Timeline for Is abiogenesis virtually impossible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 7, 2023 at 14:45 | comment | added | Jiminy Cricket. | Ever grow alum or copper sulphate crystals? Localised order from chaos.... Not "something from nothing". @NeilMeyer (Or nothing from nothing as the song goes. Always look on the bright side....) | |
Jun 7, 2023 at 14:41 | comment | added | JMac | @NeilMeyer That doesnt really have anything to do with abiogenesis though... it's not about nothing creating something, but about something becoming something else. | |
Jun 7, 2023 at 13:07 | comment | added | Neil Meyer | Of nothing comes nothing. It takes much more faith to believe that nothing created something than to believe the universe has a cause. Proving once and for all that I don't have enough faith to be an atheist | |
Jun 6, 2023 at 19:36 | comment | added | user68177 | A bit off-topic, but how does this actually solve anything? Both still lead to the same problem of "being in a universe with abiogenesis is hugely improbable". And neither takes into account the empirical conditional of there being life. Not to mention the fact that it only considers only very specific modes of abiogenesis. | |
Jun 6, 2023 at 17:17 | comment | added | Schwern | That is a brute force estimation which assumes there's nothing which makes it more probable; the author knows this and calls it a "toy". It reminds me of when people declare their encryption is unbreakable because there are 10eBigNumber possibilities... until someone finds a flaw and suddenly it's breakable. | |
Jun 6, 2023 at 11:06 | comment | added | Jerome Viveiros | Seems like a contrived way of measuring the probability of something that has already happened, which is therefore 100% or 1. | |
Jun 5, 2023 at 23:34 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
Jun 5, 2023 at 16:13 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Simplifying to focus on the core of the claim
|
Jun 5, 2023 at 6:18 | answer | added | IMil | timeline score: 20 | |
Jun 5, 2023 at 2:22 | comment | added | user68172 | @CJR unfortunately the question has not been well received there. | |
Jun 5, 2023 at 2:11 | comment | added | CJR | Perhaps ask biology as well, as I'd consider the minimal translational unit requirements to be incredibly speculative, and they're the basis for the entire estimate | |
Jun 5, 2023 at 2:03 | history | became hot network question | |||
Jun 4, 2023 at 22:10 | comment | added | Nat | Welcome to SE.Skeptics! SE.Skeptics tends to target more fact-checking-type questions, whereas this sounds more like a philosophical question. A site like SE.Philosophy might allow for more open-ended discussion/analysis. | |
Jun 4, 2023 at 20:52 | answer | added | Avery | timeline score: 12 | |
Jun 4, 2023 at 20:44 | history | edited | user68172 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 837 characters in body
|
Jun 4, 2023 at 20:11 | comment | added | Ray Butterworth | @JiminyCricket. says "I'm not certain that it can be answered as it's cutting-edge speculation". Any speculation would be about whether there is a multiverse. This question though (unless I'm misunderstanding it) is whether the paper's math implies that without a multiverse, abiogenesis is effectively impossible. | |
Jun 4, 2023 at 19:05 | comment | added | Jiminy Cricket. | Welcome Mark. A fascinating topic. I'm not certain that it can be answered as it's cutting-edge speculation. We find disagreement in the leading models, but no certainty. I suspect if we had a couple of world-class experts here, they'd spend hours arguing over the criteria. Please take the tour and refer to the help center as and when, enjoy the site. | |
S Jun 4, 2023 at 18:02 | review | First questions | |||
Jun 4, 2023 at 21:49 | |||||
S Jun 4, 2023 at 18:02 | history | asked | user68172 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |