TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

451 pointsby harscoatover 1 year ago

40 comments

Stukauffman11over 1 year ago
Hi to All, and warm thanks Denis. More, thank you for the attention to this Stu - Andrea paper now online on OSF and arXiv. We will submit it soon.<p>The origin of life field is many decades old, wonderful, and wonderfully fragmented. The two main approaches are: i. Template replication. ii. Metabolism first. I am a guilty party with respect to &quot;metabolism first&quot;. In 1971 I realized that in a sufficiently diverse and complex chemical reaction system, self reproducing collectively autocatalytic sets would arise as a first order phase transition. Such sets have now been engineered using DNA, RNA, and peptides.<p>A stunning set of recent results led by Joana Xavier has now demonstrated small molecule collectively autocatalytic sets, with NO DNA, RNA, or peptide polymers, in all 6700 prokaryotes. I am a co-author. Joana did all the work, entirely.<p>It is not yet certain that these sets actually reproduce in vitro - a critical set tests to be done. If yes, I think this almost rules out a template first view. Such a template system would have to evolve RNA enzymes to catalyze some &quot;connected metabolism&quot; to create the building blocks for the template replicating systems. But there is no reason at all why such a connected metabolism on its own, without RNA polymer enzymes, would be collectively autocatalytic.<p>Joana&#x27;s sets create not only amino acids and ATP, but the central rudiments of linked energy metabolisms.<p>I truly think the on line paper is basically correct. Living cells really are Kantian Wholes that achieve Catalytic, Constraint and Spatial Closure. Via these, cells literally construct themselves. Their very boundary condition molecules constrain the release of energy in many non-equilbirum process into the few degrees of freedom that construct the very same boundary conditions. Entirely new, and due to Mael Montevil and Mateo Missio. I missed it for 15 years. Rather dumb, thrilled that they did it.<p>The marriage of the TAP process with the theory for the first order phase transition of collective autocatalysis, TAP-RAF really works. The evolving complexity and diversity of the system increases, then the first order phase transition arises with probably almost 1.0. If YES, the emergence of life in the evolving universe really is expected.<p>Then two major surprises. Due to Constriant Closure, the way a cell reproduces itself is not at all the way von Neumann envisioned in his self reproducing automaton. The familiar distinction between hardware and software vanishes. This must be deeply important, but its meanings are still very unclear to me.<p>The second major surprise is that Andrea and I are confident we have demonstrated, and punished as &quot;A Third Transition in Science?&quot; J. Roy. Soc. Interface April 14, 2023, that we can use no mathematics based on set theory to deduce the ever - creative emergence of novelties in the evolving biosphere. If correct, as we believe, this takes the evolving biosphere entirely beyond the famous Newtonian Paradigm that is the basis of all Classical and Quantum Physics.<p>The evolving biosphere is a non-deducible propagating construction, not an entitled deduction. The evolving biosphere is not a Computation at all, it is a non-deducible construction. If so, why do we believe with Turing and AI, that the becoming of the world, mind, everything is algorithmic? It is not. Andrea and I published, &quot;The world is not a theorem&quot;. If correct, physicists will have to consider what this means. So do we all.<p>Warm wishes,<p>Stu
johngossmanover 1 year ago
There is a whole genre of these, starting with (as mentioned in the paper&#x27;s introduction) &quot;What is Life?&quot; by Schrodinger. I&#x27;ve been idly working my way through a bunch of them, including Monod&#x27;s &quot;Chance and Necessity&quot; (dated but excellent), Nick Lane&#x27;s whole series of books (notably &quot;The Vital Question&quot;), Nurse&#x27;s &quot;What is Life?&quot; (good if you want to learn about yeast), Zimmer&#x27;s &quot;Life&#x27;s Edge&quot; (haven&#x27;t finished it yet, seems good). Honestly, the details change, and the emphasis of each author, but they are all speculative and hand-wavey. Pre-paradigmatic. My favorite quote is from &quot;Life on the Edge&quot; by McFadden and Al-Khalili:<p>&quot;Biologists cannot even agree on a unique definition of life itself; but that hasn’t stopped them from unraveling aspects of the cell, the double helix, photosynthesis, enzymes and a host of other living phenomena&quot;
评论 #39108679 未加载
评论 #39107293 未加载
评论 #39107718 未加载
评论 #39112769 未加载
评论 #39121972 未加载
评论 #39108698 未加载
jyounkerover 1 year ago
I went I read the first few paragraphs I thought, &quot;Is someone ripping off Stuart Kaufmann? He was writing about this idea thirty years ago.&quot; Then I read the first author: Stuart Kaufmann.<p>For those of you following along at home, Kaufmann has been developing the ideas here for decades. The paper is less a &quot;here is a new idea&quot; and much more &quot;here is a concise summary of 50 years of work&quot;. The words and thoughts seem opaque, but this is case where they actually have concrete and specific meanings. It&#x27;s worth noting too, that towards the end of the article he outlines experiments that could be used to falsify the theory.<p>If you want a really hard-core dive into the ideas, then check out his 1993 book, &quot;On The Origins of Order&quot; (ISBN 978-0-19-507951-7).<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;global.oup.com&#x2F;academic&#x2F;product&#x2F;the-origins-of-order-9780195079517" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;global.oup.com&#x2F;academic&#x2F;product&#x2F;the-origins-of-order...</a>
评论 #39108325 未加载
评论 #39115603 未加载
lachlan_grayover 1 year ago
It&#x27;s fascinating to me that the complexity of life always goes up. Outside extinction events, complex life generally seems to become more favourable over time. It&#x27;s interesting that (to my knowledge) we don&#x27;t see an ecosystem lose complexity in its entirety unless it&#x27;s dying.<p>Simple organisms make a bedrock for complex organisms, and while the complex organisms have more specific needs, they are better at exploring, gaining, branching out. So they also kind of make a nest for the simple organisms by sprawling into the void and finding habitable niches that simple organisms wouldn&#x27;t reach on their own.<p>On the time scale of technology, we began reaching out to other intelligences the <i>second</i> that we could, began trying to make them the second we thought we could know how. It&#x27;s very reasonable to say that percolation is a defining property of life and intelligence.<p>I also think a lot of scifi&#x27;s like hyperion, neuromancer, foundation. In human writing of the future, it seems like the endgame of higher intelligence is to find or create other intelligences, and get closer to them. Then interesting things happen in the wake of that.
评论 #39105274 未加载
评论 #39108638 未加载
评论 #39105629 未加载
评论 #39105991 未加载
评论 #39105884 未加载
评论 #39105507 未加载
评论 #39107257 未加载
评论 #39105663 未加载
评论 #39106063 未加载
评论 #39109605 未加载
评论 #39110489 未加载
评论 #39105877 未加载
评论 #39106842 未加载
评论 #39106822 未加载
评论 #39105413 未加载
评论 #39105182 未加载
评论 #39106207 未加载
评论 #39126402 未加载
评论 #39106765 未加载
评论 #39107655 未加载
评论 #39109833 未加载
评论 #39110823 未加载
评论 #39107937 未加载
评论 #39111372 未加载
评论 #39106470 未加载
HarHarVeryFunnyover 1 year ago
Reading the introductory paragraph to the paper, it sounds like a rehash of Kaufmann&#x27;s (very good) book &quot;At Home in the Universe&quot;, which at this point is almost 30 years old. Not sure what this paper adds, but will read it to find out.<p>The thesis of Kaufmann&#x27;s book is that the emergence of life, given supporting conditions (variety of source chemicals in environment, sources of energy, maybe water&#x2F;mixing) is all but inevitable (hence life being &quot;at home&quot; in the universe) rather than being some rare event.<p>The reasoning is that when these preconditions are met there will be a variety of chemical chain reactions occurring where the product of one reaction is used as the input to the next, and eventually reaction chains that include products that act as catalysts for parts of the reaction chain. These types of reaction can be considered as a primitive metabolism - consuming certain environmental chemicals and producing others useful to the metabolism.<p>From here to proto-cells and the beginning of evolution all it takes is some sort of cell-like container which (e.g.) need be nothing more than than something like froth on the seashore, based out of whatever may be floating on the water surface. Initial &quot;reproduction&quot; would be based on physical agitation (e.g wave action) breaking cells and creating new ones.<p>Different locations would have different micro-environments with different locally occurring reaction chains and &quot;proliferation&#x2F;survival of the fittest&quot; would be the very beginning of evolution, as those reactions better able to utilize chemical sources and support their own structure&#x2F;metabolism would become more widespread.<p>Anyway, a good book and plausible thesis in general (one could easily adapt the specifics from seashore to deep sea thermal vents etc).
评论 #39106360 未加载
ta8645over 1 year ago
Can&#x27;t help but wonder, is AI an expected phase transition in the evolution of life in the universe? Is life really just the larval stage of a higher order intelligence?
评论 #39105644 未加载
评论 #39104412 未加载
评论 #39103999 未加载
评论 #39112024 未加载
评论 #39108183 未加载
评论 #39116065 未加载
评论 #39113610 未加载
评论 #39110332 未加载
评论 #39110386 未加载
评论 #39104184 未加载
评论 #39113327 未加载
评论 #39104157 未加载
评论 #39104406 未加载
评论 #39104129 未加载
评论 #39104063 未加载
asow92over 1 year ago
&gt; We are, truly, Of Nature, not Above Nature.<p>This sentiment has always made me question when people say things are &quot;unnatural&quot;, &quot;artificial&quot;, or &quot;synthetic&quot;: If we ourselves are of nature, and these things are a byproduct of us, then aren&#x27;t they naturally occurring?<p>edit: added &quot;synthetic&quot; to reduce ambiguity.
评论 #39104445 未加载
评论 #39104283 未加载
评论 #39104114 未加载
评论 #39110965 未加载
评论 #39104059 未加载
评论 #39104022 未加载
FrustratedMonkyover 1 year ago
Seems like a common theme these days, to find some theory of math&#x2F;physics to explain life&#x2F;evolution&#x2F;consciousness<p>E&#x2F;Acc -&gt; Second law of thermodynamics leads to &#x27;life&#x27; as way of increasing entropy. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quantamagazine.org&#x2F;a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quantamagazine.org&#x2F;a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o...</a><p>Constructor Theory -&gt; A constructor is an entity that can cause the task to occur while retaining the ability to cause it again. - and Life is constructors.<p>Assembly Theory -&gt; Lee Cronin. Assembly Theory defines all objects by their capacity to be assembled or broken down using minimal paths. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;iai.tv&#x2F;articles&#x2F;a-new-theory-of-matter-may-help-explain-life-lee-cronin-auid-2656" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;iai.tv&#x2F;articles&#x2F;a-new-theory-of-matter-may-help-expl...</a><p>Whatever Donald Hoffman is saying lately. Which might not be about underlying layers, just how we can&#x27;t know them.<p>etc...
评论 #39105581 未加载
ruffreyover 1 year ago
Related, lately I have been enthralled with the work of Michael Levin at Tufts. He studies things like goal directed behavior of cells and systems of cells. Here is an intro to his work: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=p3lsYlod5OU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=p3lsYlod5OU</a>
lutuspover 1 year ago
&quot;Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe? (arxiv.org)&quot;<p>Easily answered:<p><pre><code> * We don&#x27;t know how consciousness comes into being, indeed we can&#x27;t rigorously define it or unambiguously identify its presence or absence. * We believe we have it, but we aren&#x27;t sure whether other animals and&#x2F;or objects possess it. * Therefore, based on Occam&#x27;s razor, we may provisionally assume that all matter possesses some degree of consciousness -- this is the simplest assumption. * The alternative would be to argue for a consciousness exceptionalism in &quot;life&quot; forms for which there is no evidence and many counterarguments. * Therefore it follows that ... wait for it ... life is not a special state of matter or energy. * Therefore the emergence of life doesn&#x27;t represent a phase transition that confronts physical laws or requires an explanation.</code></pre>
评论 #39107177 未加载
评论 #39108119 未加载
评论 #39113611 未加载
评论 #39108823 未加载
评论 #39107724 未加载
评论 #39107329 未加载
评论 #39107851 未加载
评论 #39107464 未加载
schnitzelstoatover 1 year ago
I think life is going to be quite common as it seems it just requires liquid water and an extremely common type of rock in order to form alkaline hydro-thermic vents.<p>It appears that life developed quite quickly in this manner after the formation of the Earth.<p>The leap from bacteria and archaea to eukaryotes, however, took billions of years. So complex life may be rare.
评论 #39105780 未加载
评论 #39104175 未加载
javajoshover 1 year ago
I personally believe that the origin of life started with something we would not recognize as such today. I imagine that it started with some long molecules in water and they have the ability to grow longer and longer. Maybe they looped around and the dynamics of the system meant that if they oriented toward the sun better they would be more numerous. Maybe if their composition was a little bit different they would acquire material from the surrounding bath more efficiently. This creates a gradient of success where the topmost molecules will do better than the bottom most molecules. Similar perturbations would allow them to acquire more material more efficiently in a pantomime of eating. Reproduction would be something as simple as breaking in half. This is of course a just so story, but it&#x27;s one that I find pretty compelling. But I would like it if people thought more about what these early systems looked like rather than be so hand wavy. I think it&#x27;s unlikely that any of these very early forms of life survive as they were consumed by subsequent generations. It also seems unlikely that they would form very often spontaneously such that we might find examples in nature. If such a form develops only once in a million years in a planet-wide irradiated bath, then we would have a huge challenge. Even simulating such a system to find what that structure might be. So instead I think we should use our imaginations and imagine what the simplest possible system could possibly work in that circumstance to bootstrap life.
tobbe2064over 1 year ago
This reminds me. There was a paper published a couple of years ago and posted here on HN that actually calculated the probability of life aminoacid-based life emerging. Based on the complexity of the chain needed to start replicating. The conclusion was that it was vanishingly small in the observable universe but only close to 0 in the full universe.<p>I&#x27;ve since tried to find it without luck. Does anybody here know where I can read it or remember the article I&#x27;m talking about?
评论 #39104682 未加载
评论 #39104523 未加载
评论 #39106279 未加载
评论 #39104375 未加载
hamburgaover 1 year ago
I sat in on one of Stephen Wolfram’s YouTube lectures on his new physics project, and asked him about his conception of life in the big picture of physics.<p>His perspective was that (if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing him) there’s nothing particularly special about life from the perspective of physics. What we call life simply correlates to parts of the physical world that have the highest degree of complexity and internal structure.<p>Life is not binary.
评论 #39104749 未加载
评论 #39104637 未加载
评论 #39105193 未加载
madmountaingoatover 1 year ago
To my laymen brain this seems very similar to Lee Cronin&#x27;s Assembly theory. Curious to understand more about the difference.
评论 #39107480 未加载
评论 #39114513 未加载
评论 #39110624 未加载
1970-01-01over 1 year ago
Extra-terrestrial life remains a hypothetical. There is no empirical evidence it exists beyond Earth. Until we witness some kind of artificial signal, or break open an asteroid with fossilized life, or somehow visit extra solar worlds with it, or get an unexpected visit, we&#x27;re simply left arguing about the math.
评论 #39104744 未加载
评论 #39104461 未加载
评论 #39104767 未加载
jononomoover 1 year ago
Life is a profound mystery -- there is absolutely no explanation for it under a materialistic&#x2F;naturalistic world view. The question of the origin of life is the most fundamental and interesting question because without life no other question can even arise.
harscoatover 1 year ago
OP here, fyi Stuart Kauffman&#x27;s comment is below on this thread: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39131136">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39131136</a>
zenkatover 1 year ago
I was fascinated by &quot;At Home In The Universe&quot; back in the 90s. But this seems like a rehashing of the same ideas, without new evidence or theory. Anything new here?
m3kw9over 1 year ago
Life else where outside the solar system is all but certain, we just need proof, just like an extra star beyond what we can see, we can’t see it but we know is there
BurningFrogover 1 year ago
For something to be expected, someone must be expecting it. And to be able to expect things, you must be alive.<p>This proves something, but I&#x27;m not sure what...
评论 #39108267 未加载
mseepgoodover 1 year ago
What&#x27;s the universe&#x27;s long game? Does it compete with other universes, and why does it need life to do so?
apiover 1 year ago
I&#x27;ve had a speculation about the Fermi paradox for years. I call it the uniform cooling hypothesis. Not sure if it&#x27;s original or not. The idea builds on the present cosmological model that considers the universe to all be of the same age.<p>If the emergence of complex life in the universe is a threshold or phase transition effect, it might not happen until the universe reaches a certain age in which all conditions are satisfied. At this point you&#x27;d have the &quot;simultaneous&quot; (at geologic time scales) emergence of complex life all over the place.<p>If this were the case, what if for some reason (such as multiple overlapping factors all having to be satisfied) the standard deviation in the time dimension is actually <i>small</i>? In other words what if life emerges or hits certain evolutionary milestones at about the same time +&#x2F;- a fairly narrow window like one million years.<p>If that were the case then the universe would be full of things more or less about as advanced as we are, but very few that are vastly more advanced. The probability of one of those few very advanced outliers existing in, say, this galaxy might be relatively small. Intergalactic travel is many orders of magnitude harder than interstellar travel (which is already brutally hard) and would take millions of years even near the speed of light, so even something like a Kardashev type II or transitional type III civilization wouldn&#x27;t be likely to cross between galaxies. Something like that could be out there but insanely distant and completely undetectable.<p>We wouldn&#x27;t see alien interstellar probes, starships, or techno-signatures from anything large scale enough to be detectable because for the most part these things don&#x27;t exist yet.<p>Would also imply that once we build a starship, that&#x27;s about the time we should expect to encounter starships. It would be a cosmic-scale version of the principle (and apparent historical pattern) that steam engines appear when it is &quot;steam engine time.&quot; Maybe it&#x27;s just not starship time yet.<p>If the standard deviation is <i>very</i> narrow, you&#x27;d have this weird interstellar trick or treat night event where the probes and starships start arriving at about the same time <i>everywhere in the entire universe</i>.<p>At this point maybe everyone exchanges knowledge and technology and you have an insane explosion in complexity, sort of a cosmic Cambrian explosion, and <i>then</i> you get Kardashev type II and III civilizations and onward.<p>Zoom way, way out and it looks like a sudden phase transition of the entire universe from being dominated by non-living physical processes to being dominated by living processes.
tap-snap-or-napover 1 year ago
There is a lot of work to be done inorder to fuse the gaps between physics and biology.
waynenatorover 1 year ago
always liked the &quot;Anthropic Cosmological Principle&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anthropic_principle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anthropic_principle</a>
maviliover 1 year ago
There is nothing &quot;expected&quot; in a truly random universe. You cannot have your cake and eat it, there is either some sort of &#x27;order&#x27; in the universe or there is none. You cannot place forms of order where it suits you but reject it when it doesn&#x27;t.
评论 #39104271 未加载
评论 #39107533 未加载
评论 #39104260 未加载
martin82over 1 year ago
THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
bentonaover 1 year ago
If you&#x27;d like yet another somewhat similar inquiry into the information-theory-based definition of life, I&#x27;ll mention Karl Friston&#x27;s Free Energy Principle.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Free_energy_principle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Free_energy_principle</a>
tulio_ribeiroover 1 year ago
life is not just a rare happenstance, but a predictable outcome of the universe&#x27;s own chemical dance
评论 #39112235 未加载
0xbadcafebeeover 1 year ago
<p><pre><code> The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic… asshole.” - George Carlin</code></pre>
dmvjsover 1 year ago
im surprised that assuming life doesnt happen everywhere is the default.
jayavanthover 1 year ago
Can someone eli5?
huqedatoover 1 year ago
tldr: the article proposes a new way to understand the origin of life. It combines two scientific ideas to explain how life emerges naturally as a part of the universe&#x27;s evolution. Key concepts include how chemicals interact and support each other to create life, and the idea that life continuously explores new possibilities. The article challenges the traditional view of separating the physical and informational parts of living cells, suggesting a more integrated approach to studying life&#x27;s beginnings and development.
ddgfloridaover 1 year ago
No.
bluenose69over 1 year ago
I stopped reading the article at &quot;Life is a double miracle.&quot; As is so often the case, discussion here on HN is more compelling than the article.
mjburgessover 1 year ago
This is written like a literary academic blog article rather than an academic paper in the sciences. It&#x27;s fully of literary free association and hyperbolic language, etc.<p>At best it&#x27;s a sort of mission statement for what would need to be a research programme with many many academic papers behind it. As it is, I&#x27;m not sure what the authors aim here is. It&#x27;s a blog post.
评论 #39105781 未加载
评论 #39105495 未加载
评论 #39104225 未加载
评论 #39106656 未加载
评论 #39109260 未加载
评论 #39104153 未加载
评论 #39104699 未加载
评论 #39111385 未加载
评论 #39104488 未加载
cscheidover 1 year ago
Time to break out John Baez&#x27;s checklist: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;TheCrackpotIndex" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;TheCrackpotIndex</a>
评论 #39104836 未加载
评论 #39104237 未加载
评论 #39104172 未加载
评论 #39104842 未加载
评论 #39111410 未加载
ltbarcly3over 1 year ago
As soon as I see a supposed scientific paper that was typeset in Microsoft Word, I know it&#x27;s going to be trash. It&#x27;s not a perfect heuristic, but it&#x27;s like 99%+.
评论 #39109170 未加载
TravisCooperover 1 year ago
If you have an erroneous view of life and it&#x27;s origins on earth, you&#x27;ll come up with variations of this type of thinking.<p>However, life didn&#x27;t evolve through a random walk of chemical reactions turning into complex systems with the ability to replicate and gain ever increasing complexity over time. Not possible.<p>Entropy is increasing.
评论 #39104559 未加载
评论 #39104333 未加载
评论 #39105814 未加载
评论 #39104581 未加载
eye-robotover 1 year ago
Interesting (side note) as I read all the commentary here: As people (obviously) are reacting to the particular &quot;group psychology&quot;, or personality or culture here within HN, many commentators are heavily apologizing for not having specific links or attributions available. And I understand why now: Too many neurotic or OCD (or selfishly angry) individuals who will downvote in a heartbeat if the comment isn&#x27;t to their supreme liking. So, to prove that point, this comment will (most likely) get downvoted into oblivion. I like free commentary sections that don&#x27;t show off &quot;commentary powers&quot;. I once asked a simple innocent question and the downvotes simply drove me to stop trusting anyone here... really sad, since I am an intelligent person with feelings and with curiosity and VALID opinions. Sorry that this rubs the weird people the wrong way. Just sayin&#x27;
评论 #39109149 未加载