info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What came first: Live or the Computer ? ;)
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Skybuck Flying
Oct 14, 2016, 11:15:28 PM10/14/16
to
Hello,
Here is my/Skybuck Flying's Hypothesis/Theory for the origin of life.
The hypothesis starts with a somewhat vague conclusion leading to a more
concrete question:
The conclusion is:
Life as we currently know it is too complex to have originated from a mix of
matter.
This means life must have originated in some other form.
Life could be a successfull order of instructions/sequences.
If so then the question is where did this sequence/program come from ?
Is it conceiveable that life originated from within a computer ? And how
would that have worked ?
Which leads to the somewhat astonishing question:
What came first: "life" or "the computer".
In the context of a universe created from nothing to something...
How hard/complex would it be to create "life" vs "a computer" by a random
process (a mixing machine of matter, perhaps even pure
electronc/electrical).
If in fact a "computer" is easier to create than "life" then the computer
might have come first.
Now the question becomes:
How could an "electronic lifeform inside a computer" transfer itself onto
biological/chemical matter of some kind ?
The thought process here is that this electronic life form would exist on
some kind of atoms.
Atoms appear to attract each other.
This/My theory/hypothesis kind of predicts that there must have been a way
for the electronic lifeform to have transferred itself onto matter.
A phenomenon known as "electro magnetic fields" or "electroc magnetic
magnets" comes to mind.
Static electricity is also another example of how electricity can attract
matter.
Thus the electronic lifeform could have used electro magnetic or statis
electricity to attract matter/chemicals at start locations which would be
"on" and other locations would be "off" or perhaps even different electro
magnetic strength to attract certain wanted materials and certain unwanted
materials.
So that is kinda asthonishing that there might be a way for an electronic
life force to transfer itself onto matter which gives the hypotheris/theory
some predictive powers and thus in the eyes of science some merit/power.
It's an interesting twist on the ideas of origin of life ! ;) :)
Bye,
Skybuck
Here is my/Skybuck Flying's Hypothesis/Theory for the origin of life.
The hypothesis starts with a somewhat vague conclusion leading to a more
concrete question:
The conclusion is:
Life as we currently know it is too complex to have originated from a mix of
matter.
This means life must have originated in some other form.
Life could be a successfull order of instructions/sequences.
If so then the question is where did this sequence/program come from ?
Is it conceiveable that life originated from within a computer ? And how
would that have worked ?
Which leads to the somewhat astonishing question:
What came first: "life" or "the computer".
In the context of a universe created from nothing to something...
How hard/complex would it be to create "life" vs "a computer" by a random
process (a mixing machine of matter, perhaps even pure
electronc/electrical).
If in fact a "computer" is easier to create than "life" then the computer
might have come first.
Now the question becomes:
How could an "electronic lifeform inside a computer" transfer itself onto
biological/chemical matter of some kind ?
The thought process here is that this electronic life form would exist on
some kind of atoms.
Atoms appear to attract each other.
This/My theory/hypothesis kind of predicts that there must have been a way
for the electronic lifeform to have transferred itself onto matter.
A phenomenon known as "electro magnetic fields" or "electroc magnetic
magnets" comes to mind.
Static electricity is also another example of how electricity can attract
matter.
Thus the electronic lifeform could have used electro magnetic or statis
electricity to attract matter/chemicals at start locations which would be
"on" and other locations would be "off" or perhaps even different electro
magnetic strength to attract certain wanted materials and certain unwanted
materials.
So that is kinda asthonishing that there might be a way for an electronic
life force to transfer itself onto matter which gives the hypotheris/theory
some predictive powers and thus in the eyes of science some merit/power.
It's an interesting twist on the ideas of origin of life ! ;) :)
Bye,
Skybuck
Skybuck Flying
Oct 14, 2016, 11:19:47 PM10/14/16
to
There was something more I liked to write... I forgot for a moment what it
was but now I remember.
Some further pointers about this:
Simple Turing Machines
and the idea that electronic lifeforms could evolve inside such a simple
computer.
Which would then eventually transfer itself onto matter.
Life must have started as something incredibly simple.
A simple turing machine might just have been it ! ;)
So it can try out all kinds of possibilities/sequences of matter/chemicals
for example.
Bye,
Skybuck.
was but now I remember.
Some further pointers about this:
Simple Turing Machines
and the idea that electronic lifeforms could evolve inside such a simple
computer.
Which would then eventually transfer itself onto matter.
Life must have started as something incredibly simple.
A simple turing machine might just have been it ! ;)
So it can try out all kinds of possibilities/sequences of matter/chemicals
for example.
Bye,
Skybuck.
Skybuck Flying
Oct 14, 2016, 11:39:31 PM10/14/16
to
I believe I am the first human being to have asked this question.
So I googled it, no results, which is funny.
There are other theories about origin of life and the exact problem I
mentioned "current origin of life theories require a too complex lifeform as
starting point".
My search on google produced this interesting link, which might indicate
that so far researchers might be barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps a simple alan turing computer capable of attracting molecules might
explain how more complex life forms/sequences came to be.
A simple computer which simple increments a counter which in turn attract a
certain sequence of molecules/chemicals/matter might already be enough to
create life eventually.
As a sort of "search computer", which simply plows through all possible
combinations by brute force ! ;) :) HAHA !
Anyway here is the somewhat interesting link and story, how "science" is
struggling to come up with a simple machine capable of constructing and
evolving life ! ;) :)
(At the bottom of this posting I give further pointers for further research
which should be obvious by now after these few postings of me, but kinda
spell it out just one more time to let you know what I would love to see !
;) :))
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm
"
What came first in the origin of life? New study contradicts the 'metabolism
first' hypothesis
Date: January 9, 2010 Source: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Summary: New
research rejects the theory that the origin of life stems from a system of
self-catalytic molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without
the need of RNA or DNA and their replication. Share:
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to LinkedInShare to
MoreShare to Email
FULL STORY
Image of what would be a "compound genome". Different molecules (in various
colours) join the globule or corpuscle, which divides once it reaches a
critical size.
Credit: Image provided by Doron Lancet
A new study published in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences rejects
the theory that the origin of life stems from a system of self-catalytic
molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without the need of
RNA or DNA and their replication.
The research, which was carried out with the participation of Mauro Santos,
researcher of the Department of Genetics and Microbiology at Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), has demonstrated that, through the analysis of
what some researchers name "compound genomes," these chemical networks
cannot be considered evolutionary units because they lose properties which
are essential for evolution when they reach a critical size and greater
level of complexity.
The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines life
as a "self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." The
scientific theories on the origin of life revolve around two main ideas: one
focuses on genetics -- with RNA or DNA replication as an essential condition
for Darwinian evolution to take place -- and the other focuses on
metabolism. It is clear that both situations must have begun with simple
organic molecules formed by prebiotic processes, as was demonstrated by the
Miller-Urey experiment (in which organic molecules were created from
inorganic substances). The point in which these two theories differ is that
the replication of RNA or DNA molecules is a far too complex process which
requires a correct combination of monomers within the polymers to produce a
molecular chain resulting from the replication.
Until now no plausible chemical explanation exists for how these processes
occured. In addition, defenders of the second theory argue that the
processes needed for evolution to take place depend on primordial
metabolism. This metabolism is believed to be a type of chemical network
entailing a high degree of mutual catalysis between its components which, in
turn, eventually allows for adaptation and evolution without any molecular
replication.
In the first half of the 20th century, Alexander Oparin established the
"Metabolism First" hypothesis to explain the origin of life, thus
strengthening the primary role of cells as small drops of coacervates
(evolutionary precursors of the first prokaryote cells). Dr Oparin did not
refer to RNA or DNA molecules since at that time it was not clear just how
important the role of these molecules was in living organisms. However he
did form a solid base for the idea of self-replication as a collective
property of molecular compounds.
Science more recently demonstrated that sets of chemical components store
information about their composition which can be duplicated and transmitted
to their descendents. This has led to their being named "compound genomes"
or composomes. In other words, heredity does not require information in
order to be stored in RNA or DNA molecules. These "compound genomes"
apparently fulfil the conditions required to be considered evolutionary
units, which suggests a pathway from pre-Darwinian dynamics to a minimum
protocell.
Researchers in this study nevertheless reveal that these systems are
incapable of undergoing a Darwinian evolution. For the first time a rigorous
analysis was carried out to study the supposed evolution of these molecular
networks using a combination of numerical and analytical simulations and
network analysis approximations. Their research demonstrated that the
dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached
a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose
properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.
Researchers concluded that this fundamental limitation of "compound genomes"
should lead to caution towards theories that set metabolism first as the
origin as life, even though former metabolic systems could have offered a
stable habitat in which primitive polymers such as RNA could have evolved.
Researchers state that different prebiotic Earth scenarios can be
considered. However, the basic property of life as a system capable of
undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally
stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).
"
Perhaps my postings might persuade them to investigate a different approach
or a mixed approach:
1. Try to construct some kind of computer by chance/random process which is
then in turn capable of attracting these kinds of chemicals/compounds etc,
to see if that might eventually create some kind of successfull lifeform.
2. Ofcourse it could also be tried in some kind of super computer simulation
to speed up the entire process of evaluating the real possibility of this !
;)
Personally I would first like to see somebody construct a computer which can
transfer an electrical sequence/computer program onto
chemicals/matter/compounds at a very simple level. Just to proof that it can
be done/it's possible and that would give the hypothesis/theory merrit/a
serious contender for origin of life ! ;) :)
Bye,
Skybuck :)
So I googled it, no results, which is funny.
There are other theories about origin of life and the exact problem I
mentioned "current origin of life theories require a too complex lifeform as
starting point".
My search on google produced this interesting link, which might indicate
that so far researchers might be barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps a simple alan turing computer capable of attracting molecules might
explain how more complex life forms/sequences came to be.
A simple computer which simple increments a counter which in turn attract a
certain sequence of molecules/chemicals/matter might already be enough to
create life eventually.
As a sort of "search computer", which simply plows through all possible
combinations by brute force ! ;) :) HAHA !
Anyway here is the somewhat interesting link and story, how "science" is
struggling to come up with a simple machine capable of constructing and
evolving life ! ;) :)
(At the bottom of this posting I give further pointers for further research
which should be obvious by now after these few postings of me, but kinda
spell it out just one more time to let you know what I would love to see !
;) :))
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm
"
What came first in the origin of life? New study contradicts the 'metabolism
first' hypothesis
Date: January 9, 2010 Source: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Summary: New
research rejects the theory that the origin of life stems from a system of
self-catalytic molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without
the need of RNA or DNA and their replication. Share:
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Google+Share to LinkedInShare to
MoreShare to Email
FULL STORY
Image of what would be a "compound genome". Different molecules (in various
colours) join the globule or corpuscle, which divides once it reaches a
critical size.
Credit: Image provided by Doron Lancet
A new study published in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences rejects
the theory that the origin of life stems from a system of self-catalytic
molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without the need of
RNA or DNA and their replication.
The research, which was carried out with the participation of Mauro Santos,
researcher of the Department of Genetics and Microbiology at Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), has demonstrated that, through the analysis of
what some researchers name "compound genomes," these chemical networks
cannot be considered evolutionary units because they lose properties which
are essential for evolution when they reach a critical size and greater
level of complexity.
The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines life
as a "self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution." The
scientific theories on the origin of life revolve around two main ideas: one
focuses on genetics -- with RNA or DNA replication as an essential condition
for Darwinian evolution to take place -- and the other focuses on
metabolism. It is clear that both situations must have begun with simple
organic molecules formed by prebiotic processes, as was demonstrated by the
Miller-Urey experiment (in which organic molecules were created from
inorganic substances). The point in which these two theories differ is that
the replication of RNA or DNA molecules is a far too complex process which
requires a correct combination of monomers within the polymers to produce a
molecular chain resulting from the replication.
Until now no plausible chemical explanation exists for how these processes
occured. In addition, defenders of the second theory argue that the
processes needed for evolution to take place depend on primordial
metabolism. This metabolism is believed to be a type of chemical network
entailing a high degree of mutual catalysis between its components which, in
turn, eventually allows for adaptation and evolution without any molecular
replication.
In the first half of the 20th century, Alexander Oparin established the
"Metabolism First" hypothesis to explain the origin of life, thus
strengthening the primary role of cells as small drops of coacervates
(evolutionary precursors of the first prokaryote cells). Dr Oparin did not
refer to RNA or DNA molecules since at that time it was not clear just how
important the role of these molecules was in living organisms. However he
did form a solid base for the idea of self-replication as a collective
property of molecular compounds.
Science more recently demonstrated that sets of chemical components store
information about their composition which can be duplicated and transmitted
to their descendents. This has led to their being named "compound genomes"
or composomes. In other words, heredity does not require information in
order to be stored in RNA or DNA molecules. These "compound genomes"
apparently fulfil the conditions required to be considered evolutionary
units, which suggests a pathway from pre-Darwinian dynamics to a minimum
protocell.
Researchers in this study nevertheless reveal that these systems are
incapable of undergoing a Darwinian evolution. For the first time a rigorous
analysis was carried out to study the supposed evolution of these molecular
networks using a combination of numerical and analytical simulations and
network analysis approximations. Their research demonstrated that the
dynamics of molecular compound populations which divide after having reached
a critical size do not evolve, since during this process the compounds lose
properties which are essential for Darwinian evolution.
Researchers concluded that this fundamental limitation of "compound genomes"
should lead to caution towards theories that set metabolism first as the
origin as life, even though former metabolic systems could have offered a
stable habitat in which primitive polymers such as RNA could have evolved.
Researchers state that different prebiotic Earth scenarios can be
considered. However, the basic property of life as a system capable of
undergoing Darwinian evolution began when genetic information was finally
stored and transmitted such as occurs in nucleotide polymers (RNA and DNA).
"
Perhaps my postings might persuade them to investigate a different approach
or a mixed approach:
1. Try to construct some kind of computer by chance/random process which is
then in turn capable of attracting these kinds of chemicals/compounds etc,
to see if that might eventually create some kind of successfull lifeform.
2. Ofcourse it could also be tried in some kind of super computer simulation
to speed up the entire process of evaluating the real possibility of this !
;)
Personally I would first like to see somebody construct a computer which can
transfer an electrical sequence/computer program onto
chemicals/matter/compounds at a very simple level. Just to proof that it can
be done/it's possible and that would give the hypothesis/theory merrit/a
serious contender for origin of life ! ;) :)
Bye,
Skybuck :)
Willem Bartjens
Oct 15, 2016, 9:14:55 AM10/15/16
to
On 10/15/2016 05:15 AM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> It's an interesting twist on the ideas of origin of life ! ;) :)
Nee, eerder goedkoop jatwerk uit de Transformers films (the ancient
> It's an interesting twist on the ideas of origin of life ! ;) :)
artifact known as the 'AllSpark'):
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_(Transformers)>
--
Willem Bartjens
Skybuck Flying
Oct 15, 2016, 11:36:04 AM10/15/16
to
It could be that two computers are responsible for life.
One computer could write the DNA... the other computer could read the DNA
and construct something.
I don't know what reads DNA and constructs something in todays world.
Could be seen as a male and female computer ;)
The spiralling of DNA could also indicate some mini computer perhaps with
some kind of simple rotor.
Bye,
Skybuck.
One computer could write the DNA... the other computer could read the DNA
and construct something.
I don't know what reads DNA and constructs something in todays world.
Could be seen as a male and female computer ;)
The spiralling of DNA could also indicate some mini computer perhaps with
some kind of simple rotor.
Bye,
Skybuck.
Skybuck Flying
Oct 15, 2016, 11:37:53 AM10/15/16
to
"Willem Bartjens" wrote in message
news:58022ba3$0$828$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
There could be something to it ! ;)
One possibility is that a simple metalic computer constructed a slightly
more complex metalic computer and so forth.
So life may have started with computers building slightly more complex
computers.
Biological/chemical life might be a by-product/side effect of the
electromagnetic fields from such devices ! ;) :)
Bye,
Skybuck =D
Winfield Hill
Oct 15, 2016, 1:56:02 PM10/15/16
to
Skybuck Flying wrote...
However, once this computer springs into being,
there are other improbable issues, such as the
output device. An even more improbable matter,
the program that's going to run on the computer.
Finally, there's the matter of simultaneity.
If a computer springs up here in the 5th epoch,
and an output device there in the 3rd epoch,
and a program arises someplace else, later ...
--
Thanks,
- Win
>
> What came first: "life" or "the computer".
Sounds highly improbably, but a huge universe ...
> What came first: "life" or "the computer".
However, once this computer springs into being,
there are other improbable issues, such as the
output device. An even more improbable matter,
the program that's going to run on the computer.
Finally, there's the matter of simultaneity.
If a computer springs up here in the 5th epoch,
and an output device there in the 3rd epoch,
and a program arises someplace else, later ...
--
Thanks,
- Win
John Larkin
Oct 15, 2016, 2:25:21 PM10/15/16
to
On 15 Oct 2016 10:55:50 -0700, Winfield Hill
There's a decent chance that DNA was invented and seeded across the
galaxy by some non-DNA life form, like maybe some cryogenic quantum
critter sort of thing that evolved billions of years ago. In another
few thousand years, humans may be doing something similar, paying it
ahead in honor of the critters that invented us.
So you could call that original non-DNA life form a computer. Or God,
maybe.
Maybe it also invented things that could live in gas giants or hotter
places or ice, whatever.
This idea isn't crazy, it's overwhelmingly probable.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
galaxy by some non-DNA life form, like maybe some cryogenic quantum
critter sort of thing that evolved billions of years ago. In another
few thousand years, humans may be doing something similar, paying it
ahead in honor of the critters that invented us.
So you could call that original non-DNA life form a computer. Or God,
maybe.
Maybe it also invented things that could live in gas giants or hotter
places or ice, whatever.
This idea isn't crazy, it's overwhelmingly probable.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Willem Bartjens
Oct 16, 2016, 6:39:50 AM10/16/16
to
--
Willem Bartjens
Skybuck Flying
Oct 16, 2016, 12:26:11 PM10/16/16
to
"Willem Bartjens" wrote in message
least one person on this planet ! ;) :)
Now all that is needed is the evolver to evolve itself ! ;) :)
Bye,
Skybuck.
krw
Oct 16, 2016, 5:00:40 PM10/16/16
to
it.
0 new messages