything (complexity) can be reduced to the sum of it's individual parts. Nothing can ever deviate from the original set path (per-determined, pre-programmed until the end of time.) Non-determined: Everything has the potential to be imperfect between each iteration of higher complexity allowing room for the emergence of complexity that is more than the sum of it's parts. This also means random outcomes where some of those outcomes may have a greater ability to persist over others (last longer before the complexity breaks back down into its parts). > Both schools of thought have their pros and cons :) the later is far more difficult for us humans to grasp as it is somewhat random and messy, whereas determinism is a little more neat and tidy to describe. I still lean toward the non-deterministic school which also means that I have free will :) > P.S. I am not a physicist, just well studied across most of the science and human disciplines.

@terance9551 5 ай бұрын

This is absolutely JUNK!

@peterprentice9179 3 ай бұрын

which part exactly?

@bernhardbauer5301 3 ай бұрын

@@peterprentice9179 The physical part showing those balls may be right. This guy cannot explain life. He is just talking.

@ALavin-en1kr 3 ай бұрын

It is annoying when they do not put physical in front of life; what physical life is, not what life is. Physical life is elemental. It is not known what life itself is.

@bernhardbauer5301 3 ай бұрын

@@ALavin-en1kr Physical life is the period of time that an asset remains functional. This time period may be substantially longer than the useful life of an asset, since a functional asset may still be replaced by a more productive asset. Also, the asset may become too expensive to operate profitably after a period of time. So physical is not life.

@briancordero7674 3 ай бұрын

@@peterprentice9179250k in student debt: existence and copying wow!

@invox9490 5 ай бұрын

Not sure he's talking about the ingredients or the pots & pans...

@TotoIsWriting 5 ай бұрын

Love that. I agree! He doesn't feel like a chemist lol, it feels like he's a guy selling philosophy to me. I think it's fun being the only species capable of comprehending it's existence, because we're shit at handling our egos lol. I do like his idea about rocks simply being matter which has not undergone the complex changes to become sentient, but it's so Human to think the comprehension of complexity is the meaning of life lol, Fungi can't comprehend shit but they're 10x cooler than us.

@michael.forkert 5 ай бұрын

@@TotoIsWriting_He is an establishment employed indoctrinator, nothing more than that._

@rabidL3M0NS 5 ай бұрын

0:04 “We don’t know what life is” There saved 4 seconds of your life.

@TheSimChannel 5 ай бұрын

We don't know what life is in the same way that we don't know what music is. It's an entirely human-made classification, so the only true statement here would be "we haven't been able to agree on a definition for life". How did they get a scientist to babble such idiocy?

@PapaBear-k4k 5 ай бұрын

The breath of God

@dielaughing73 5 ай бұрын

@@TheSimChannelyou raise an interesting question but I don't think most people would agree that life is a construct. You are alive, your hairbrush is not. There's a clear distinction to be made. At least in most cases

@pashagaranin9571 5 ай бұрын

@@dielaughing73 "alive"... and who created that 'property'? this property that may, according to the human brain, indeed be applicable to some objects in the universe, what is so special about it? Could one not almost pass it off as just a synonym for self-replicating systems? Jacob is annoying, you are not. There is a clear distinction to be made. Annoyance is, however, certainly a 'construct'.

@dielaughing73 5 ай бұрын

@@pashagaranin9571 I said it was an interesting question.. just that it's not so easily dismissed as a construct. The sun was a star, and the earth was a planet, long before we dreamed up those words. Doesn't make it any less true though, even if you tell me again that we're the only ones who care. Just as in another area of science, people have observed that some things are alive and others are not. And they choose to study the question further whether you see the point of it or not. And as an aside, even you made an attempt to define life, even while you were telling me why it doesn't matter. It's a natural human drive to try to understand and categorise the world around us

@ericjohnson6665 4 ай бұрын

"Existence and copying," yes, the words are short enough indeed. But the underlying implications are vastly more complex. (It's that complexity in particular, that appears to run counter to entropy.) Copying in particular, involves taking in nutrients and raw material for the copying part. The nutrients are for the energy requirements for the processes involved in the copying part.

@mencken8 3 ай бұрын

“Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem-neat, plausible, and wrong.” -H. L. Mencken

@lrvogt1257 3 ай бұрын

I like that. That's why we keep exploring new concepts.

@petergaskin1811 2 ай бұрын

That is the job of science and scientific inquiry to make wrong into right. Mind you, Mencken was a journalist not a scientist.

@mencken8 2 ай бұрын

@@petergaskin1811 “Wrong” and “right” are inappropriate words in the context of “science” and “scientific inquiry.” As far as Mencken’s profession, yeah, I may have heard that somewhere….

@danbridges4755 5 ай бұрын

Pretty sure I'd be curious about one iPhone on Mars.

@MikeWiest 5 ай бұрын

😂

@fatherburning358 5 ай бұрын

😂👏

@Allyballybean 5 ай бұрын

Even one!

@TicTac2 5 ай бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised because the building blocks of an iphone have been observed on Mars before (Silicon, Carbon e.t.c) and no I'm not being serious, I'm having a dig at scientists/articles that imply life is a common property of the universe on weak evidence

@AlistairAVogan 4 ай бұрын

Even half of an iPhone.

@chrisgriffiths2533 Ай бұрын

Professor Cronin has Put Forward a Good Interpretation, Methodology of How "Life" or "Objects" "Exist". As He Mentions Darwin, Dawkins Saw Life in an Evolutionary Manner. But some of Us See the Anomolies of Life by Evolution. But Why Life, Why So Successful, Why So Diverse, Why Replicate itself, Why the Diversity and Abundance of Matter on Earth ??. Why is Earth as a Planet So Unique ??. This is No Simple Cooking Exercise, but Cooking/Energy is Part of Life/Object Creation and Operation. If Anything the Heat Sources, Temperature Variances of Earth and the Universe are Hostile to Life. The Temperature has to be Just Perfect!. But Thanks and Well Done to Professor Cronin He is Moving Humanity's IQ Forward.

@livephysiology 5 ай бұрын

Another question would be the distinction between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Prokaryotic cells have life that rocks would lack, but lack the complexity needed to form organs as is found with eukaryotic cells. Often times when looking for life, those who are discussing finding life are thinking of whole bodies with organs formed with eukaryotic cells. But if life alone is all that is searched for, unicellular organisms of a prokaryotic nature would still be life.

@Evolution.1859 5 ай бұрын

I would just add one small correction: prokaryotes don’t lack anything; they are what became eukaryotes.

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

Thesis (bacteria) is dual to anti-thesis (archaea) creates the converging thesis or synthesis (eukarya) -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Clockwise (Krebs cycle) is dual to anti-clockwise (the reverse Krebs cycle). Integration (assembly, summation) is dual to differentiation (differences) -- abstract algebra. Your brain/mind has the goal, target or objective of creating or synthesizing reality -- a syntropic process, teleological. The purpose, function, aim, intention or goal of your brain is to create reality, all observers have targets and this is teleological or syntropic. Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Integrating information to make predictions is a syntropic process. Mind (syntropy, synergy) is dual to matter (entropy, energy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! In Shannon's information theory messages in a communication system are predicted into existence using probability and this is a syntropic process, teleological. Syntax is dual to semantics -- communication, language or information. Information is dual -- syntropy, entropy. Objective information (syntax) is dual to subjective information (semantics). Syntropy is a much better and accurate word than assembly as it means a tendency to converge. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Biological cells (neurons) are using messages to communicate -- syntax is dual to semantics!

@JPSingh-ys7yq 3 ай бұрын

Impressive. Appreciate connecting Physics to Biology. My major issue with education is that it has so compartmentalized learning and knowledge creation that we hardly ever look outside of the box. Hope our paths meet one day to chat over a cup of tea.

@stewartmainville303 5 ай бұрын

Have none of these people seen Jack Szostak’s work on abiogenesis? The step from physics to Darwinian evolution doesn’t seem to be a leap...just a natural occurrence of conditions at the time. Strange that clay was so important, though.

@helicalactual 5 ай бұрын

I love his work. The spontaneous chirality is amazing.

@frankjamesbonarrigo7162 5 ай бұрын

@@helicalactualit’s probably Not spontaneous, the scientists just say it is because they can’t find the underlying reason.

@helicalactual 5 ай бұрын

@@frankjamesbonarrigo7162 I meant the spontaneous appraisal and discernment of the system to pick left or right handed chirality

@abelincoln.2064 5 ай бұрын

Abiogenesis is fairy tales as is darwinism. There is zero evidence nature & natural processes can make & enforce rules & LAWS ... set moral & ethical standards ... think & do good or evil ... and .. make, operate & improve a Function with clear purpose, rules, properties, processes, & design ( ie INFORMATION). Universal Functions is the hypothesis for all Machine Analogies (Observation) used by Christians for over 300 years to explain creation of the Universe ( Natural Function) by God ( Unnatural intelligence). The Scientific Method (Function) designed by Man (Natural Intelligence) to explain natural phenomena (Functions) relying on fixed Laws of Nature (Functions) is simply: 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3 Test & Predict 4. Conclude 5. Refine ( only if merited). The Big Bag, Inflation, Multiverse, Emergency, String Theory, Aiogenesis, Evolution .. all fail to pass the scientific Method ... and ... all start at the Conclusion of a Natural origin of the Universe & Life a long long time ago. Whereas Universal Functions ... easily passes the Scientific Method (Function) that relies on fixed Laws of Nature(functions). Science only proves there must be an Unnatural existence with an Unnatural Intelligence. And the Universe & Life ware made ... for a reason/purpose and according to design.

@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 5 ай бұрын

@@frankjamesbonarrigo7162 No, it is definitely spontaneous.

@LiamborninDC 5 ай бұрын

I love how this groundbreaking chemist's 2 word answer to life is the same as some Philosophy 101 class featuring Descartes.

@Crypt0Band1t 5 ай бұрын

Most sciences/maths, if not all, have it's origins from philosophy (PhD = Doctor of Philosophy), hence our good doctor Lee Cronin is philosophizing (getting at a truth) and (I assume) trying to find patterns to apply the scientific process. So your observation is interestingly, relatively, spot on in my opinion. 👍

@fcog9525 5 ай бұрын

This" life-definition", might be the weaker definition I've seen in decades...

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

Integration (assembly, summation) is dual to differentiation (differences) -- abstract algebra. Your brain/mind has the goal, target or objective of creating or synthesizing reality -- a syntropic process, teleological. The purpose, function, aim, intention or goal of your brain is to create reality, all observers have targets and this is teleological or syntropic. Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Integrating information to make predictions is a syntropic process. Mind (syntropy, synergy) is dual to matter (entropy, energy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! In Shannon's information theory messages in a communication system are predicted into existence using probability and this is a syntropic process, teleological. Syntax is dual to semantics -- communication, language or information. Information is dual -- syntropy, entropy. Objective information (syntax) is dual to subjective information (semantics). Syntropy is a much better and accurate word than assembly as it means a tendency to converge. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Biological cells (neurons) are using messages to communicate -- syntax is dual to semantics!

@l3martin 5 ай бұрын

True!

@ywtcc 5 ай бұрын

You need to add copying and complexity, and also correlate existence with time and energy to get from Descartes to Assembly theory. (As well as centuries of research.) Descartes' existence isn't quite the same as Cronin's physicalist existence. Though, maybe instead of existence, we should talk about endurance.

@Lancet75 4 ай бұрын

*Complexity* is not a thing. *Simplicity* is an illusion. The complexity and simplicity inform us about the degree of difficulty we have in grasping things, it doesn't inform us about what these things really are.

@timelessone23 4 ай бұрын

Complexity is not the subjective experience of being overwhelmed. It is a defined concept in physics.

@shruggzdastr8-facedclown 4 ай бұрын

Without stating it outright, he's describing the law of entropy (the tendency for things in nature to go from randomness (complexity) to order (simplicity) and how biochemistry actually defies that tendency

@Moofie-rc5dd 4 ай бұрын

u r wong

@J0s5p8 4 ай бұрын

@@shruggzdastr8-facedclown I think your definitions are backwards. Entropy is usually defined as the degree of dis-order;. 'Entropy' increases with time , so that orderly things, like statues, go from being orderly things back to being rocks and dust. Biochemistry seems to reverse that process, because it somehow starts with 'simple' chemicals and allows them to become 'complex' (orderly) living things. In energy terms , order is 'assembled, concentrated energy, and 'disorder' describes what's left after such energy naturally disperses . Living things maintain and reproduce by harvesting external energy (e.g. from the sun, or food ) to replace energy as it is lost , and so appear to defy the normal 'law of entropy increase' .

@AWKuhns 3 ай бұрын

Profound observations. Existence and copying can be summed up in one word: Survive. The will to survive needed mass and formed it over time to successfully continue. Did life use mass as the physical structure to further its existence? This is one of those chicken or the egg questions. The next question is did life spontaneously exist or did it willfully evolve complex organisms similar to the relationship of the mitochondria as a domesticated bacteria joined in a symbiotic relationship with the cell nucleus?

@GaryBeilby 2 ай бұрын

You speak as if life is some separate entity to the complex molecular machines that make cells metabolise and reproduce. I do not believe it is and I am sure no one has ever managed to isolate this pure element of Life.

@pnf197 3 ай бұрын

LIFE: A random phenomena that slows the Heat Death of the Universe....not by much, but Life likes to celebrate itself.

@P_xcvty78 4 ай бұрын

Very important fundamental observation regarding life. Thanks.

@L5player 3 ай бұрын

As your colleague and intellectual challenger, Dr. James Tour, likes to say: molecules don't self-assemble toward life. They don't care about life, don't know what that even is. Just as you can't take a bucket of different sized marbles, throw them all into the air, and expect them to somehow fall down, linked in order of size, so you can't expect molecules to assemble themselves into patterns that give rise to something alive.

@lrvogt1257 3 ай бұрын

Tour is a sophist in the service of superstition. His agenda is to promote his religion.

@L5player 3 ай бұрын

@@lrvogt1257 He intentionally leaves his faith out of his scientific lectures and makes a point of blunting that criticism by reminding his audience that he never once brought up religion during his address. He is very careful about only discussing science. Now, if you want him to speak of his christian faith, he's always happy to do so. But not when he's explaining interactomes, or RNA, or lipids.

@lrvogt1257 3 ай бұрын

@@L5player you’re right. He doesn’t mention it… and that’s worse. He tries to undermine science so people will accept the unscientific… and unverifiable.

@petergaskin1811 2 ай бұрын

James Tour is a conman and grifter for Genesis Apologetics. In short, all Creationists, either the YE or the OE variety are liars.

@lrvogt1257 2 ай бұрын

@@L5player : Of course Tour doesn't tell people his real agenda when he's trying to con them. He just undermines the science and claims abiogenesis is impossible so life can't be a natural process but a supernatural process. But of course he has ZERO evidence for this and since the supernatural is unfalsifiable there is no scientific argument to defend for it.

@ckrumbach 4 ай бұрын

For a long time I have thought that biology gives us many many examples of the persistance of a process in the Universe. In a deterministic Universe, life exists because it is a great way for a process to take advantage of the nature of reality and persist, adapting to change in circumstances, using as little energy and matter as possible.

@yogimaster1 4 ай бұрын

Life = The ability to sense the environment around itself and organize its environment to make it more favorable to itself.

@michaeldoherty7907 4 ай бұрын

wow

@dragospop202 4 ай бұрын

False, bacterias dont have awareness and are still considered alive

@marscrumbs 3 ай бұрын

Does DNA in cell membrane sense its environment? That’s a hot topic. Can DNA sense other DNA as in matched chromosomes?

@tallenpelegrin7026 3 ай бұрын

You've got it partially backwards... Using but modifying your words... the function (not definition) of Life = The ability to sense the environment around itself and to then modify itself to make itself more adapted to that environment.

@philborer877 3 ай бұрын

That was extremely enlightening. Brilliant. Thank you I loved it

@meierandre1313 5 ай бұрын

As a chemist I came to very similar conclusions. I like the thought of life being structure and information that continues to exist and has the potential to exist even after the last stars burned out. A machinery, once started working without a break for billions of years. Really amazing.

@mrmaplemannitnatsnoc3283 5 ай бұрын

Honestly I thought this was kind of just obvious because just as fire spreads, so do we (we as in organisms) except we are just a chemical reaction that has found a way to increase its chances of passing on our spark to rekindle ourselves indefinitely through the use of slow change and adaptation.

@meierandre1313 5 ай бұрын

@@mrmaplemannitnatsnoc3283 I think that most things become obvious once you've thought about them for a while. But before that, they can seem strange and difficult to grasp. I also appreciate how he explains the assembly index: the minimum information needed to build a molecule. It reminds me of crystallography, but for non-crystalline matter. I think this is an area of work for information theory. What is the maximum compressibility of information to get the structure? Pretty sure there are many publications in this field already. Complexity and large systems will likely be major areas of focus in the coming decades, and we'll learn a lot from studying them. Emergent properties, life, neural networks, consciousness, and similar topics will be key areas of exploration. Yes, it's all about complex structures being preserved and, with some adaptions if beneficial, passed on through time by chemical reactions fueled by energy. Is a machine a structure? Yes, but not every structure is a machine. And then you need a source of energy to get that machine working, although it is still a machine if it isn't working, while a dead animal still has almost the structure it had when it was still working but sufficiently different as it now is dead and not just switched off. It still is quite complicated to describe it and you will usually find examples that do not fit (at least partly) your description. Like maybe boiling water in the hole of a rock, as it also creates some kind of structure that adapts to changes of temperature, pressure and the shape of the hole in that rock. And it could also be there for billions of years. And then you maybe need the degree of information on a molecular level to distinguish between living things and dead things. But maybe this example is nonsense, I did not really thought it through and maybe this is also a source of confusion: that we do not think sufficiently deep before stating things. Our language is a tool that is lacking a lot to explain many things in the world. And it is not only because we do not recognize things. I guess most people are able to distinguish between life and dead matter and still there is no really good description of how we do this and what life is and what it isn't. The same for consciousness and all qualia (a color, a harmonic, a smell and so on). Or quantum mechanics which cannot be fully explained with words, imho. It is always a comparison with things we can perceive which do not fit the things that are much smaller and much more complex. And maths, at least to me, often feels also like just a description of something but still there is no real understanding (maybe it is different for mathematicians; I'd love to know how they perceive the world). Maybe I should write my next novel about this, if I should live long enough. ;D I addresses some of this in my published one and it is, at least I hope so, less confusing.

@meierandre1313 5 ай бұрын

@@mrmaplemannitnatsnoc3283 KZbin erased my answer. I do not understand why. This place is obviously highly problematic to have a discussion. :(

@meierandre1313 5 ай бұрын

@@mrmaplemannitnatsnoc3283 Ok, maybe it was too long. I think that most things become obvious once you've thought about them for a while. But before that, they can seem strange and difficult to grasp.

@meierandre1313 5 ай бұрын

I also appreciate how he explains the assembly index: the minimum information needed to build a molecule. It reminds me of crystallography, but for non-crystalline matter. Complexity and large systems will likely be major areas of focus in the coming decades, and we'll learn a lot from studying them. Emergent properties, life, neural networks, consciousness, and similar topics will be key areas of exploration.

@KelliAnnWinkler 2 ай бұрын

Oh my goodness. "For an object to exist, it has to survive for a longer time than its natural life. This process of copying an existence to defy the law of being erased is how life starts to emerge. It is the battle to emerge from the maelstrom of randomness and persist, and it's so simple. It's like the simplest observation ever: copying and existence. That's all life is." How did I did I miss such a simple observation?

@luluddreamer 5 ай бұрын

This is probably the most interesting thing I'll see in this entire month

@The-Well 5 ай бұрын

This is the best compliment. Thanks for spending time with us!

@stoerwatje 4 ай бұрын

a practical problem is that destruction is, at the early stages of life so much more significant that the proces of copying simply will not be able to happen.

@georgebradford1862 4 ай бұрын

Impossible or improbable? Given that life exists I'll have to go with improbable, but only if you can satisfy me that the number of opportunities is not large enough to move it to probable. How many opportunities arise is dependant on the overall size of the system in question. How large is the universe? How many opportunities?

@stoerwatje 4 ай бұрын

@@georgebradford1862 the chemical needed for life are instable, they simply cannot form without being destroyed

@globalcitizen995 4 ай бұрын

@@georgebradford1862 With regard to your first comment , at least you are trying to think. However your second comment is spot-on

@petersmith8070 3 ай бұрын

@georgebradford1862 One estimate is that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. A gene is about 1000 or more base pairs long with spaces in there. 256 genes amount to roughly 300,000 bases of DNA and left-handed amino acids only. Both left and right are formed naturally so this is a big problem too since only the left ones are used in the coding of life’s genesis. This and a bunch of other things might give you an improbability for a spontaneous generation of life to a factor of 10 ^ -90000 which requires a possibility-space far more than the amount of the known fundamental particles in the detectable known universe the number of which is [relatively-minuscule] estimated to be only approximately 10 ^ 120. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 It seems impossible to me.

@timothylee6086 4 ай бұрын

I like his description of life as “extremely fragile chemistry” that has found a way to continue to exist.

@pmarchitect9866 4 ай бұрын

How can chemistry find anything? Sounds too anthropomorphic to qualify as hard science

@ericjohnson6665 4 ай бұрын

@@pmarchitect9866 - Yes, they make it sound like molecules have intelligence. The unwritten assumption is the existence of 'mind', and how the scientists take its existence for granted, never questioning where it came from to begin with. Mind (granted, in a miniscule amount) is behind the copying part, causing the patterns to continue to exist.

@johneyon5257 3 ай бұрын

@@pmarchitect9866 - it's called "reification" - it is very common to state that inanimates are doing something when we know they can't and we know that humans or other animates are doing the driving - eg "fear is holding me back" - "the market controls prices" - "gravity rules" - but it can be confusing - or sometimes be inappropriate - in this case - i don't have any problem with it - however - i wonder what would happen to our thinking if we discarded the practice - more precision couldn't hurt

@briseboy 3 ай бұрын

That is inaccurate. Persistence opposite is NOT "fragility," but changeability, malleability.

@johneyon5257 3 ай бұрын

@@briseboy - ChatGPT explains this well: ""Fragility," "changeability," and "malleability" all highlight different aspects of what could be seen as the opposite of persistence. Fragility emphasizes a lack of resilience or durability, which contrasts with persistence's strength and durability. Changeability and malleability focus on adaptability and the ability to change, which contrasts with persistence's steadfastness and consistency. Each of these can work depending on the specific angle from which you're approaching the concept of persistence. It’s all about the nuance you want to capture

@prestonbacchus4204 3 ай бұрын

Consider the possibility that what we call our universe (that is, what came out of the big bang) is itself "living" and was "born" from the interaction of already existing living universes like our own. Not dissimilar to the way our galaxy was formed out of the interaction (or collision) of already existing galaxies.

@themogget8808 5 ай бұрын

I think creating a neutral index of raw complicated-ness (which is not quite the same as complexity) and then looking for that as a hallmark of life or at least life-likely places is a good idea. Self-replication and Persistence, sure. Existence and copying are not specific enough words. I think the watchmaker analogy was better without mars and iphones, and referring to a known analogy improves comprehension.

@Jacobk-g7r 5 ай бұрын

6:40 i would not say copying but sharing because you aren’t a copy but a form, you haven’t been here before. Or at least this version of you but if the tree can birth a chair then all chairs potential are in all trees and by understanding it’s beyond the tree as well so every version of you is possible but you are you not another but you can share with the others but you are unique just like EVERYTHING. Sharing existence or sharing infinity is how i would describe it. Maybe sharing free will.

@joshuasibelius6753 5 ай бұрын

Science is even saying "free will" doesn't even exist....

@justcurious-tl8ts 5 ай бұрын

copying the gene not the vehicle

@regulacionemocional 5 ай бұрын

I think that the concept of autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1972) explains the idea of existence much better. Good thing you only need one word for the same idea.

@geromiuiboxz765 5 ай бұрын

🇨🇱 You are right on ‼️👍😀 Saludos de 🇨🇱

@Truth_Seeker09 3 ай бұрын

Goal of life: To reach highest possible level of awareness. Meanwhile it wants to survive to reach that goal.

@herbertfawcett7213 5 ай бұрын

Life locally reverses entropy!

@Squirrel_314 3 ай бұрын

Sure. If you mean furiously consuming energy, and dumping copious amounts of waste heat into its environment.

@apollo8352 3 ай бұрын

This is not an area I have dwelt on very much... but having seen ice crystals form from liquid water, and knowing crystals of other minerals also form naturally, I do not find it to odd to think given the right compounds under the right conditions for long enough some more complex assembly might randomly hit on a evolutionary advantage to become dominant and take off from there... as our source of life from which we evolved. What amazes me more is the really odd set of circumstances which have occurred allowing us to evolve to the point we are at. People think a planet somewhere out in space could have life because it has a similar climate to earth, and that is just not the case... the evolutionary pressure has to be so finely balanced to bring about change but not wipe out the life form... it is unlikely we will ever find anything more than some slime on any other planet anywhere in the Universe, which means we are pretty special and valuable to the universe, For what us a universe if its wonders are never appreciated.

@bluesque9687 5 ай бұрын

We never truly understand the "why"... thats not science! We progress by understanding more and more the "how" and predicting the "when" and "where".... that is science. So, we are never going to understand the "what is.." completely because the question of "why" will forever remain unresolved! Edit: typo. Duh!

@bluesque9687 5 ай бұрын

@@bogusmcbogus2637 Yes, i too suppose, this is very simplified!

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

@bluesque9687 5 ай бұрын

@@hyperduality2838 Appreciate it! Will unpack it!

@pjhgerlach 5 ай бұрын

The 'why' is an irrelevant question when driven to the extreme. It simply IS. That 'why' cannot be answered and leads to strange cultural phenomena like religion which also doesn't gives you an answer buy simply transfers the question to an imaginable being.

@JustAThought01 5 ай бұрын

The how is science. The why is philosophy. The why questions are easier to answer and may prove to be far more important than the how. Granting that the now questions are of great benefit in making life more enjoyable. Carry on.

@yanbu000 5 ай бұрын

I attentively engaged with the presentation, eagerly anticipating a novel application of assembly theory in elucidating the synthesis of life, particularly the genesis of a unicellular organism. Regrettably, my expectations were unmet, as neither this researcher nor others in the field provided a satisfactory explanation of how inanimate matter transitions into living systems. The presentation included some suggestive hints, but as is often the case, I was left disillusioned by the chasm between empirical data and speculative belief systems.

@anaccount8474 5 ай бұрын

Don’t pretend you were hoping for that, you were relieved you didn’t get that so you can keep believing whatever garbage you believe

@smidlee7747 5 ай бұрын

@@anaccount8474 I will admit if materialism is true there is no hope for mankind. "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity."

@aminnima6145 5 ай бұрын

What exactly is groundbreaking about this

@meierandre1313 5 ай бұрын

Good question.

@28th_St_Air 5 ай бұрын

It says that the chemist is ground breaking and not the video.

@themogget8808 5 ай бұрын

The switch by NASA to quit searching for earth-life-specific molecules, and score all molecules on a neutral complexity index and look for complex chemistry of any kind to find life, after this dude convinced them to.

@peterhalick6226 4 ай бұрын

It’s the connection between physics and biology that seems to offer a meaningful prediction about the likelihood of life in the universe. That would be ground breaking.

@danielbalcan6270 4 ай бұрын

The line between organic and non-organic.

@OPGamer-wp1si 4 ай бұрын

Nice to listen u'r lecture. U successfully made chemistry as unpredictable as quantum physics.

@Myth1n 5 ай бұрын

Basically explaining panpsychism or idealism. Consciousness is fundamental, its how rocks can create life, everything in the universe contains/is contained by consciousness.

@joespurway2678 5 ай бұрын

Infomation Constructor Theory and microtubules work to define this as a shared information aether. Subcognitive function on a universal cognitive big bang. An assembly of thoughts and feelings gives the weighting to local mass and energy.

@abody499 5 ай бұрын

he's talking about physical and chemical processes, not about consciousness. This video makes no such reference to philosophy of mind and assumes a realist ontology.

@Myth1n 5 ай бұрын

@@abody499 these things do not exist in a vacuum.

@abody499 5 ай бұрын

yes, the universe is not a perfect vacuum, that is true, and its the contents of the universe that are bound together in a complex system of systems that gives rise to the physical and chemical processes discussed in the video. If we want to get to consciousness, we need to wait a while until it emerges through those processes.

@Myth1n 5 ай бұрын

@@abody499 you dont think a single celled organism is conscious? Do you think your brain tells your liver what to do?

@leonhardtkristensen4093 3 ай бұрын

What I would like to know is if life has started more than once on earth? My understanding is that all life can actually be traced back to one starting point or close to it at least. My next question would then be unless the conditions for starting life has gone why don't we see life start again and again all over? Maybe it is so difficult to happen that it has only happened once in the universe.

@lrvogt1257 3 ай бұрын

The theory is that all life that exists today came from a common ancestor but I believe there were a few different things that came together to produce that cell or group of cells. Abiogenesis would, by definition, happen where there was no life. Life is now everywhere so the conditions have changed dramatically.

@virtualworldsbyloff 3 ай бұрын

A third Word/Factor is needed, MUTATION - mutating randomly across the copy process, without mutation Life could not cope with environmental changes by natural selection (adaptation) and thetefore wouldnot persist... We need some chaos to keep the order, WEIRD ISN'T IT ???

@harryhill5999 3 ай бұрын

I like the fundamental definition if life as quoted in “This ciliate is about to die” in the “Journey to the Microcosmos series. Simply put. “Life is a chemical system that uses energy from outside itself to maintain itself in a far from equilibrium state.” This, surely , has to be the difference between biology and chemistry at a fundamental level, and is quite easy to see how this could happen from non-living chemistry. We are just a bunch of chemicals that maintain themselves in a dynamic relationship, using energy through the process of respiration. . All the complexity can come later as this dynamic closed system (the bunch of chemicals within a cell wall) evolve into more complex systems. This original living system does not even need to be able to be self-replicating. These systems could just live, and die, when the ability to use external energy is lost because the closed system becomes open, and the chemical system that was living reverts to s state of chemical equilibrium. The ability to become self- replicating, and the evolution of DNA and RNA would have come later in the evolution of the complex cell from this fundamental living but initially mortal cell.

@ExtantFrodo2 5 ай бұрын

Hmmm, his example was an iphone? Shades of Hoyle! There's no need to be that extreme. Anything you find that could not be produced without the intervention of an intelligent agent, for instance a paperclip. You'd recognize instantly it was "artificial". An artifact, not a product of nature. Things that have evolved show all the characteristics of having evolved (which is a natural and well explained process). Does he imagine that multiple copies of iphones indicates they replicate themselves? I find it notable that he left out self-maintenance as any prerequisite to persisting/existing long enough to actualize self-copy. Though it's not like the first self-replicating molecules were complex enough or sophisticated enough effect for that. Only such self-replicating molecules that had enough innate endurance to not dissemble before self-replicating would be able to accomplish that act.

@alittleofeverything4190 4 ай бұрын

Awesome. Thank you for that perspective

@osks 5 ай бұрын

“That’s the whole problem with science - you’ve got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder” - Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes, the 6-year old philosopher… “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” - Robert Jastrow, God And The Astronomers

@davidbrathwaite5779 4 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, the theologians have been sitting there for centuries mumbling crappy speculations that are as unconvincing now as they were ten thousand years ago.

@osks 4 ай бұрын

@@davidbrathwaite5779 Your opinion (private speculation) or objective, propositional truth?

@andrewthomas6312 4 ай бұрын

Wow, that's a very interesting story. But you'd have to give an example of where the assembly of something like a cell can occur without a mind or an intelligent agent. People mock intelligent design. This is an example of unintelligent assembly theory as an alternative position.

@osks 4 ай бұрын

@@andrewthomas6312 No, I don’t disparage intelligent design - I don’t deny the fact that, because God created a universe that is ‘good’, that we must expect to find the ‘fingerprint of God’ in the created order What I will strongly dispute, is the idea that we can somehow infer God from an assessment of the particulars… the (nonsense) idea that ‘design demands a designer which is God’ - not only does that reduce God to nothing more than the CONCLUSION to human reasoning, but the conclusion (God) simply does not follow from the premises (the argument makes an equal case for Zeus or Horus or Isis or any one of the gods in the Hindu pantheon) Ultimately, design speaks not FOR God, but OF God - “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom 3:4)

@globalcitizen995 4 ай бұрын

@@osks ask yourself the same question

@richardfrenette6648 5 ай бұрын

Very interesting, potentially an interesting step forward. This being said, I am fundamentally convinced that any definition of life not involving information is flawed or incomplete. Fsscinating watching most scientists (except for a few courageous ones) dancing around the concept while avoiding naming it explicitly. The day they dare to jump in will be a revolution in science.

@PapaBear-k4k 5 ай бұрын

The life force they are looking for is the breath of God

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

@eleazarrodriguez1260 4 ай бұрын

Adam means ground Eve means to breathe, to live, to give life Cain means acquired Abel means vanity (Ground the breathes acquired vanity)

@Micheal313 4 ай бұрын

The spirit of continuation.

@gravestone4840 5 ай бұрын

Life is motion, time is motion, heat and light and chemical exchange and the behavior of electrons, all motion. While we may not know how life emerges, we know what it is. Movement and the observation of that motion.

@djrtime1398 5 ай бұрын

So is the wind alive? How about a volcano?

@rafadydo555 5 ай бұрын

Life is a flow of energy and with electric orgin (proton gradient)

@smidlee7747 5 ай бұрын

@@djrtime1398 He is basically trying to explain himself away mechanically. It's like a dog going in circles chasing it's own tail trying to sniff it's butt. "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." Max Planck

@priley91390 5 ай бұрын

Nothing exists unless it moves. Existence is determined by motion.

@gravestone4840 5 ай бұрын

@smidlee7747 Consciousness is also motion, this doesn't lessen its value or explain it away. Observation is key to what we consider "alive", without it all we have is existence. Consciousness is perhaps the greatest motion there is because through it all the other things that exist gain meaning. If the universe exists, if it moves, yet there was no one to observe that motion then it might as well not exist for all practical purposes. Motion is fundamental to all existence, consciousness is the motion that makes it have purpose.

@jimfarmer2499 2 ай бұрын

The missing concept/process is: CHI, which Chinese tradition calls "Life Force Energy". The universe is expanding universally, i.e, every cubic Planck-Length of space is expanding. Now, the only way to make something out of nothing is to create an equal-and-opposite something-else at the same time such that, if the two somethings recombine, the result is non-existence again (not a Big Bang or a slew of photons). CHI is the universal anti-something-else to universal expansion. and it takes the form of an energy flow with special properties. One such property is that it reflects off of every other energy gradient that it encounters. Thus, it echoes around within any repeating pattern of energy (in time or space) and hence builds up high concentration of Chi energy within the pattern. Now, since Chi is the opposite-something-else of expansion, it pulls the enclosing pattern inward. Hence the existence of the Nuclear Strong Force that holds protons together in atoms' nuclei, for example. Now, during atomic fission, the separation of some of the protons liberates the Chi energy that was holding them together. Hence, as Chinese tradition proclaims, Chi comes (to Earth) from the stars. Another common repeating pattern that holds Chi is DNA and RNA strands.

@pederchristopher 4 ай бұрын

Beautiful talk! Oddly profound subject matter! I would replace the word "exist" however, with "persist". He may have a technical use of that word... but in common parlance, anything (alive or not) might be understood to "exist", but from Cronin's description the thing that is understood to be "alive" LASTS LONGER than it should. As a total layperson, this thought independently occurred to me a while back: "life is what fights against". Applying this to a totally different realm, people make such a fuss about AI being "alive" but I don't see it persisting or resisting, it just does what it's told. However malware and computer viruses, although much less intelligent, and much older than our new LLM's, resemble digital life forms MUCH more, exactly because of their ability to persist, and in Cronin's conception, copy themselves to continue their existence.

@theGentlemanCaller73 5 ай бұрын

Lee "Life in two years" Cronin. (Said in 2011, IIRC)

@nofaithrequired859 3 ай бұрын

My favorite definition of 'life': a self-sustaining, chemical process capable of Darwinian evolution. Under RNA world view, evolution started as soon as the first RNA molecule replicated itself. This introduced mutations and off we go.

@NathanHarrison7 5 ай бұрын

It’s interesting to me how experts make the simple complex, and the complex things that they really can’t understand, but hope to, sound simple.

@thyshallrunitup5297 2 ай бұрын

Knowledge and Wisdom.

@pipe2devnull 5 ай бұрын

Without watching, i'll say life is these two words .. "not dead".😮

@joeedley3936 4 ай бұрын

I like this video. I think complexity is a step in 😅the right direction. But its not basic enough, I propose. I go all the way back to "light" itself. When we're all done with analyzing it, we'll discover that it's the existence of light that guarantees the existence of life. That somehow, light finds a way to create "objects", which in turn block its unending, straight-line "movement" to infinity that light has, and instead finds a way to keep light moving and bouncing around within a closed system and that subsequent movement of the energy produced by light(or the energy it inherently has within it) within the closed system, exerts its one defining characteristic "desire" to continue to "existence", which we as humans all have and its how we manifest our lives, and thus finds a way to copy and design more complexity. The molecule was the 1st great invention by light, and the crystal and subsequent enclosed "cell" were the next two developments. That's just a brief idea of what I'm imagining. It leaves a lot to fill in the blanks. But I think it's there, if we can imagine it in new ways.

@terrentech 4 ай бұрын

The iPhone analogy is terrible. what was that?

@jzjsf 4 ай бұрын

I watched this to learn how replication first began. He spends the episode primarily discussing the abstractions. In the very last, he mentions that life is "copying" -- well, how did copying start, that's really the whole issue!

@tallenpelegrin7026 3 ай бұрын

Where in the title does it say that the video will give you the answer to what you watched it for? The title says that he's defining life, nothing more.

@outthinkersubliminalfacts 3 ай бұрын

Since copying is done by genes and energy, both DNA/RNA and chromosomes now come from parents/seeds. However at the beginning, the instructions could have started from water, sunlight and chemical reactions made by a higher order.

@arbez101 5 ай бұрын

Really? As far as I can tell this is not science, and there was no ground being broken here. To posit that life is simply existence and copying is an absurd oversimplification of an exquisite mystery.

@makokx7063 4 ай бұрын

Most scientists agree that viruses are not life because they aren't not made out of cells, they can't keep themselves in a stable state, they don't grow, and they can't make their own energy despite the fact they certainly exist and they do replicate themselves. By his definition a robot that can construct a copy of itself is "life".

@myriola 3 ай бұрын

Due to ego, the "essense complexity" became the "naturecomplication".... When become conscious of being, the complexity of essence becomes clear and clean (pure to our human comprehension), and so, we can easily understand the origin of the complication in nature and correct the natural wrong (get sorted out, get straightened), let's say that it could sort of transmuting it to the essential right.

@MikeViker 5 ай бұрын

Life is a region in space where entropy levels slow down or reverse over a finite period of time.

@jennagibsonart 5 ай бұрын

Why does that happen I wonder... I would guess that an explanation would need a different structure of physics than we have today

@SuperManning11 4 ай бұрын

That’s a very interesting way of putting it-and it makes sense to me!

@alexgoslar4057 3 ай бұрын

That is a great explanation. Thank you.

@konstantinos777 5 ай бұрын

So this means that self replicating machines are alive?

@rubncarmona 5 ай бұрын

look for the work of Michael Levin to get more insights into this question (short answer: yes but 'alive' doesn't have much meaning when you see chemistry and biology in a continuum)

@elierreyes9287 5 ай бұрын

Are viruses alive?

@danielburns8548 5 ай бұрын

Computer viruses exist and copy themselves

@konstantinos777 5 ай бұрын

@@rubncarmona I am familiar with Mr. Levin's work, it's great. But even him isn't sure, I mean it looks like it is alive alright, but is it? Maybe it is, but I was wondering specifically for machines. For example you have a piece of software which is programmed to self replicate and persist, like a so-called computer virus. Mr. Cronin suggests that this is a life form?

@konstantinos777 5 ай бұрын

@@elierreyes9287 Good question!

@idontlikeit.7822 3 ай бұрын

Outstanding presentation

@hosoiarchives4858 3 ай бұрын

@@idontlikeit.7822 what did you get out of it

@idontlikeit.7822 2 ай бұрын

@@hosoiarchives4858that Homo sapiens are but a part of the web, not the point of it. Having studied life sciences I have found keeping an open mind is much more rewarding than dogma.

@vietnameseloempia 5 ай бұрын

Uhhmmm.... I'm not sure how the idea that life is existence plus copying brings any valuable understanding. Can we do anything practical with this idea? It still does not explain anything about how life came into existence on earth. It does not say anything about how things that we on earth understand as being alive seem to have somehow emerged from a large rock with a hot center. Do we even know how the biosphere emerged?

@johnpayne7873 5 ай бұрын

I agree. The proposition is more of a phenomenological tautology than an explanation.

@TicTac2 5 ай бұрын

tieing in life to physics is sort of valuable I think but I agree it is word salad in a way

@themogget8808 5 ай бұрын

His philosophy sucks but his practical science is great. The big idea is that we develop a neutral index of complicatedness of molecules, and score potential life-holding planets based on that. Looking for earth-specific molecules blinds us to other forms of life. This index is based on molecules we can detect using astrophysics, which is hard science, and score those molecules with an index which is hard unbiased math. None of this has anything to do with explaining in detail how life emerged on earth. That work is not astrophysics.

@vietnameseloempia 4 ай бұрын

@@themogget8808 Sounds good but complexity is not necessarily the same as life, right? If we find complexity elsewhere but nothing that we here can identify as life, what is the discovery? What if we find a planet with a whole bunch of iPhones but no creature with any sign of consciousness or qualities that we can perceive as living? It seems a bit like saying it's hopeless to find life elsewhere in the universe so instead we just redefine life to mean anything complex? (Which would make an iPhone 'alive'.) And how does that definition or description relate to existence plus copying?

@themogget8808 4 ай бұрын

This is not a discovery - this is a search method. They tested this 'very complicate molecule is likely life' method on earth stuff and sure enough it went ding on life but not on dead stuff, but looks at a wider set of molecules than just earth life. Finding extraterrestrial very complicated molecules is not the same as finding life, but it is a good starting point. Astrophysics is just looking at light with telescopes. Without flying to those places and taking a look, our options are limited. Maybe we cook up some of those primordial soups in a lab and see what they do?

@Walker-ld3dn 4 ай бұрын

Terrific. Really interesting talk.

@johnnytoronto1066 5 ай бұрын

Clickbait and pretentious hogwash.

@HRoy-ot7hy 3 ай бұрын

Some scientists became entertainers. They dress and talk like some TV show characters. In our current time, arrogance and vacuity are the keys for success.

@peterprentice9179 3 ай бұрын

what are your qualifications again?

@tallenpelegrin7026 3 ай бұрын

How so? The video is what it says it is, a famous chemist saying that his definition of life consists of 2 words.

@bernhardbauer5301 3 ай бұрын

@@tallenpelegrin7026 1. Word Carbon 2. Word Silicon Solution: Only Carbon So what?

@indian.patterns 4 ай бұрын

Beautiful❤❤❤

@KeriHall-l2k 3 ай бұрын

In one word…GOD! Never do these so called intelligent people mention God.

@MaxMBJ 5 ай бұрын

He’s in love with his theory.

@JohnAllenRoyce 4 ай бұрын

I don't agree with your premise. I enjoyed your well reasoned argument though.

@MaxMBJ 4 ай бұрын

@@JohnAllenRoyce comments on KZbin that are well developed arguments don’t get read.

@m2pozad 5 ай бұрын

Again?

@viyoddha8840 5 ай бұрын

Biological Life was formed and evolved due to chemistry of molecules and their networks of bonding with others. Our psychological Me is the response of consciousness keeps existing by copying past traditonal concepts and ideas.

@clementmanuel1987 4 ай бұрын

The ability to copy a living thing is a process that requires intelligent planning and execution. As the copying is done in the same way billions and billions of time, this process is definitely not random and therefore indicates a superior intelligent being. A creator far more marvelous than we can come up with ourselves.

@DorianGreer 4 ай бұрын

Nothing is happening here outside the laws of chemistry and physics, that's why it does the same thing billions of times given the same conditions. It would be random if it didn't happen the same way.

@thomasdequincey5811 5 ай бұрын

'Assembly Theory' - I like it. Very interesting.

@hyperduality2838 5 ай бұрын

@tomellis4750 5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the plinky-plonk music, it made it wonderfully distracting.

@thawkxing 5 ай бұрын

"Chemistry is the study of matter, but I prefer to see it as the study of change."

@Alexibawendi 4 ай бұрын

From $10K to $25k that's the minimum range of profit return every week I think it's not a bad one for me, now I have enough to pay bills and take care of my family

@NickAnthony322 4 ай бұрын

I'm celebrating a $30k stock portfolio today. started this journey with 6k,I have invested on time and also with the right terms now.

@ephenOwen 4 ай бұрын

Damn that's huge, how do you make that much weekly? I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

@Alexibawendi 4 ай бұрын

Oh, yeah. That was possible with the help of my Guru expert, Jenifer Spencer

@stanleymaxon 4 ай бұрын

That's great!!. I don't know anything about investing and I intend to start. What are your strategies?

@ephenOwen 4 ай бұрын

The best strategy is starting with a professional coach, as a beginner who knows little or nothing in the crypto market to avoid losing out.

@Pl4sm0 2 ай бұрын

im blown away !!!

@bunnyofdoom4501 5 ай бұрын

Not Dead

@GaryBeilby 2 ай бұрын

Fascinating stuff. I guess this supports the strong anthropic principle and has room to eventually explain how prokaryote life emerged so quickly on the cooling Earth. I struggle with that and have always felt it is more likely that life molecules were in the cosmic wind and washed up on our shores in the same way that we see new volcanic islands rapidly start to grow plant life after they have cooled.

@samratsai7062 5 ай бұрын

I love the grounded reality of this channel!!! Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $47,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD❤️

@KuramaUchiha-id1ow 5 ай бұрын

wow this awesome 👏 I'm 39 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

@samratsai7062 5 ай бұрын

@@KuramaUchiha-id1owMaria Angelina Alexander I really appreciate her efforts and transparency.

@samratsai7062 5 ай бұрын

I remember giving her my first savings $20000 and she opened a brokerage account for me it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me.

@amalmberg13 5 ай бұрын

This is a definition of God's unending provisions for his people. God remains faithful to his words. I receive this for my household.🙏

@Kylejones06 5 ай бұрын

Wow...I know her too she is a licensed broker and a FINRA agent she is popular in US and Canada she is really amazing woman with good skills and experience.

@BizsectInc 4 ай бұрын

As chemist says about complexity someday our understanding might evolve and form a molecule to grasp every dimension of the universe.

@neodharma 5 ай бұрын

This is yet another attempt to explain life staying inside materialistic paradigm. That's a huge confusion of the mind. They're looking in the wrong place. Besides, this theory doesn't explain much. Although the author seems quite excited about it, I don't think it's going somewhere.

@mangalvnam2010 3 ай бұрын

I see life as: Ongoing unfolding metabolism thru persisting self-selected adapting changes.

@KOKOPIKOSS 5 ай бұрын

3 words...variation-selection-copy (reproduction)

@beaureddington4039 5 ай бұрын

I think ‘existence’ is more encompassing than “variation & selection” I’d also argue that while variation and selection may arguably be necessary for life’s initiation/genesis, simply existing is all that is required as long as it also can copy itself. Variation is present In varying magnitudes across life, and selection is more a function of how that variation got there, but still neither is as fundamentally core to the principle of Life as simply “existence”

@Shamsi419 Ай бұрын

Lee recently said there’s information in the cell that no one’s how or why or where from .

@HoangNguyen-hc9og 5 ай бұрын

It doesn't make sense at all.

@Scarabeecookies 5 ай бұрын

Because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It's actually bloody brilliant.

@Robinson8491 5 ай бұрын

If you went to highschool you should be able to understand this

@PerceptionVsReality333 5 ай бұрын

I'm guessing you're young.

@ClarkPotter 5 ай бұрын

Just finished the video. I was a math/physics/comsci major and have read dozens of books on complexity theory, cellular automata, chaos theory, self-organizing systems, complex adaptive systems, information theory, etc., and the information content of this video is virtually zero. Nothing was explained in the slightest. It doesn't make sense because there was no information content proffered that had the possibility to make sense in the first place.

@Sevrazaurus 5 ай бұрын

If chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

@dankurth4232 3 ай бұрын

Still the best model of the emergence of life is Manfred Eigen‘s Hypercycle (theory) which in short sees the origin of life in a meta- or hypercycle of automorphic cycles where this hierarchy of automorphic cycles isn’t necessarily restrained to 2 levels. Life certainly is NOT a Lego figure put together of (building) blocks but life is from the beginning a dynamic system or process and in particular a process of processes by which then elements become configurated to build up higher layers of new processes by which then … To put it shortly: Life can’t be understood as a structure or by a structural theory but life is functional and evolves in layers of function over functional settings which in a particular mathematical description can be called ‚functorial‘