How May the Origins and Existence of 'Life' be Understood?

[JackDaydream]

The reason why I am writing this thread is because I am feeling inspired by a book which I am reading currently, 'Genesis: The Story of How Everything Began' by Guido Tonelli(2022, trans by Segre and Carnell). It explores the two different strands of the understanding of 'origins', myth and science. The author speaks of the way in which humanity may have lost something of the magic and mystery' and, how from 'science we derive the paradigm shifts that define our epochs.' He argues that science is like an 'adventure' and, he is a professor of physics himself, who played an important role in the discovery of the Higgs boson ('God particle').

In this book, he explores scientific discoveries, including the Big Bang, but also looks at assumptions and questions beyond this. He queries the idea of the void and nothingness, saying,
'Many equate the void with nothingness. But that is a serious mistake. Nothingness is a philosophical concept, an abstraction, that irreducible opposite of being, that no one has succeeded in defining better than Parmenides:
"Being is, and can never not be; non being is not and can never be"."
He also points to the complex nature of chaos and order, suggesting that at the level of system and in at that of the microscopic what appears as "markedly chaotic may appear orderly and uniform from a distance.'

I am raising this as a topic of metaphysics, although it is at the edge between science and metaphysics. Tonelli suggests that research leads to questions: 'What is matter made of? How did the universe come into being? How will the world end?' I can talk more about the book if anyone is interested and I haven't even finished reading it. One question which I see as a central philosophy q
question is, what is 'life'. It is connected to consciousness but not entirely the same, since flowers and grass are alive but not conscious in the way that consciousness is usually understood. Life seems to be an underlying animating spark. Is life itself a mystery, or is this a form of mystification of 'nature' ? What do you think?

[EricPH]

How did the universe come into being?

We are here today; and if we were to search for a first cause, something either had no beginning; or something did not come from anything.
What other options can there be?

[JackDaydream]

How did the universe come into being?

We are here today; and if we were to search for a first cause, something either had no beginning; or something did not come from anything.
What other options can there be?

There may be other possibilities such as birth and deaths of previous universes, or multiverses. There is also the question of whether mind or matter come first, or do both arise from some higher dimension, as suggested by some Eastern metaphysical perspectives. Many people may think that it is pointless dwelling on such questions. I am not saying that such matters should be agonized over, but simply that for some it is a source for contemplation.

[stevie]

I am raising this as a topic of metaphysics, although it is at the edge between science and metaphysics.

Your expression has nothing to do with science and maybe the expressions of the persons you refer to, too, have nothing to do with science. If one doesn't know anything about what one intends to talk about it might be best to just shut up.

[JackDaydream]

I am raising this as a topic of metaphysics, although it is at the edge between science and metaphysics.

Your expression has nothing to do with science and maybe the expressions of the persons you refer to, too, have nothing to do with science. If one doesn't know anything about what one intends to talk about it might be best to just shut up.

What I was saying is that I was not posing the question as science because I am not a scientist.The person who wrote it is, although he speaks of the way in which physics involves the imagination in the formulation of science. To what extent can science ever be totally free from metaphysics in the grasp for knowledge?

[Angelo Cannata]

It depends on how you consider metaphysics. There are two ways: those who consider metaphysics as an arrival point, a certainty that has been gained, because it is strongly supported by reasoning. This is not good for science, because it is like an attempt to replace it with reasoning. Metaphysics can be considered also like just an hypothesis, as to say, for example: let's assume that the planet earth is spherical rather than flat. This is metaphysics as well, because it makes an assumptions largely based on human mental structures, but there is a big difference, because in this case the awareness that it is just an hypothesis is kept in strong consideration. In this case metaphysic is very good, even essential to science.

[JackDaydream]

It depends on how you consider metaphysics. There are two ways: those who consider metaphysics as an arrival point, a certainty that has been gained, because it is strongly supported by reasoning. This is not good for science, because it is like an attempt to replace it with reasoning. Metaphysics can be considered also like just an hypothesis, as to say, for example: let's assume that the planet earth is spherical rather than flat. This is metaphysics as well, because it makes an assumptions largely based on human mental structures, but there is a big difference, because in this case the awareness that it is just an hypothesis is kept in strong consideration. In this case metaphysic is very good, even essential to science.

I think that you have put the intricacy of the problem of metaphysics and science well. The metaphysical imagination is the source of reasoning and creating hypotheses.

Also, the findings of the scientists have to be interpreted which allows for the scope of philosophy. That is because even though science may come up with certain evidence that has to be interpreted critically. This may involve problems arising in the methodology of science. It may also involve looking at various possibilities because the findings are only aspects of 'truth' and 'knowledge' and can often be interpreted in various ways, such as the whole idea of randomness and order. Science may provide an extremely important source but does not present the entire picture. Of course, it is hard to know how far to go with interpretation. Some may wish not to go beyond the barest structure and others may wish to develop sophisticated ideas beyond the basics. Part of the problem is not really knowing everything and it may be that how ever far one goes to realise that all the theories and models are incomplete ultimately.

[JackDaydream]

Having finished the book, 'Genesis: The Story of How Everything Began', by Guido Tonelli, I will say that one aspect which I found interesting was his idea of the void, as well as concepts of matter and antimatter. Tonelli suggests that,
'The void is a living thing, a dynamic and constantly changing substance, full of potential, pregnant with particle/antiparticle) opposites. It is not nothingnesx; it is on the contrary a system overflowing with unlimited quantities of matter and antimatter.'
I am not a physicist, so my understanding is matter and antimatter is limited. One comment which I received when I wrote about physics once on this forum was that I used the terms of physics like 'ornaments'. I do welcome discussion of ideas such as matter and antimatter by those who have knowledge of physics. However, it is possible that in the presentation of science, specific terms of jargon do have a decorative aspect to bolster up philosophy arguments in a mystifying way. I am impressed by the ideas of Tonelli, but, perhaps I am in the grip of his language and part of the problem is that knowledge of life and its origins is so complicated that it requires it is easy to be mesmerised by theory and rhetoric. But, I am interested to know what anyone thinks about origins and this whole area of physics, metaphysics and how it is explained in theory, concept and language, in a way which stands up to critical philosophical analysis.

[GrayArea]

The reason why I am writing this thread is because I am feeling inspired by a book which I am reading currently, 'Genesis: The Story of How Everything Began' by Guido Tonelli(2022, trans by Segre and Carnell). It explores the two different strands of the understanding of 'origins', myth and science. The author speaks of the way in which humanity may have lost something of the magic and mystery' and, how from 'science we derive the paradigm shifts that define our epochs.' He argues that science is like an 'adventure' and, he is a professor of physics himself, who played an important role in the discovery of the Higgs boson ('God particle').

In this book, he explores scientific discoveries, including the Big Bang, but also looks at assumptions and questions beyond this. He queries the idea of the void and nothingness, saying,
'Many equate the void with nothingness. But that is a serious mistake. Nothingness is a philosophical concept, an abstraction, that irreducible opposite of being, that no one has succeeded in defining better than Parmenides:
"Being is, and can never not be; non being is not and can never be"."
He also points to the complex nature of chaos and order, suggesting that at the level of system and in at that of the microscopic what appears as "markedly chaotic may appear orderly and uniform from a distance.'

I am raising this as a topic of metaphysics, although it is at the edge between science and metaphysics. Tonelli suggests that research leads to questions: 'What is matter made of? How did the universe come into being? How will the world end?' I can talk more about the book if anyone is interested and I haven't even finished reading it. One question which I see as a central philosophy q
question is, what is 'life'. It is connected to consciousness but not entirely the same, since flowers and grass are alive but not conscious in the way that consciousness is usually understood. Life seems to be an underlying animating spark. Is life itself a mystery, or is this a form of mystification of 'nature' ? What do you think?

Origins of life? Just pure causality started and carried out by randomness. How existence of life can be understood is a much deeper question, as it involves the hard problem of consciousness.

[Angelo Cannata]

Actually I still see some elements in scientific expalanations, that don’t convince me.
One is the idea of caos, casualness, randomness: isn’t it just a quick way that actually is an admission that we don’t understand certain too complex mechanisms? Wouldn’t chaos and randomness imply the idea of creation from nothing? As far as I understand, a totally perfect and symmetric system, even if it is infinitely unstable, cannot deviate towards any side direction, because in that case we should explain why it went towards that direction and not towards another one. This doesn’t make me think of any god creator or intelligent plan. Rather, I think that our universe has never been perfect and simmetrical. So, I think that perfection and symmetry don’t exist, even in theory, they are actually illusions, tricks of our thoughts.

[JackDaydream]

The reason why I am writing this thread is because I am feeling inspired by a book which I am reading currently, 'Genesis: The Story of How Everything Began' by Guido Tonelli(2022, trans by Segre and Carnell). It explores the two different strands of the understanding of 'origins', myth and science. The author speaks of the way in which humanity may have lost something of the magic and mystery' and, how from 'science we derive the paradigm shifts that define our epochs.' He argues that science is like an 'adventure' and, he is a professor of physics himself, who played an important role in the discovery of the Higgs boson ('God particle').

In this book, he explores scientific discoveries, including the Big Bang, but also looks at assumptions and questions beyond this. He queries the idea of the void and nothingness, saying,
'Many equate the void with nothingness. But that is a serious mistake. Nothingness is a philosophical concept, an abstraction, that irreducible opposite of being, that no one has succeeded in defining better than Parmenides:
"Being is, and can never not be; non being is not and can never be"."
He also points to the complex nature of chaos and order, suggesting that at the level of system and in at that of the microscopic what appears as "markedly chaotic may appear orderly and uniform from a distance.'

I am raising this as a topic of metaphysics, although it is at the edge between science and metaphysics. Tonelli suggests that research leads to questions: 'What is matter made of? How did the universe come into being? How will the world end?' I can talk more about the book if anyone is interested and I haven't even finished reading it. One question which I see as a central philosophy q
question is, what is 'life'. It is connected to consciousness but not entirely the same, since flowers and grass are alive but not conscious in the way that consciousness is usually understood. Life seems to be an underlying animating spark. Is life itself a mystery, or is this a form of mystification of 'nature' ? What do you think?

Origins of life? Just pure causality started and carried out by randomness. How existence of life can be understood is a much deeper question, as it involves the hard problem of consciousness.

The way in which I see your point is to what extent is there any underlying purpose to apparent randomness? Why did consciousness develop at all? Many people see it as an emergent factor but it could be asked why did human beings develop with the capability of understanding the process? Also, human beings have developed but it could be asked have there ever been or ever be further developed beings? These are all questions which I wonder about.

[stevie]

To what extent can science ever be totally free from metaphysics in the grasp for knowledge?

Science is perfectly empty of metaphysics. It seems what you have in mind when asking is 'scientists' and I cannot speculate about the cognitive setting of human individuals.

[Angelo Cannata]

The way in which I see your point is to what extent is there any underlying purpose to apparent randomness? Why did consciousness develop at all? Many people see it as an emergent factor but it could be asked why did human beings develop with the capability of understanding the process? Also, human beings have developed but it could be asked have there ever been or ever be further developed beings? These are all questions which I wonder about.

I think that, in order to be critical, as good philosophers should, we need to consider that our idea of purpose should be questioned: if the whole universe and everything and every event in it is without any purpose, the consequence is that whatever looks to us like having a purpose is actually contained into the general frame of not-purposedness. For example, a tiger that hunts for food looks to us like having a very clear purpose, but actually all the mechanisms working inside that tiger are just the fruit of no purpose casualness, so we can say that just by chance it happens that a randomly combination of elements and factors produced a tiger that acts towards the purpose of finding food. It is just like a watch: a watch has not in itself the intentional purpose of showing what time it is: a watch is not able to have intentions. By extending the perspective, the same way as the watch, we can even think that we just apparently made the watch having in our mind the intention to make it show the time, but we might just be big watches that are able to make smaller watches.

[JackDaydream]

The way in which I see your point is to what extent is there any underlying purpose to apparent randomness? Why did consciousness develop at all? Many people see it as an emergent factor but it could be asked why did human beings develop with the capability of understanding the process? Also, human beings have developed but it could be asked have there ever been or ever be further developed beings? These are all questions which I wonder about.

I think that, in order to be critical, as good philosophers should, we need to consider that our idea of purpose should be questioned: if the whole universe and everything and every event in it is without any purpose, the consequence is that whatever looks to us like having a purpose is actually contained into the general frame of not-purposedness. For example, a tiger that hunts for food looks to us like having a very clear purpose, but actually all the mechanisms working inside that tiger are just the fruit of no purpose casualness, so we can say that just by chance it happens that a randomly combination of elements and factors produced a tiger that acts towards the purpose of finding food. It is just like a watch: a watch has not in itself the intentional purpose of showing what time it is: a watch is not able to have intentions. By extending the perspective, the same way as the watch, we can even think that we just apparently made the watch having in our mind the intention to make it show the time, but we might just be big watches that are able to make smaller watches.

Of course, purpose is a construction and like the idea of meaning is a construction. Meaning in human life may be more subjective rather than objective. It is hard to define purpose and, in a way, genes provide a blueprint for development of potential as the most objective aspect. So, it is hard to see definite designs but I guess that I am amazed that there is as much order as there, amidst all the possibilities which may hinder development in the universe and in human life.