Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#11

Post by dangerlibrary » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:23 PM UTC

Previous conception: We accept that the laws of physics must be compatible with the observation X (in the article's case, life), but they do not explain why X exists.

Constructor Theory: All things not explicitly forbidden by the laws of physics can exist. The answer to "Why does life exist?" is: "because the laws of physics do not explicitly prevent it."

Seems like an interesting take. I'm not convinced that it's at all useful, but it's not obviously flawed or vacuous.

Sidenote: I've never felt that the existence of life was as mystifying a physical problem as the existence of black holes, or expanding space time, or stars. Why people are mystified by life but blithely accept the existence of distant fusion reactors the size of our solar system is beyond me.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#12

Post by agentsmith » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:26 PM UTC

Anyone else come away with the feeling that the research, the 'discovery' and the article wouldn't exist if there weren't very uncomfortable atheists behind it all?

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#13

Post by trhway » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:32 PM UTC

o_nate wrote: post #8

powera wrote: post #5

This article begs the question on "Biological replication and self‑reproduction are in fact such stupendously well‑orchestrated physical transformations that one must explain how they are possible under the simple, no‑design laws of physics such as ours. This additional explanation, which was not included in the theory of evolution, is essential for that theory to properly explain how living things arise without inte…

Explaining how a cell works is not the same as explaining how cells first came to exist. Once a cell exists, given certain conditions, it can replicate itself - we can explain each step in the process with reference to laws of chemistry. However, a different question is: How did this process get started? That's the question this article is addressing.

>Explaining how a cell works is not the same as explaining how cells first came to exist

to me it became much clearer when i read somewhere (just dont' remember where) along these lines - imagine a "stick" shaped pretty simple organic molecules with one end being hydrophobic and the other hydrophilic (there are a bunch of such molecules known in organic chemistry). Having a soup of those molecules in water, some of the molecules would naturally clump together with hydrophilic ends outside and hydrophobic ends inside - kind of a small bubble. Now if on contact of a bubble with another molecule, the molecule is added into the bubble (similar like a bunch of magnets clumped together "assimilate" another magnet piece correctly orienting it), the bubble gets bigger and at some point it would naturally splits into 2 smaller bubbles (surface tension, etc...) and each bubble would continue the "assimilation"/growth and division in their turn as long as there are such molecules around... Of course it isn't even "pre-cell", it is just showing how natural physics laws can drive the initial pre-life stages.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#14

Post by Xcelerate » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

pizza wrote: post #2

Some reading that disagrees with Constructor Theory: http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsch... Looking forward to reading comments that disagree with this disagreement.

Lubos is normally a little too ornery for me, but I thoroughly enjoyed that post. Constructor theory (or at least that article about it), seems like superficial nonsense. Kind of in the same way that programming languages become bloated with concepts like "Object Factory Factories" and "Singletons" and delegates, etc.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#15

Post by white-flame » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:34 PM UTC

dangerlibrary wrote: post #11

Previous conception: We accept that the laws of physics must be compatible with the observation X (in the article's case, life), but they do not explain why X exists. Constructor Theory: All things not explicitly forbidden by the laws of physics can exist. The answer to "Why does life exist?" is: "because the laws of physics do not explicitly prevent it." Seems like an interesting take. I'm not convinced that it's at…

"The laws of physics do not explicitly prevent space unicorns living on the far side of the moon."

Yeah, I don't see this as all that useful, either. It also still doesn't in any way advance discovering what process brought things into being, it only accepts that it happened, which everybody already accepted.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#16

Post by dangerlibrary » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

white-flame wrote: post #15

dangerlibrary wrote: post #11

Previous conception: We accept that the laws of physics must be compatible with the observation X (in the article's case, life), but they do not explain why X exists. Constructor Theory: All things not explicitly forbidden by the laws of physics can exist. The answer to "Why does life exist?" is: "because the laws of physics do not explicitly prevent it." Seems like an interesting take. I'm not convinced that it's at…

"The laws of physics do not explicitly prevent space unicorns living on the far side of the moon." Yeah, I don't see this as all that useful, either. It also still doesn't in any way advance discovering what process brought things into being, it only accepts that it happened, which everybody already accepted.

We kind of already understand the physical processes that brought things into being, though. A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life. The question is "can we accept the fact that this process took place without being designed."

Constructor theory says, in short: "Yep. We can also accept the existence of space unicorns, for a physically possible definition thereof. Probably not on the far side of the moon though, since we've been there and would've seen them."

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#17

Post by Nevermark » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #13

o_nate wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explaining how a cell works is not the same as explaining how cells first came to exist. Once a cell exists, given certain conditions, it can replicate itself - we can explain each step in the process with reference to laws of chemistry. However, a different question is: How did this process get started? That's the question this article is addressing.

>Explaining how a cell works is not the same as explaining how cells first came to exist to me it became much clearer when i read somewhere (just dont' remember where) along these lines - imagine a "stick" shaped pretty simple organic molecules with one end being hydrophobic and the other hydrophilic (there are a bunch of such molecules known in organic chemistry). Having a soup of those molecules in water, some of t…

Another route starts with chemistry near deep sea vents where energy loaded compounds are continually spewing from hot water into cold water.

There will be a continual cascade of chemical changes at the vent, and if some random chemicals appear that increase the chances that each other are formed in that cascade, a self-reinforcing metabolic loop could occur.

The metabolic loop could optimize itself as it occasionally produced slightly more efficient self-reinforcing chemistry. Eventually this optimization might take advantage of self-organizing membranes to compress the metabolism into individual units, i.e. the first cells. At that point we would have "life".

Maybe that happened. Maybe not. But it is an alternate way for life to start in which distributed replication occurs before single replicators.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#18

Post by Nevermark » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

wbhart wrote: post #10

mkehrt wrote: post #6

This...seems like nonsensical pseudoscience.

After reading the article I was left with the distinct impression that "constructor" is a name for something they suppose must exist to solve their problems and that the mere act of giving it a technical sounding name allows them to say they've solved the problem of the origin of life, since now they may say "constructor theory solves that problem".

And its not even an original mistake. Our ancestors also used words (like "god") to answer (i.e. stop asking) questions about the origin of life.

But I for one look forward to worshiping the Great Constructor.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#19

Post by Nevermark » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

metaphorical wrote: post #9

Carl Sagan once said: "If you want an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". As I understand it from this article, it is saying: "Once you invent the universe, then an apple pie will exist... given enough time." ?

"Once you invent the universe, then an apple pie will exist... given enough time."

An interesting conjecture but not exactly provable! I assert that a universe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for apple pies.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#20

Post by panic » Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 9:53 PM UTC

A scientific theory has to do more than explain existing phenomena: it has to make predictions which can be tested. What are some testable predictions of constructor theory?