How to measure complexity of life | Lee Cronin and Lex Fridman

[@stankfaust814]

Molecule requiring less than 15 steps to reassemble = entropic stuff Molecule requiring more than 15 steps to reassemble = entropy defying force. life

[@GlenWG1972]

Molecule requiring exactly 15 steps to reassemble: Priceless.

[@Rooster_Sailing]

13:32 - "Ok, uh, um, my Brian has been broken a few times here". The most relatable sentence in the whole podcast! Such a great guest, but also absolutely exhausting to keep up with when you're not familiar with the space! Thanks Lex

[@h3um]

This is a perfect video for a lost stoner.

[@zombiechacha6076]

Confirmed

[@Mr-Mr66]

Yeye, I'm trying so hard I really am

[@selvimckay4151]

I am not stoned ..and my brain broke..

[@mistervont2474]

Ha ha yeah, wrapping my head around this stuff while baked is hard work.. Mind you, while stoned my brain goes to crazy places and goes into overdrive.

[@efraimcardona8452]

Lol

[@skane3109]

As a layperson, I find the Assembly Theory assertion that evolution didn’t start with biology quite enlightening. The idea that other life forms may not be chemically or biologically based is also fascinating to think about. Thanks Lex and Lee for a thoroughly thought provoking conversation.

[@mattjackson7445]

I could spend years just pausing this full episode and learning the topics raised within. There is something special about this guy

[@backstroke0810]

Same feeling here

[@arturonolasco3744]

Agreed.

[@thesameinitials5655]

100%

[@sunnynepal1940]

Last time I was this early Free will still existed

[@thestook6349]

The more complex bonds are not pre-existing but the result of an evolutionary proces. Evolution does not " know" the number of bonds, the complexity is the result of the proces. Therefore you can pre suppose an evolutionary proces if the number of bonds exceed a certain level. I guess....

[@selvimckay4151]

'If u find Viagra in Mars, we will know something is up'

[@phillipneal8194]

Soooo, if I dump a bag of Lego bricks out on a table, there is no assembly. But if I make 20 (or some number that shows the process is not random) stacks of 3 Lego bricks each, do I have life ? Or if I have 20 stacks of 16 bricks each, (15 being the magic "made by evolution number") do I have a causal assembly ? And what would be that Aseembly index ?

[@godisn0where]

Causation does not equal evolutionary wisdom, as evolution does not know what molecules exist and are worthy of re-use. Engineering requires an engineer. Please explain in the most simplistic detail how evolution "knows" that a molecule has more than 15 bonds and should or is re-usable?

[@thestook6349]

The more complex bonds are not pre-existing but the result of an evolutionary proces. Evolution does not " know" the number of bonds, the complexity is the result of the proces. Therefore you can pre suppose an evolutionary proces if the number of bonds exceed a certain level. I guess....

[@godisn0where]

@@thestook6349 You can presuppose a materialistic process occurred but not that it would even by random "selection" know that a multi-atomic structure is re-usable, desirable or that even has a potential purpose. The Adenine Triplet codes for the Lysine Amino Acid but there is no materialistic process or cause that can create a symbolic reference. The reason they want to find a materialistic causation is for the very purpose of hoping that "intelligence" is not required. There are no known processes for creating a symbol, code or scheme. All schemes require a schemer.

[@John_Hoover]

@@godisn0where Careful now, Daniel. All this talk of requiring an intelligent designer has major implications that can make people very uncomfortable… that there is a higher power they must ultimately answer to. Better not permit speaking of the obvious but rather talk about random processes creating cells as complex as a Saturn V rocket.

[@godisn0where]

@@John_Hoover John! You found me out. And I have asked hundreds of "secular" scientists what the origin of a single "symbolic" representation and the process that occurs, and of course the maturing to a scheme (multiple symbolic representations) with only materialistic methods. And to date I have NEVER received anything that looks like a potential solution. Nor have you...

[@John_Hoover]

@@godisn0where Exactly. What happened to following the evidence where it leads?

[@nealesmith1873]

Ok, so some questions: Does the simplest self replicating molecule need more that 15 steps? Did a self replicating molecule of 14 steps arise and then evolve to have 15 or more steps?

[@SB-xt5jk]

"Assembly" is negative entropy

[@anthonypena4447]

A biogenesis was probably a one time event that happened some were in our milky way galaxy, however i dont think abiogenesis originated on Earth, rather that a type 2 alien civilization seeded Earth with some kind of RNA replicator, that got life started on Earth.

[@paqman777yt]

How does Assembly Theory compare to Shannon Entropy?

[@gunner5217]

Are copy numbers a result of quantum entanglement, which could be the basis of the universe memory, the ‘memriverse’ ? 10:54

[@awab1991]

Allah,, "universe memory" the dance around acknowledgment of God existence is something in this clip. it wont stop the scientific endeavor. relax.

[@elgatofabio]

"Physicists won´t accept causation exist at the bottom". Something to think about! Science is a religion too, don't forget.

[@Myke664]

Not quite. The difference between science and religion is that one is a set of beliefs.. and the other is a method of figuring things out.

[@elgatofabio]

@@Myke664 of course. They're not the same, but at some point science will have to acknowledge it is always a matter of faith.

[@elgatofabio]

@@Myke664 btw don't get me wrong, I love science!

[@elgatofabio]

We've reached the point that Science now has its own "Inquisition"...

[@leagueofotters2774]

@@elgatofabio Both are based on assumptions of truth at some level

[@pashovanastas]

Isn't the assembly measurement related somehow to graphlets?

[@ericlopez6866]

Honest biologists, chemists and computer scientists know that the math is astronomically against random assembly of molecules, amino acids and proteins, too say nothing of the quantum machinery of cells, tissues, organs, ect. The more we know, the more God stares at us. 1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential. 2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God. 3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God. 4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God. 5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

[@spatrk6634]

complete nonsense arguments.

[@garymedia7551]

yo. Yooooo...

[@claytontucker8179]

Micro biology

[@righteousnesscheck]

First comment but you didn’t even watch the video lol

[@UniquelyCaptivating]

2nd mate !!

[@C322C]

1st

[@Thatsaspicymeatball]

I really, really, really don't understand.

[@josephgonzales3573]

Take a bicycle dude; the fact that if you remove one piece from the bike the bike no longer works demonstrates that each piece was intended to work in unison. Philosophically, this creates a problem because it would be mathematically improbable that the bike would have oriented itself together by "chance". It would have had to be consciously designed and oriented that way.