How do scientists measure-and define-life? | Lee Cronin

[@mariafernandahernandezgarc1836]

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.

[@TomRauhe]

By this definition CHATGPT is alive. Maybe it is.

[@The-Well]

Interesting callout 🤔

[@baraskparas9559]

A new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth outlines abiogenesis in great detail with a solution to the evolution of the genetic code and the ribosome as well as the cell in general using 290references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. Origin and evolution of first life, abiogenesis, is a scenario involving many well founded hypotheses and many different reactions.

[@videos_not_found]

Perfect example of optimism bias.

[@TheDevildogs75]

I haven't watched the video yet (and not sure I was definitely going to), but now after seeing the absolute thrashing it's taking here in the comments, I *have* to check it out.

[@Haidar-Philosophy]

Guys it’s really simple remember what the CGP guides taught us - MRS GREN - movement, reproduction, sensitivity, growth, respiration, excretion, nervous system. Nutrition… MRS GREN is a quick way to tell if something is “life”.

[@marcobernardon1632]

Those are waaaay too many criteria. If you go by that logic not even plants could be considered life

[@julioivansalazar9853]

Researchers from King's College London and the University of Oxford have formally demonstrated through published papers 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 concepts. This raises significant concerns about AT's originality and scientific merit, and also highlights the importance of not exaggerating intended scientific work, especially 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 Hector Zenil, broadly explaining why Assembly Theory and its marketing campaign are seriously damaging the image of science as a whole.

[@mh60648]

I understand that, superficially, this may actually sound logical, but 'doing non-random things at scale' could also be used to describe a fully automated factory, for example. Now go try and measure if this factory is 'alive' or not. But even if you rule out factories with some additional conditions, this kind of quantification will not help you understand the process of GIVING RISE TO life. I am not saying that this kind of research and measuring can't be useful for our knowledge and understanding of the processes that take place in living beings, but if your goal is to 'understand the process of GIVING RISE TO life', you are choosing a dead end road. If measuring these kinds of things would have offered understanding about the process of GIVING RISE TO life, we would have discovered it by now, and we clearly haven't. This kind of stubborn scientific blindness (and bias) for reality, especially when it comes to investigating life, is what keeps us from actually discovering the process of GIVING RISE TO life, and understanding life itself.

[@Jay-kx4jf]

Well a factory cannot come into being without agents like us building it

[@mh60648]

@@Jay-kx4jf That's right, and that would be one such an additional condition I mentioned in my original comment. But it also explains why other scientist are convinced we need to look beyond these biological measurements if we ever want to learn about what live is and where or what it arises from. We need to think and explore beyond our current limiting biological view and see where it takes us.

[@d.s.ramirez6178]

⁠@@mh60648I wish I had the level of intelligence to feel I could weigh in here with any impact, but unfortunately I don’t. I did, however, want to say that despite being on the limits of this discussion mentally, I do find your position intriguing. It seems to resonate with reason. Biology contains mystery and it’s okay for us to admit it. 🙌🏼

[@GlowBowlPhilosophy]

A coffee maker can make nonrandom things at scale. So can a toaster. Who knew Brave Little Toaster was a true story? I did not.

[@libertyfilm4096]

👏👏👏👏

[@The-Well]

😊😊😊😊

[@JayLamb-d9p]

Pure scientific stupidity. Cosm does not make life... life makes cosm.

[@LiteRaRally-vd5tf]

2:04 😂😂

[@jonsaboe2019]

The jump for non-life to life has to be a jump from randomness to vonNeuman machines. It's not life if it doesn't replicate -- and the first life can NOT be the result of replication -- since it's the 'first'. Yes, great amounts of time are required to try and sell the impossible.

[@PrivateBackroom]

😂

[@d.s.ramirez6178]

Wait. Can’t there theoretically be an intermediate condition in between randomness and a von Neumann machine? Just because it doesn’t have a name yet doesn’t preclude that it never occurred. It seems that you’re saying it can’t occur for merely semantic reasons. But maybe I’m misunderstanding.

[@jonsaboe2019]

@@d.s.ramirez6178 You make a good point. Perhaps there IS some intermediate state, but it wouldn't be 'theoretical' -- at least today. At this stage is would be pure speculation, and thus falls outside of the purview of the scientific method. Your idea would make a great hypothesis -- if it were testable. All we have to go on, today, is what has been observed and experimented upon. To date, no one has ever observed random noise morphing into the information needed to create a von Neumann machine. Maybe someday?

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

Cronin is like a child claiming he can build warp drive engines for musks starship and as proof submits 1960's episodes of Star Trek. Assembly theory was submitted before star treks first episode was aired. It was vetted 50 years ago amd found to be totally inadequate to produce the complexity approching that of a spring loaded mouse trap . Lee is promotimg educational malpractice. in this day and age.

[@Project_x09]

Only 22 sec after uploading 😅

[@Neptunedx]

Understood nothing

[@sentientflower7891]

Abiogenesis is impossible. Lee Cronin knows it and every other scientist engaged in origin of life research knows it, too.

[@Archimedes_1]

Which laws of physics forbid it?

[@sentientflower7891]

@@Archimedes_1 a law of physics isn't needed to forbid the impossible. For the same reason why saying "teleportation is impossible" doesn't require any additional law of physics.

[@Archimedes_1]

@@sentientflower7891 I could be incorrect, but isn't the impossibility of teleportation, which involves the exact replication of a quantum state in a different location, a direct result of the no-cloning theorem and the underlying laws of quantum mechanics?

[@sentientflower7891]

@@Archimedes_1 not according to the teleportation enthusiasts, science fiction authors and desperate authors of quantum physics books who want to sell millions of books rather than hundreds of books.

[@Archimedes_1]

@sentientflower7891 So, you claim abiogenesis is impossible; that is, you claim that the origin of life from non-living matter is impossible. How else then, may I ask, could life originate? We may not understand the exact mechanisms of abiogenesis, and perhaps we never will, but I fail to see a naturalistic alternative.

[@TranscendingPolygons]

Where’s Jordan Peterson?

[@d.s.ramirez6178]

JP is at the blind tailor’s shop.