Eric, I love your 'project'. Do not despair by my liking it, it does make
sense to me even outside of the orthodox physicalistic thinking.
I don't copy the long text, everybody got it, only some little parts
of it, to which I paste some comments (marked -  [JM]:)

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 3:27 AM
Subject: The Facts of Life
>
> CMR wrote:
>
> >Indeed. The constraints to, and requirements for, terrestrial life have
had
> >to be revised and extended of late, given thermophiles and the like.
Though
> >they obviously share our dimensional requisites, they do serve to
highlight
> >the risk of prematurely pronouncing the "facts of life".
> >
> Just to be mischievous, I'll here pronounce "the facts of life" or more
> precisely "a sketch of a theory of the emergence of life" which will serve
the
> purpose of partially constraining/defining what is meant by life. This is
a
> hobby project.
>
> The Emergence of Life Via Weak (Stochastic) Physical Pattern Replication
==================================================
> Definitions:
>
> "pattern" a form of order or regularity, which can be described by a
> finite and usually simple set of constraints.(...)

[JM]: I'd add: ...,a 'model', chosen from a finite set of observed cases.

SNIP...
> Abstract:
> ---------
> The natural selection process that results in the evolution of lifeforms
> as we know them can be extended
> backwards in time further than is traditionally assumed, to fully
> explain the emergence of life from chance-occurring patterns of
>matter and energy ... that lifeforms exhibit.

([JM]: I know: on this list of physicists one can not escape from the word
'energy'. Could anybody DEFINE its meaning - not identifying what it
does or how it compares to other concepts (measurements) or why we
have to think of it, just the term, in a classically identified meaning)

SNIP
> Characteristics of a living organism:
> -----------------------------------
> 1. It self-replicates (aka reproduces).
[JM]:
since the prokaryotes nothing reproduces. Nothing replicates 'self'.
Especially since the invention of sexes: two organisms activate a process
in which a third one is produced as a result, not matching either of the
instigating parents. It is the 'species' that may said to reproduce, even
this only superficially meant, because the ever changing environmental
circumstances result in variations (mutations?) of the reaction-product.
The variant can be applicable to the (changed, new) environment, or
not, when it does not proliferate. The first case - as observed after some
time (many generations, in science) are called "adaptation and natural
selection". The 'bad' product died out and are not even observed.
(Concurring ideas in Appendix B).

SNIP
> 3. It is an autonomous agent (within some environmental constraints.)

[JM]: perfect with the parenthesis, viewed WITHIN the set boundaries
of our modelled observation. (Similarly expressed further on).

SNIP
> Thesis
...
[JM]: I might have (similar?) ideas - expressed in a less physiclistic mode,
which, by some, may sound 'just less precise'. Exactly, since I think in
not-so-restricted boundary-enclosed modelling and so the equations
of identical values are more fuzzy (influenced by the 'neglected' data
outside the circle of the actual observational model).
This was also an 'unprecise' statement.
I concur with the par (in a sense that 'environment is beyond boundaries):
> Definition-weakening 3: ENVIRONMENT-DRIVEN METABOLISM<
extended to more than just metabolism.
The Appendices require more time to my readings.
Appendix A is formulated in a rather 'physicalistic' language.A short
remark concerning App. B is included above.
So I skip the rest. I thank Eric for a great idea and its excellent
exposition.

[JM]
>
SNIP


Reply via email to