Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#31

Post by arjunnarayan »

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.

> However, a different question is: How did this process get started? That's the question this article is addressing.

I consider this issue pretty much answered by Chapter 2 of the Selfish Gene, "the replicators". Link: http://www.evolbiol.ru/gene/index_2en.html#02

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#32

Post by jheriko »

> In short, the theory presupposes the possibility of certain accurate physical transformations, and these are just what no-design laws of physics fail to provide in their starter kit.

this statement is strictly untrue. it seems to assume that this behaviour is not going to be selected for, when very trivially it is...

natural selection isn't special to life... it applies to everything, again for obvious reasons.

its a very, very simple consequence of existence. those things that survive longest survive longest. its so simple its hard to explain. its no more complicated than the action of a sieve, which stops clumps from going through due to physical constraint - a form of natural selection.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#33

Post by euyyn »

cristianpascu wrote: post #28
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…

One thing that seems to be missed in, at least, formulating the problem of origin of life, is that cells don't reproduce themselves. No living organism reproduces itself. Cells split into two different cells and the mother cell ceaces to exist. What it's reproduced is the suite of processes that make possible the existence and multiplication of a certain kind of complex entities, what we call living organisms. It's p…

The cell as an entity doesn't reproduce, but that's not bigger a problem than the fact that an animal as an entity doesn't reproduce either. The ideas of the extended phenotype work inward also: the genes that do reproduce are the genes that codify reproduction. All other genes and structures of the cell are merely helping that happen. They vary because that increased the long-term chances of reproduction happening.

From that point of view, there's no need to invoke processes, nor entities like organisms or cells: what's being reproduced are the genes to reproduce, and the laws governing it are just mathematics, like with a prion or a virus.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#34

Post by DougMerritt »

arjunnarayan wrote: post #31
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.

> However, a different question is: How did this process get started? That's the question this article is addressing. I consider this issue pretty much answered by Chapter 2 of the Selfish Gene, "the replicators". Link: http://www.evolbiol.ru/gene/index_2en.html#02

Please. I've always liked that book quite a lot, but Dawkins did not present (and did not claim to present) a theory of abiogenesis.

No one has ever presented an actual theory of abiogenesis, the current article notwithstanding, as opposed to some intriguing but speculative hypotheses that might (or might not) turn out to be part of an eventual theory (RNA world, clay catalysts, deep sea smokers, lipid membranes, etc. etc.)

Considering a totally open subject to actually be answered and finished is just saying you personally don't care to pursue the topic in more depth.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#35

Post by qq66 »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #16
white-flame wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Construc…

>" 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."

That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#36

Post by dangerlibrary »

qq66 wrote: post #35
dangerlibrary wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." Construc…

>" 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." That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)

I don't think either constructor theory or any alternative theory addresses anything I skipped.

Either you accept that the initial state that lead to life was constructed, or you accept that it was not constructed and are faced with the problem that constructor theory intends to address. These theories attempt to explain why the initial state for the universe was conducive to life/stars/black holes/whatever - everything I described is long after the fact.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#37

Post by jhallenworld »

andbberger wrote: post #26
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…

I couldn't agree more, this article is pseudoscience garbage. The author appears to be one of the primary proponents of so called 'constructor theory'. I dug a bit into their research and it's setting off all of my skeptic alarms. Their primary research papers appear to be typeset in Word for christ sake. To nitpick some particular aspects of the theory and article: From the wikipedia article on constructor theory: "…

I agree with you except for the sentiment expressed by "Their primary research papers appear to be typeset in Word for christ sake."

I don't remember the name, but there was a computer architecture journal which had papers printed with dot-matrix printers (this was in the 80s). I would not discount the value of work due to this.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#38

Post by qq66 »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #36
qq66 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" 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." That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)

I don't think either constructor theory or any alternative theory addresses anything I skipped. Either you accept that the initial state that lead to life was constructed, or you accept that it was not constructed and are faced with the problem that constructor theory intends to address. These theories attempt to explain why the initial state for the universe was conducive to life/stars/black holes/whatever - everyth…

Oh, I don't think "constructor theory" answers any interesting questions. I just think that there is a very interesting question about how we get from primordial soup to self-replicating cells that we don't have a good answer for yet.

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#39

Post by Confusion »

andbberger wrote: post #26
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…

I couldn't agree more, this article is pseudoscience garbage. The author appears to be one of the primary proponents of so called 'constructor theory'. I dug a bit into their research and it's setting off all of my skeptic alarms. Their primary research papers appear to be typeset in Word for christ sake. To nitpick some particular aspects of the theory and article: From the wikipedia article on constructor theory: "…

I think you should realize David Deutsch is not the author of the piece and give him some more credit.

Statistical mechanics does not explain the existence of the life that currently exists. At most it proves complexity can come into existence. But not every state of the system has been visited and we don't have infinite time (and whether a billion years is sufficiently 'infinite' for some purpose first needs to be proven). The question is: is this life likely?

Re: Constructor Theory Solves the Riddle of Life

#40

Post by cronjobber »

Nevermark wrote: post #18
wbhart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nice theory. Fly in the ointment: Our ancestors didn't stop asking, quite obviously, given that we ended up here.
Post reply on HN