Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Life is actually random ch reactions.Our inside the reaction system specific perspective is what deceives us.

  1. #1 Life is actually random ch reactions.Our inside the reaction system specific perspective is what deceives us. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4
    Suppose we have a flask with simple chemical compounds and we constantly provide external energy so that random chemical reactions occur. If we continue to provide external energy then not only chemical equilibrium will not occur, but instead more and more reactions will occur and the system will thrive and becme more complex and chaotic. Lets say that our system is not a flask, but primordial earth and the external source of energy is solar energy coming from the sun. In this case, equilibrium would be avoided, and the system would continue to thrive. Through the eons, in a chaos of chemical reactions, only those with some kind of repeatability and periodicity will not lead to a dead end and will be able to continue happening in the long term. Additionally, many random chemical reactions will eventually lead to some molecules with the ability to adhere with other molecules and also with surfaces. These reactions will eventually prevail and become the basis for further complexity, because the chemical compounds will not diffuse around and lead to dead ends. This will make the process multifocal rather than diffuse, enhancing its ability to thrive. Thereafter, these focal sites of increasing complexity will interact with one another and the systems with the greatest capacity to survive will continue happening in the long term and will become more complicated. Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed. Also, the reactions with the ability to promote their own existence would prevail and continue to exist, in a process which is a kind of natural selection and survival of the fittest reactions.
    Random chemical reactions does not promote a certain plan or any kind of order, but what we see, is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history. However, their end results are reactions that are characterized by survival capacities over others. And suppose that these end results are the observers of the whole system. Virtually they are composed from some chemical compounds, which are constantly changing However, everything that happens leads to them. Everything is a matter of perspective. If they analyze their own reactions they will have a very good view to their homeostasis. As we said they are seeing the system from inside, or else in a mirror like direction, because they themselves are part of things, so they appreciate things from its results. They think that homeostasis is a very perfectly sophisticated and stochastic mechanism, because they are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the catalogue of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive. It is like they are in a moving ship, and so they realize things differently from someone who is standing in the port. Most of all, they don’t have a good sense of our own movement. Additionally, if they were not a part of the chemical system, they would not find any reasoning or purpose of existence for all the other reactions on earth. Even if they were tables for example, they would think that the most perfect creatures are the tables.
    In other words these systems would have exactly the same perspective as we ourselves have while thinking about what is life, evolution, reproduction (repeatability of reactions).
    Thus, random reactions and life can be the opposite sides of the same coin.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,631
    Suppose we have a flask with simple chemical compounds and we constantly provide external energy so that random chemical reactions occur.


    Random chemical reaction's don't occur. Only possible chemical reactions will occur. The amount of which side a reaction follows depends on equilibrium.

    If we continue to provide external energy then not only chemical equilibrium will not occur, but instead more and more reactions will occur and the system will thrive and become more complex and chaotic.
    Only chemical equilibrium will occur. The rest will not.

    Lets say that our system is not a flask, but primordial earth and the external source of energy is solar energy coming from the sun. In this case, equilibrium would be avoided, and the system would continue to thrive.
    I doubt you understand the meaning of "thrive" as this would mean it is already living. Equilibrium is never avoided.

    Through the eons, in a chaos of chemical reactions, only those with some kind of repeatability and periodicity will not lead to a dead end and will be able to continue happening in the long term.
    Because of the equilibrium, chemical reactions will continue to occur, to both sides. Even in a forest fire, a small immeasurable part of the fire will actually create forest. A car actually creates fuel, because some of the explosion in an engine will have some of the energy going in recreating the same fuel again.

    Additionally, many random chemical reactions will eventually lead to some molecules with the ability to adhere with other molecules and also with surfaces.
    Yes, but not because of random chemical reactions. The reactions will take place if the locations of the molecules are correct and the energy is correct.

    These reactions will eventually prevail and become the basis for further complexity, because the chemical compounds will not diffuse around and lead to dead ends.
    Dead ends don't exist.

    This will make the process multifocal rather than diffuse, enhancing its ability to thrive. Thereafter, these focal sites of increasing complexity will interact with one another and the systems with the greatest capacity to survive will continue happening in the long term and will become more complicated.
    Stable molecules will always be created more easily than unstable molecules.

    Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed. Also, the reactions with the ability to promote their own existence would prevail and continue to exist, in a process which is a kind of natural selection and survival of the fittest reactions.
    Organic compounds, you mean methanol? And this is too complex for small molecules. It simply doesn't work like this.

    Random chemical reactions does not promote a certain plan or any kind of order, but what we see, is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.


    Not a religious nut, i see. What we see now isn't the result of all the reactions that happened through history, again, too complex. A reaction occurs because it can.

    However, their end results are reactions that are characterized by survival capacities over others.
    A chemical doesn't try to survive. And it doesn't care if it reacts to something else.

    And suppose that these end results are the observers of the whole system. Virtually they are composed from some chemical compounds, which are constantly changing However, everything that happens leads to them.
    Dunno what to think about this one. You are pointing towards the end of a line, and say that it's the end? Bravo.

    Everything is a matter of perspective.
    Everything is matter, everything is perspective, everything is, matter is perspective. All those phrases are both correct, and incorrect, it's a matter of perspective. But, you forget, it doesn't matter, chemicals have no perspective.

    If they analyze their own reactions they will have a very good view to their homeostasis. As we said they are seeing the system from inside, or else in a mirror like direction, because they themselves are part of things, so they appreciate things from its results.
    Dafuq are you trying to say?

    They think that homeostasis is a very perfectly sophisticated and stochastic mechanism, because they are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the catalogue of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.
    Again?

    It is like they are in a moving ship, and so they realize things differently from someone who is standing in the port. Most of all, they don’t have a good sense of our own movement. Additionally, if they were not a part of the chemical system, they would not find any reasoning or purpose of existence for all the other reactions on earth. Even if they were tables for example, they would think that the most perfect creatures are the tables.
    ??

    In other words these systems would have exactly the same perspective as we ourselves have while thinking about what is life, evolution, reproduction (repeatability of reactions).
    Thus, random reactions and life can be the opposite sides of the same coin.
    Sorry, i am not intelligent enough to understand all this..


    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    To support your argument you need to demonstrate that chemical reactions are random. This would be contrary to a large body of experimental evidence and real world observation. Perhaps you can identify specific situations in which the preponderance of reactions are random. I think until you have done that, the later part of your argument needs to be put on hold.

    Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed.
    I am seriously perplexed by this statement. Organic compounds are compounds of carbon. So, what compounds that are lacking carbon are first advancing to stability and then - despite being stable - suddenly incorporate carbon?

    The easiest way of understanding this statement is to imagine that you do not understand the definition of an organic compound. Perhaps you will clarify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    164
    Virtually they are composed from some chemical compounds, which are constantly changing However, everything that happens leads to them.


    Thatīs very subjective and not critical...


    They think that homeostasis is a very perfectly sophisticated and stochastic mechanism, because they are the result of homeostasis,
    All of them? Are you sure?


    Even if they were tables for example, they would think that the most perfect creatures are the tables.
    Only "the believers" tables.... would think that.

    In other words these systems would have exactly the same perspective as we ourselves have while thinking about what is life, evolution, reproduction (repeatability of reactions).

    May be, may be not.

    Thus, random reactions and life can be the opposite sides of the same coin.

    I don understand this analogy.


    I also think that this thread is not biology...

    Bye!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    I also think that this thread is not biology...
    It can be made a biology thread if Minos will now address the points raised with specific details. I should like to hear about specific reactions, named chemicals, real metabolic cycles and so on that support, or illustrate, Minos's claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by M_Gabriela View Post
    I also think that this thread is not biology...
    It can be made a biology thread if Minos will now address the points raised with specific details. I should like to hear about specific reactions, named chemicals, real metabolic cycles and so on that support, or illustrate, Minos's claims.
    Ok...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4



    Ok! I will make an effort to address some of your issues.
    Lets say that our system is not a flask, but primordial earth and the external source of energy is solar energy coming from the sun. In this case, equilibrium would be avoided, and the system would continue to thrive.
    I doubt you understand the meaning of "thrive" as this would mean it is already living. Equilibrium is never avoided.
    No, I mean that more and random reactions will occur. The constant external energy will always distract the system even if it is in equillibrium.

    Through the eons, in a chaos of chemical reactions, only those with some kind of repeatability and periodicity will not lead to a dead end and will be able to continue happening in the long term.
    Because of the equilibrium, chemical reactions will continue to occur, to both sides. Even in a forest fire, a small immeasurable part of the fire will actually create forest. A car actually creates fuel, because some of the explosion in an engine will have some of the energy going in recreating the same fuel again.
    Ok! And what is the problem with that? One side will always be bigger and would define the way reactions are going...

    Additionally, many random chemical reactions will eventually lead to some molecules with the ability to adhere with other molecules and also with surfaces.
    Yes, but not because of random chemical reactions. The reactions will take place if the locations of the molecules are correct and the energy is correct.
    Agree! But adhesive molecules will make more locations to be correct.

    These reactions will eventually prevail and become the basis for further complexity, because the chemical compounds will not diffuse around and lead to dead ends.
    Dead ends don't exist.
    Dead ends in chemical reaction systems means equillibrium.





    However, their end results are reactions that are characterized by survival capacities over others.
    A chemical doesn't try to survive. And it doesn't care if it reacts to something else.
    Who said the opposite. It was a metaphor. Inevitably some reactions continue in the long term.

    And suppose that these end results are the observers of the whole system. Virtually they are composed from some chemical compounds, which are constantly changing However, everything that happens leads to them.
    Dunno what to think about this one. You are pointing towards the end of a line, and say that it's the end? Bravo.

    Everything is a matter of perspective.
    Everything is matter, everything is perspective, everything is, matter is perspective. All those phrases are both correct, and incorrect, it's a matter of perspective. But, you forget, it doesn't matter, chemicals have no perspective.
    Really? There are no reference frames, for instance in physics? The whole theory of relativity is based on different reference frames...

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    To support your argument you need to demonstrate that chemical reactions are random. This would be contrary to a large body of experimental evidence and real world observation. Perhaps you can identify specific situations in which the preponderance of reactions are random. I think until you have done that, the later part of your argument needs to be put on hold.
    Everything that happens in nature is random. If you inject a medicine in your body, it will randomly diffuse..! The same laws that govern nature outside the body, exactly the same governs that inside your body. The fact that some reactions seem to serve a specific purpose, can easily be a result of our specific false perspective that we have as beings observers of a system in which we ourselves are a part, as i explained in the OP.

    Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed.
    I am seriously perplexed by this statement. Organic compounds are compounds of carbon. So, what compounds that are lacking carbon are first advancing to stability and then - despite being stable - suddenly incorporate carbon?

    The easiest way of understanding this statement is to imagine that you do not understand the definition of an organic compound. Perhaps you will clarify.

    On a background of tons of different reactions, stable molecules will prevail because they are stable. History showed that these were the ones with carbon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Thank you for your response. Now would you actually like to address my points?

    1. Please demonstrate, with appropriate citations, from established textbooks, or peer reviewed research articles, that chemical reactions are random.
    2. Your justification for the sentence about stability is ambiguous. Do you understand that organic compounds are compounds of carbon? (Yes, or no.) This being the case, do you understand that your sentence "Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed" makes no sense in either English or Chemistry? (Yes, or no.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    164
    Uh... quote problems...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Thank you for your response. Now would you actually like to address my points?

    1. Please demonstrate, with appropriate citations, from established textbooks, or peer reviewed research articles, that chemical reactions are random.
    Chemical reactions are by definition random, because they happen spontaneously. They obey to natural laws. They are not deterministic, sophisticated etc and they don’t have anthropocentric properties. In the case you want me to provide some literature about the fact that living systems chemical reactions are random, I will not, because in this post, random chemical reactions is the answer (or else the missing link). With this assumption, suddenly everything becomes simple and clear. Everything we know can be easily combined under this frame. Its like trying to solve a problem in mathematics in which you have to find which number fullfill an equation. If someone says that the answer for instance is x=4. You are never asking him “where does it say that x must be 4?”



    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Your justification for the sentence about stability is ambiguous. Do you understand that organic compounds are compounds of carbon? (Yes, or no.) This being the case, do you understand that your sentence "Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed" makes no sense in either English or Chemistry? (Yes, or no.)
    My justification is that in a system of random chemical reactions that are gradually becoming more and more complex, apparently at some point organic compounds will be created. Due to their properties, they will sustain their organic structures more effectively that other compounds creating a basis of further complexity based on organic chemistry.
    In other words I am saying that organic compounds are simply the result of life or at least an intermediate step, not the cause (the initial event).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore M_Gabriela's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by minos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Thank you for your response. Now would you actually like to address my points?

    1. Please demonstrate, with appropriate citations, from established textbooks, or peer reviewed research articles, that chemical reactions are random.
    Chemical reactions are by definition random, because they happen spontaneously.
    I donīt think that random and spontaneous go in the same sentence. Spontaneous means that is thermodynamically favored and without the need of a catalyzer. Iīm not sure what you mean with random. When I read random, I interprete that if two atoms find by chance they will react... which is not neccessarily true. They will react if they can, following chemical laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Your justification for the sentence about stability is ambiguous. Do you understand that organic compounds are compounds of carbon? (Yes, or no.) This being the case, do you understand that your sentence "Additionally, more stable compounds will be formed and so gradually what we know as organic compounds with be formed" makes no sense in either English or Chemistry? (Yes, or no.)
    Quote Originally Posted by minos
    My justification is that in a system of random chemical reactions that are gradually becoming more and more complex, apparently at some point organic compounds will be created.
    That is the thing.. what does your system have that you suppose the reactions will become more complex? Does your system, originally, have carbon? Why wouldnīt organic molecules create first? Or carbon is added later?

    Due to their properties, they will sustain their organic structures more effectively that other compounds creating a basis of further complexity based on organic chemistry.
    Mmmmm..... So because our life is based in organic compounds does not mean that they are more effective than other molecules. Just that in that moment this molecules turned out to be part of structures that turned into cells. Also, our life is dependant on water too, that is an inorganic molecule... Anyway.. I know what you mean..our life base structure is organic...

    In other words I am saying that organic compounds are simply the result of life or at least an intermediate step, not the cause (the initial event).
    But without organic compounds you could never have structures that turned into cells in the first place... I donīt think I understand this last sentence. I even think is contradictory with what you wrote before...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Entropy of a system during synthesis reactions
    By rickettsie in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 28th, 2013, 12:04 PM
  2. "Life" is just chemical reactions, or chemistry?
    By stander-j in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: September 28th, 2012, 05:52 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •