The Explanation of Life

[Mysterio448]

So does the Will represent Chaos, Order, Neither or Both?

If when you say "will" you are referring to the human will, then I guess I would say both, in a sense. I believe that one of the manifestations of order and chaos respectively is sense and nonsense. The mind of every person is filled with a intermingled stew of sense and nonsense, wisdom and foolishness. Everything that we do or say or believe is always wise to some degree and foolish to some degree; and every wise thing has something foolish about it, and every foolish thing has something wise about it. The human mind itself is a locus of entasy.

(Nested quote removed.)

This is a pretty accurate summary of my thesis. So, do you think my thesis explains existence?

How do you see your ideas differing from Richard Dawkins's explanation for a possible cause of abiogenesis in The Selfish Gene?

At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself. This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen. So it was. It was exceedingly improbable. In the lifetime of a man, things that are that improbable can be treated for practical purposes as impossible. That is why you will never win a big prize on the football pools. But in our human estimates of what is probable and what is not, we are not used to dealing in hundreds of millions of years. If you filled in pools coupons every week for a hundred million years you would very likely win several jackpots.

What makes my thesis different is that while Dawkins sees the "accidental" formation of the remarkable molecule as a mere accident, I see that accident as itself part of a larger dynamic. What he sees as a fortunate accident, I see as entasy -- a distinct, cosmic power in itself. Dawkins sees mistakes as just mistakes, whereas I believe that mistakes are cosmically entangled with creation, growth, meaning, utility, etc.

Also, Dawkins seems to imply that the eventual development of this "remarkable molecule" is insignificant because it is a statistical inevitability given large amounts of time. However, statistics does not actually explain why this fortunate accident occurs. Statistics does not actually explain anything; statistics merely records the way things tend to happen yet it does not explain why things happen in that way. It is merely a record of the effects, not a statement of the cause.

So in summary, Dawkins and I basically believe the same thing, except that whereas he believes that the emergence of order from chaos is insignificant (mere happenstance), I believe that such emergence is indicative of a primal principle of this cosmos. That same principle is not limited to biology but is also observable in many other areas, such as the ones I mention in the OP (e.g., quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, supernovas, black holes, etc.)

[Sy Borg]

What makes my thesis different is that while Dawkins sees the "accidental" formation of the remarkable molecule as a mere accident, I see that accident as itself part of a larger dynamic. What he sees as a fortunate accident, I see as entasy -- a distinct, cosmic power in itself. Dawkins sees mistakes as just mistakes, whereas I believe that mistakes are cosmically entangled with creation, growth, meaning, utility, etc.

Also, Dawkins seems to imply that the eventual development of this "remarkable molecule" is insignificant because it is a statistical inevitability given large amounts of time. However, statistics does not actually explain why this fortunate accident occurs. Statistics does not actually explain anything; statistics merely records the way things tend to happen yet it does not explain why things happen in that way. It is merely a record of the effects, not a statement of the cause.

So in summary, Dawkins and I basically believe the same thing, except that whereas he believes that the emergence of order from chaos is insignificant (mere happenstance), I believe that such emergence is indicative of a primal principle of this cosmos. That same principle is not limited to biology but is also observable in many other areas, such as the ones I mention in the OP (e.g., quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, supernovas, black holes, etc.)

Good answer. Your thoughts on emergence remind me a little of Stuart Kauffman's.

[Rr6]

Some corrections and clarifications to my previous post and more reference to biological life.

Pi = 3.14 15 92 65 35 89 7 93 23 84 62 64 33 83 23 7 95 02 88 419 7 16 93 993 7 51 05 82 09 7 49 44 59 230 7 81 64 06 28 62 08 99 86 28 03 48 25 34 2 11 7 06 7 9

Pi = 3.14 15 92 65 35 89 79 32384626433832795
..#7 occurs in the 13th place of irrational side of pi.....
..{ 12 sphericals surround a nuclear 13th, in the Vector Equilibrium aka Cubo-octahedron }..

Personally I was more excited with my explorations of Pi^3. #8 falls in the 8th position of irrational side. #7 falls in overall 7th position.

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 7
..{ does 3rd powering signify 3 dimensions of XYZ? }.....

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 98 20175476315067101
..{ 3rd powering give us 31 Primary Great Circle Plane's of icosahedron? and,
... 66 { radials/radii/lines-of-relationships } of 12 vertexes of icosa{20}hedron and cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron see links regarding 66 lines-of-relationship to 12 vertexes

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... b2701.html

I.e. 12^2, minus 12, divided by 2 = 66 lines-of-relationship

31 is the 11th prime number and repeats being a prime number out to 7 places

31, 331, 3331, 33331, 3333331 ergo 5 sets of 31 is prime number.

33 33 33 1 is 6 + 1 places ergo 7 places

On the other hand, another important feature of entasy is that order has the potential to yield chaos – orderly things and orderly processes often have a tendency to fall apart.

Again, there exist no chaos with occupied space. Entropy is orderly, irrespective of whether we can find the order of disintegrating patterns.

Prime numbers get less and less due to metaphysical-1 entropy. There is rational reason for this and that is because as gain number in our finite set of numbers, there exists a larger base for numbers to be divisible by, ergo less prime numbers will exist as the set of potential divisible numbers increases.

The universe is full of orderly things, but all of these orderly things are flawed somehow. However, this does not mean that there is something wrong with the universe itself. This ubiquitous flawedness is simply the signature of the principle of entasy that lies as the heart of reality.

Entropy and syntropy are both orderly, irrespective of whether we can find the order. Prime numbers other than 2 and 3, are set in place by hexa plus or minus one pattern. This makes the 5th place and the 7th place where all primes, except 2 and 3 will fall.

And yes, non primes also fall in the 5th and 7th places of a hexa-based pattern { see my hexagonal/6 radii pattern }

0 = place holder if not also a space holder

1 = place identifier if not also a space occupier

2 = first and only even prime number

3 = first odd prime number and is structurally stable via spatially 2D, geometric triangulation as 3 lines, 3 angles/corners/junctions

4 = first break in prime number sequential pattern as 2 + 2 or 3 + 1 ergo geometrically spatial triangulation as 3D tetra{4}hedron, or as subdivided 2D triangle i.e. 3 triangles inside of 1 triangle ergo 9 angles/junctions

5 = return to prime number and phi ratio associations

6 = 2nd break in prime number pattern as 3 + 3, 4 + 2, 5 + 1

7 = prime number

8 = 3rd break in prime number pattern. 4 + 4, 5 + 3, 6 + 2, 7 + 1

I associate number 8 with biological life for various reasons. Biological life is approximately 80% water. Water is composed of;

..."But we soon learn that this tiny combination of three nuclei and eight electrons possesses special properties that make it unique among the more than 15 million chemical species we presently know.".....

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

r6

[The Beast]

The higher order perception looks for a feeling from the biological closed loop to change its future. The phenomenal consciousness creates two points within the loop to gaze at the future and change it. This perception of reality is our inheritance. I am trying to picture the flight of birds into the history of synchronicity. If the points are in a closed loop, they can be appreciated as feeling. The feeling is then transformed into signs and synchronic events. The caves; the augurs; the shamans; the sibyls… you get the idea. The source: the starting point of the loop… the Universe. When is it that the idea of God came to us as the originator of our past; present and future. To reach with our consciousness into infinity is to create our own future. What is there in infinity is the source of the loop as well. But the loop is closed. Synchronicity is a property of consciousness. To find meaning in a dream and change what the normal event might be is a form of synchronicity. Do we really change anything? Would that be free will? Does the dream comes from the loop or from a calculation of the unconscious while the access is available. Is the unconscious part of the loop or not? It is the belief that the unconscious is closest to the soul (original particle) and that consciousness is the agent of both. To find the way home in infinity. The original particle is time invariant.

[Mysterio448]

Some corrections and clarifications to my previous post and more reference to biological life.

Pi = 3.14 15 92 65 35 89 7 93 23 84 62 64 33 83 23 7 95 02 88 419 7 16 93 993 7 51 05 82 09 7 49 44 59 230 7 81 64 06 28 62 08 99 86 28 03 48 25 34 2 11 7 06 7 9

Pi = 3.14 15 92 65 35 89 79 32384626433832795
..#7 occurs in the 13th place of irrational side of pi.....
..{ 12 sphericals surround a nuclear 13th, in the Vector Equilibrium aka Cubo-octahedron }..

Personally I was more excited with my explorations of Pi^3. #8 falls in the 8th position of irrational side. #7 falls in overall 7th position.

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 7
..{ does 3rd powering signify 3 dimensions of XYZ? }.....

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 98 20175476315067101
..{ 3rd powering give us 31 Primary Great Circle Plane's of icosahedron? and,
... 66 { radials/radii/lines-of-relationships } of 12 vertexes of icosa{20}hedron and cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron see links regarding 66 lines-of-relationship to 12 vertexes

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... b2701.html

I.e. 12^2, minus 12, divided by 2 = 66 lines-of-relationship

31 is the 11th prime number and repeats being a prime number out to 7 places

31, 331, 3331, 33331, 3333331 ergo 5 sets of 31 is prime number.

33 33 33 1 is 6 + 1 places ergo 7 places

On the other hand, another important feature of entasy is that order has the potential to yield chaos – orderly things and orderly processes often have a tendency to fall apart.

Again, there exist no chaos with occupied space. Entropy is orderly, irrespective of whether we can find the order of disintegrating patterns.

Prime numbers get less and less due to metaphysical-1 entropy. There is rational reason for this and that is because as gain number in our finite set of numbers, there exists a larger base for numbers to be divisible by, ergo less prime numbers will exist as the set of potential divisible numbers increases.

The universe is full of orderly things, but all of these orderly things are flawed somehow. However, this does not mean that there is something wrong with the universe itself. This ubiquitous flawedness is simply the signature of the principle of entasy that lies as the heart of reality.

Entropy and syntropy are both orderly, irrespective of whether we can find the order. Prime numbers other than 2 and 3, are set in place by hexa plus or minus one pattern. This makes the 5th place and the 7th place where all primes, except 2 and 3 will fall.

And yes, non primes also fall in the 5th and 7th places of a hexa-based pattern { see my hexagonal/6 radii pattern }

0 = place holder if not also a space holder

1 = place identifier if not also a space occupier

2 = first and only even prime number

3 = first odd prime number and is structurally stable via spatially 2D, geometric triangulation as 3 lines, 3 angles/corners/junctions

4 = first break in prime number sequential pattern as 2 + 2 or 3 + 1 ergo geometrically spatial triangulation as 3D tetra{4}hedron, or as subdivided 2D triangle i.e. 3 triangles inside of 1 triangle ergo 9 angles/junctions

5 = return to prime number and phi ratio associations

6 = 2nd break in prime number pattern as 3 + 3, 4 + 2, 5 + 1

7 = prime number

8 = 3rd break in prime number pattern. 4 + 4, 5 + 3, 6 + 2, 7 + 1

I associate number 8 with biological life for various reasons. Biological life is approximately 80% water. Water is composed of;

..."But we soon learn that this tiny combination of three nuclei and eight electrons possesses special properties that make it unique among the more than 15 million chemical species we presently know.".....

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

r6

What does all this have to do with the OP?

[Rr6]

What does all this have to do with the OP?

Most of my comments are in reference to comments you made in previous posts.

If you do not see how my information is related to your comments, then.......

The most significant part of my post that was relating most specfically to biological life was the final part
of previous post and repost here again, as follows;

Biological life is approximately 80% water. Water is composed of;

..."But we soon learn that this tiny combination of three nuclei and eight electrons possesses special properties that make it unique among the more than 15 million chemical species we presently know.".....

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

[Atreyu]

. . .

This is a brief overview of the contents of my book and the concept of entasy. My book goes into much more detail. In the book, I argue that this entasy concept is the key to understanding why we exist, as well as why anything exists and why things exist in the way they exist. People often contemplate the reason for the universe's existence apart from the mundane details of reality which we observe everyday; however, I argue that the little details of this universe in which we live are actually crucial to understanding the raison d'etre of the universe. What are your thoughts about this idea? Any questions, comments, criticisms? Do you think that this concept explains our existence?

Wow, interesting OP.

I completely agree with you. Certain 'mundane' details are not 'mundane' at all.

Yet the dualism of order versus chaos is not really the key dualism that really matters. You have to ask yourself what is the crucial difference in the cause of either.

I describe the relationship between order and chaos as a tension, like a game of tug-of-war. Regarding the dice-rolling analogy, the "pull" that causes the dice to want to produce random results is the pull of chaos, and the "pull" that causes the dice to want to produce an ordered sequence is the pull of order.

It is amazing to me that you get this far, and then fail to follow up with what is really important. In the case of rolling dice, there would be no 'pull of order'. If there is a 'pull of order', it really implies a certain process, like in snowflakes or quartz crystals, or consciousness, as in sentient beings like ourselves imposing order on a chaotic environment. In the example of rolling two dice there is no 'pull' of order, which we could easily verify by rolling dice over and over for a long time. Just do it and tell me if you notice any patterns. You will not, and this is because there is no underlying process which would create any order, nor is there any underlying consciousness to impose or intend any.

The knowledge of the cosmic dualism of order versus chaos should lead one to knowledge of the cosmic dualism of consciousness versus mechanicalness, which is a much more important dualism because it adds a psychological principle to it...

[Mysterio448]

You have to ask yourself what is the crucial difference in the cause of either.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

It is amazing to me that you get this far, and then fail to follow up with what is really important. In the case of rolling dice, there would be no 'pull of order'. If there is a 'pull of order', it really implies a certain process, like in snowflakes or quartz crystals, or consciousness, as in sentient beings like ourselves imposing order on a chaotic environment.

I would say that you have it backwards: it is not that a process is responsible for the pull of order, but rather the pull of order is responsible for the process. At the heart of every meaningful process is the influence of the force of order, just as at the heart of every random event is the force of chaos.

In the example of rolling two dice there is no 'pull' of order, which we could easily verify by rolling dice over and over for a long time. Just do it and tell me if you notice any patterns. You will not, and this is because there is no underlying process which would create any order, nor is there any underlying consciousness to impose or intend any.

Well, right now I don't happen to have any dice handy. However, I would imagine if I did roll a pair of dice over and over, I would see occasional glimpses of order amidst the randomness. I might see brief sequences of consecutive numbers, repeated numbers, or repeated brief sequences (like "135135135135135 . . ."). Now, the typical person would probably interpret such things as mere "accidents" or statistical anomalies. However, statistics itself is not a law or force that influences reality; it is merely a mathematical record of how things tend to happen, and not itself the force that makes things happen in that way. It is my belief that those occasional anomalies are events that betray the hidden kinship between randomness and structure, chaos and order.

Also, once again you've got it backwards: it is not so much the processes that create order, as it is order that creates processes. If one is to identify a certain process, one must then identify the process that created that process, and so on ad infinitum. This point is even more relevant in regards to a consciousness: a consciousness is not a simple, primal force, but rather is a complex, abstract mechanism created by the complex, concrete mechanism of the brain. (Things don't develop from the complex to the simple, but from the simple to the complex.) But if we postulate a force of order which shares a cosmic kinship with the force of chaos, then nothing further need be explained, since chaos is such a simple, primal component of reality.

The knowledge of the cosmic dualism of order versus chaos should lead one to knowledge of the cosmic dualism of consciousness versus mechanicalness, which is a much more important dualism because it adds a psychological principle to it...

I have to disagree. I think the order/chaos dichotomy is far more fundamental than the "consciousness/mechanicalness dichotomy". The thing you are forgetting is that consciousness is not some kind of primal force of the cosmos, but rather it can be itself described as a mechanism. If consciousness itself is a mechanism, then how can it exist in a dichotomy in which "mechanicalness" is its opposite? This is analogous to speaking of the "dogs versus mammals dichotomy".

[Rr6]

Pi = 3.14 15 92 65 35 89 79 32384626433832795
..#7 occurs in the 13th place of irrational side of pi.....
..{ 12 sphericals surround a nuclear 13th, in the Vector Equilibrium aka Cubo-octahedron } i.e. 7 is the equal radius center circle or sphere of of 6 equal-radius circles or spheres surrounding and tangent to the 7th center circle or sphere.

....Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 7
....Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 80
Pi^4 /4 = 24.35 22 7 27
................33 33 33 1 is 6 + 1 places ergo 7 places or repetitive prime number 31

Spinal chord has 31 bilateral spinal nerves

7 is the maximum set of colors to map surface of a torus. See following link
https://www.google.com/search?q=color+c ... 02&bih=555

3, 4, 6, 12 and 6, 10, 15 = 7 primary axis sets of Universe via the,
........4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron and 5-fold icosa{20}hedron.......

7-sided polygon produces irrational angles
...51.43 V------128.57 >)------(< 231.43

Pi^3 = 31.00 62 7 66 80 29 98 20175476315067101
..{ 3rd powering give us 31 Primary Great Circle Plane's of icosahedron? and,
... 66 { radials/radii/lines-of-relationships } of 12 vertexes of icosa{20}hedron and cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron see links regarding 66 lines-of-relationship to 12 vertexes
31, 331, 3331, 33331, 3333331 ergo 5 sets of 31 is prime number.

66 Line.jpg (30.78 KiB) Viewed 3952 times

[Atreyu]

I would say that you have it backwards: it is not that a process is responsible for the pull of order, but rather the pull of order is responsible for the process. At the heart of every meaningful process is the influence of the force of order, just as at the heart of every random event is the force of chaos.

My point is that consciousness is generally the 'puller' of order.

I have to disagree. I think the order/chaos dichotomy is far more fundamental than the "consciousness/mechanicalness dichotomy". The thing you are forgetting is that consciousness is not some kind of primal force of the cosmos, but rather it can be itself described as a mechanism. If consciousness itself is a mechanism, then how can it exist in a dichotomy in which "mechanicalness" is its opposite? This is analogous to speaking of the "dogs versus mammals dichotomy".

I believe consciousness is a primal force. And sure, it can be described as a "mechanism". But that would make it more abstract of a concept. In practice, in its relation to the cause of phenomena, it is completely different than mechanicalness. And that is the only way to understand what it is.

A phenomena can be the result of the intentions of a conscious entity, i.e. it was done, or a phenomena can be solely the result of mindless mechanical forces, i.e. it happened. The difference is quite clear and obvious in practice. It's only by thinking about it that one could try to reduce these fundamentally different phenomena into something similar.

Saying that there is an inherent dualism in the Universe between order and chaos, but viewing both as being mechanical processes, is not as profound as saying that there is an inherent dualism in the Universe between conscious and mechanical forces. The difference between mechanical order and mechanical chaos is nothing compared to the difference between conscious order and mechanical order, or conscious chaos (assuming such a thing exists) and mechanical chaos. In the former, the difference is merely in how things are manifested, the underlying cause is not considered. But in the latter, the difference lies in causation, and how things manifest themselves is not important in the least.

An inherent dualism in the causes of phenomenon is more important to consider than any inherent dualism in how phenomenon are manifest (merely appear) to our subjective awareness....

[Rr6]

Pulling INward { contractive / attractive} is the path of least resistance.

The brain sends only one signal to the muscles, and that signal is to contract. When the signal stops, the muscle relaxes ergo expands.

We never see a strong man pushing a train, only pulling a train or boxcar.

A baby is pushed out of the womb via contraction of the muscles.

Japanese hand saws cut on the pull motion, unlike western saws that cut on the push stroke.

No one knows why mass-attracts, suffice it to say, that if it didn't Universe ego biological life would not exist.

r6

[Mysterio448]

I believe consciousness is a primal force. And sure, it can be described as a "mechanism". But that would make it more abstract of a concept. In practice, in its relation to the cause of phenomena, it is completely different than mechanicalness. And that is the only way to understand what it is.

A phenomena can be the result of the intentions of a conscious entity, i.e. it was done, or a phenomena can be solely the result of mindless mechanical forces, i.e. it happened. The difference is quite clear and obvious in practice. It's only by thinking about it that one could try to reduce these fundamentally different phenomena into something similar.

The actions of a person are performed by one's consciousness, but the consciousness itself is ultimately the product of mindless, mechanical forces in the brain (action potentials, neurotransmitters, etc.). And that which is "clear and obvious" must be subordinated to that which is true. It is also "clear and obvious" that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it, but this would not be true. So it is with the supposed primalness of consciousness.

Saying that there is an inherent dualism in the Universe between order and chaos, but viewing both as being mechanical processes, is not as profound as saying that there is an inherent dualism in the Universe between conscious and mechanical forces. The difference between mechanical order and mechanical chaos is nothing compared to the difference between conscious order and mechanical order, or conscious chaos (assuming such a thing exists) and mechanical chaos. In the former, the difference is merely in how things are manifested, the underlying cause is not considered. But in the latter, the difference lies in causation, and how things manifest themselves is not important in the least.

An inherent dualism in the causes of phenomenon is more important to consider than any inherent dualism in how phenomenon are manifest (merely appear) to our subjective awareness....

Here you seem to be maintaining your false dichotomy of conscious versus mechanical. The primal forces of the cosmos must necessarily be non-conscious, or what you call "mechanical." Nothing ever begins or develops from a complex state; things always begin from a simple state and then develop from there. However, there is nothing simple about consciousness. Consciousness is a product of the complex neurology of the brain – period. You may be able to conceive of a disembodied consciousness that does not derive from a brain, but this would be mere fiction. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't mean there necessarily exists something in the world that corresponds to it. As far as we know, consciousness only exists as the product of a brain, which is complex. Therefore consciousness cannot be a primal force.

-- Updated July 3rd, 2016, 10:20 am to add the following --

Atreyu,

You should carefully read the examples in the OP of how the order/chaos dichotomy reveals itself in the universe. Ask yourself if your consciousness/mechanicalness dichotomy can offer any better examples.

[Sy Borg]

It's always been the case that the semantic around the word "life" is extremely limited, as though biological life were the only living systems in nature and the cosmos generally. Things like viruses, prions, planets and stars are deemed "unalive" while clearly being living systems. Now it appears that LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) probably would not have satisfied all the criteria for life: newscientist.com/article/2098564-univer ... alf-alive/

It's to be expected that there would have been "halfway forms" between nonliving inorganic chemicals and the first microbes those chemicals were to become.

[Mysterio448]

It's always been the case that the semantic around the word "life" is extremely limited, as though biological life were the only living systems in nature and the cosmos generally. Things like viruses, prions, planets and stars are deemed "unalive" while clearly being living systems. Now it appears that LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) probably would not have satisfied all the criteria for life: newscientist.com/article/2098564-univer ... alf-alive/

It's to be expected that there would have been "halfway forms" between nonliving inorganic chemicals and the first microbes those chemicals were to become.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I don't think the existence of different gradations of alive-ness can itself explain why life as we know it exists. Simply presenting illuminating details about the phenomenon of life does not explain what brought this phenomenon to fruition.

[Sy Borg]

It's always been the case that the semantic around the word "life" is extremely limited, as though biological life were the only living systems in nature and the cosmos generally. Things like viruses, prions, planets and stars are deemed "unalive" while clearly being living systems. Now it appears that LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) probably would not have satisfied all the criteria for life: newscientist.com/article/2098564-univer ... alf-alive/

It's to be expected that there would have been "halfway forms" between nonliving inorganic chemicals and the first microbes those chemicals were to become.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I don't think the existence of different gradations of alive-ness can itself explain why life as we know it exists. Simply presenting illuminating details about the phenomenon of life does not explain what brought this phenomenon to fruition.

I suppose I'm aiming at a working redefinition of "life" (if only its semantics) that can help clarify the processes involved. For instance, there were processes of geological change or "evolution" that lead from simple nonliving organic chemistry to complex organic chemistry, to abiogenesis and subsequent biological evolution.

I don't argue that the division between geological change and biological evolution is false, but the differences are relatively superficial. That is, geology and biology have more similarities than differences. They are all just processes of development and gradual transformation, with emergence forming at certain thresholds. There's no reason why those processes would have started with geology either and would logically seem to trace back to atom formation when the universe first cooled enough for them to form. Unless something happened on the Planck scale, the formation of atoms was the first example of particulation of formerly homogeneous material. From there, those loose particulates (atoms) clumped into new particulates (molecules) and so on, through various chemical elements and mixtures - to geology and biology etc.

Deeper explanations - "what brought this phenomenon to fruition" - are beyond me, aside from considering that the whole universe appears to be one dynamic connected entity. The entity seems to have a tendency to become ever more connected in local areas and ever more disconnected as a whole. It's as if the universe was "sacrificing" its order for its emergent components, somewhat like a noble parent.