Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

> It is amazing this (perhaps pithy) comment is so down voted

Socrates, Jesus, Lao-tzu, Bodhidharma, Buddha - all were outright killed or expelled and lived very lonely lives.

I would like to give you an example in that which is visible for your understanding.

in order for a tree to reproduce, it must sprout first, and have a life in which it produces a flower, which gets pollinated, generally speaking. The important point is that from that flower which is pollinated, eventually, a fruit is formed. When the fruit is formed and detaches, that detached fruit is the state of death. even if the tree dies, it can revive through what it stored within its fruit.

Agreed - Venus is particularly unlikely to have any life because of its temperatures, I wasn't trying to claim otherwise, just choosing a near neighbor for which we haven't ever tried to look at its rocks through a microscope.

However, those pictures don't tell us anything about the presence of microscopic life. On Earth at least, only a quite tiny subset of unicellular life-forms leave any trace large enough to be visible at that level of magnification. Even if they are there in quite large quantities. "Teeming" is of course a relative term, but imagine that there were 1000 unicellular organisms similar to an amoeba on every square cm of those pictures. Would you expect to see anything?

Hi to All, and warm thanks Denis. More, thank you for the attention to this Stu - Andrea paper now online on OSF and arXiv. We will submit it soon.

The origin of life field is many decades old, wonderful, and wonderfully fragmented. The two main approaches are: i. Template replication. ii. Metabolism first. I am a guilty party with respect to "metabolism first". In 1971 I realized that in a sufficiently diverse and complex chemical reaction system, self reproducing collectively autocatalytic sets would arise as a first order phase transition. Such sets have now been engineered using DNA, RNA, and peptides.

A stunning set of recent results led by Joana Xavier has now demonstrated small molecule collectively autocatalytic sets, with NO DNA, RNA, or peptide polymers, in all 6700 prokaryotes. I am a co-author. Joana did all the work, entirely.

It is not yet certain that these sets actually reproduce in vitro - a critical set tests to be done. If yes, I think this almost rules out a template first view. Such a template system would have to evolve RNA enzymes to catalyze some "connected metabolism" to create the building blocks for the template replicating systems. But there is no reason at all why such a connected metabolism on its own, without RNA polymer enzymes, would be collectively autocatalytic.

Joana's sets create not only amino acids and ATP, but the central rudiments of linked energy metabolisms.

I truly think the on line paper is basically correct. Living cells really are Kantian Wholes that achieve Catalytic, Constraint and Spatial Closure. Via these, cells literally construct themselves. Their very boundary condition molecules constrain the release of energy in many non-equilbirum process into the few degrees of freedom that construct the very same boundary conditions. Entirely new, and due to Mael Montevil and Mateo Missio. I missed it for 15 years. Rather dumb, thrilled that they did it.

The marriage of the TAP process with the theory for the first order phase transition of collective autocatalysis, TAP-RAF really works. The evolving complexity and diversity of the system increases, then the first order phase transition arises with probably almost 1.0. If YES, the emergence of life in the evolving universe really is expected.

Then two major surprises. Due to Constriant Closure, the way a cell reproduces itself is not at all the way von Neumann envisioned in his self reproducing automaton. The familiar distinction between hardware and software vanishes. This must be deeply important, but its meanings are still very unclear to me.

The second major surprise is that Andrea and I are confident we have demonstrated, and punished as "A Third Transition in Science?" J. Roy. Soc. Interface April 14, 2023, that we can use no mathematics based on set theory to deduce the ever - creative emergence of novelties in the evolving biosphere. If correct, as we believe, this takes the evolving biosphere entirely beyond the famous Newtonian Paradigm that is the basis of all Classical and Quantum Physics.

The evolving biosphere is a non-deducible propagating construction, not an entitled deduction. The evolving biosphere is not a Computation at all, it is a non-deducible construction. If so, why do we believe with Turing and AI, that the becoming of the world, mind, everything is algorithmic? It is not. Andrea and I published, "The world is not a theorem". If correct, physicists will have to consider what this means. So do we all.

Warm wishes,

Stu

They were explained clearly in the article I found. Although those last three are self-explanatory if you know what the individual words mean, they’re in the dictionary.