Where's the evidence that life needed to start and didn't always exist?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Box of Rain

But I agree with you that's not the same as what the OP is proposing, which is that life "always existed" and came into existence along with the universe, and thus didn't ever need to start -- it just was.

The phrase "always existed" is incompatible with "came into existence", it's a contradiction in terms. If something has "always existed" it did not, and cannot have 'come into existence', and if something has 'come into existence', then it didn't always exist. Come on people, this isn't that hard. I guess that's what you get when you indoctrinate people with the unverified philosophy that time had a beginning; and confuse people some more by introducing misleading terms such as "space-time", which is neither time nor space (only relates to those concepts). I guess you can blame Einstein and his merry band of devotees for that one.

I can't tell if you are disagreeing with me or not, but my point is that life came into existence sometime AFTER the universe was created and life did NOT always exist.

I don't think it was possible for life to have existed in the conditions of the very early universe (when only 4 elements existed). If the OP wants to posit it was possible, then he needs to give a description of life that can exist in that early universe.

So there could have been metal-rich rocky planets out there LONG before our sun even existed, which means there was a decent chance there was life in the universe long before our sun existed.

That argument is like saying: because mountains contained metals a couple of billion years ago, there is a decent chance that space shuttles existed billions of years ago as well. A bit of a weird jump in logic, or leap of blind faith (based on wishful thinking and fantasy in the case of life).

From single amino acids to life is less of a jump, and that's already a rather far-fetched idea without outside intervention from someone who knows what he's doing, so to speak (I described it slightly differently before when I was talking about the 5 nucleobases or nucleotides found in life).

I think the conditions the exist in the universe today also existed at least 7 Billion, 9 Billion, or more years ago. So if life has the ability to begin in our universe today (and I think it does) life likely would have been able to begin a couple of billion years before our sun/solar system came into existence.

I also think it's quite possible that there was intelligent life that existed somewhere in the unfathomably vast universe before our sun even lit up into existence. We are probably not the first. And maybe panspermia is a thing, and we are somehow connected to past galactic life. Who knows?

However, life did not "always exists".

a reply to: Box of Rain

I have explained this over and over again and it hasn't been refuted. I'm not going to repeat myself, but read the last 2 posts. You said:

However, life did not "always exists".

This statement is meaningless. We're supposed to believe you because you proclaim it without a shred of evidence that life had to start. Show me the evidence that says life had to have a beginning. All you can talk about is the origin of life on earth. You can't extrapolate that to the entire universe without a shred of evidence.

As I said, scientifically, materialist pseudoskeptics can only talk about how life originated on earth. You can't extrapolate that to the entire universe. There isn't any evidence that life had to start. On the contrary, the evidence points to life existing since the beginning of the universe in the form of Quantum Information.

I have listed evidence to support what I'm saying.

Al I'm hearing from you guys is proclamations and hyperbole.

Please, provide evidence that life in the universe had to start which is different from debating the origins of life on earth.

I want to see articles and published papers that say life had to start somewhere. I don't want to see anything about the origins of life on earth.

Box of Rain mentioned there were only 4 elements in the entire universe at the beginning. At that time Earth, or our solar system, didn’t exist. The number of elements in the early universe has been simulated many times by numerous researchers, so this is not in doubt. Life, as we know it, could not have existed in the early universe. Full stop.

a reply to: neoholographic

OK, then let me rephrase...
I think life almost certainly did not always exist.

I appears going by what we know that life processes (the ability to use and transfer nutrients, etc) would require more than four elements (elements 1 through 4 on the periodic chart) to be able to exist. And those elements didn't even actually exist at the beginning of the universe, but rather a short time after the universe began.

So if you want to say there was life at the very beginning of the universe, then please describe how that life can work in the confines of that early universe as we understand it. Before we start saying something occurred, such as life existing since the very beginning of the universe, then we must describe some plausible way that it could in fact exist.

You make the claim "maybe it existed since the beginning", so please expand on that claim.

I mean "prove that it didn't" is a silly argument. Of course I can't prove that it didn't; I can't prove a negative. I can, however look at what we think the universe was like at the beginning and try to figure out a way life processes (as we understand them) could exist in that early universe.

I suppose you could argue over my use of the phrase "life processes as we understand them" and say "what about life processes as we DON'T understand them?", but them we are back to the old "prove that it didn't exist" silliness.

There is a whole branch of astrobiology trying to figure out what kind of "life as we DON'T know it" might exist in the universe, They run models showing how other types of biology might exist in the universe. These models are needed to show that their hypothetical life can in fact work before they claim that it can. If their models fail, that doesn't mean such hypothetical can't exist. It just means they can't say that it can.

So please give some details about how life could have existed in the conditions of the early universe. Even if you can't, that doesn't mean that life absolutely positively could not have existed, because we can't prove the negative.

However, we can say "applying our current knowledge, and until someone can show otherwise, it appears life did not always exist as long as the universe existed."

So there's the invitation to go show otherwise.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Box of Rain mentioned there were only 4 elements in the entire universe at the beginning. At that time Earth, or our solar system, didn’t exist. The number of elements in the early universe has been simulated many times by numerous researchers, so this is not in doubt. Life, as we know it, could not have existed in the early universe. Full stop.

Again, more hyperbole and proclamations from pseudoskeptics but zero evidence that life had to start. In my last 2 posts on the previous page, I have listed a ton of evidence that supports what I'm saying.

I keep asking for evidence that life had to start somewhere from pseudoskeptics and I get the same gobbledygook.

Here's more. Scientist are starting to turn to Panpsychism and they're asking is the universe conscious:

WHY SOME SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE IS CONSCIOUS

mindmatters.ai...

Is the Universe Conscious? Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

www.nbcnews.com...

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Here's an interesting question and answer from the Physics Department at the University of Illinois.

Question:

Given that in quantum theory information can not be lost, can information be created? That is, can (does) the total information of the universe increase, or is it steady, as in the conservation of matter/energy?

Part of the answer:

The conservation of information is derived from quantum field theory via the quantum Liouville theorem. Quantum field theory works both forward and backward in time, so the conservation of entropy (or information) works both ways. If quantum field theory is correct (as it so far seems to be) then information, in the abstract, is neither created nor destroyed. Pure states remain pure states. A probabilistic combination of pure states keeps the same set of probabilities.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

Again, life has always existed as Quantum Information and some Scientist are trying to connect QM with consciousness as with Fisher and the QuBrain Project. Other Scientist say consciousness is more fundamental like Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Brian Josephson.



Here's the description of the video:

Brian Josephson, PhD, is a Nobel Laureate physicist who is director of the Mind Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University. His recent research has revolved around intelligent processes in nature as they relate to foundational physics. He is coeditor of the anthology, Consciousness and the Physical World.

If anyone wants to check out some of his work, his homepage is:

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...

Like I said, I provide evidence to support what I'm saying.

All pseudoskeptics give us is hyperbole and proclamations. Saying "Full Stop" means nothing. Provide us with evidence that shows life had to start somewhere.

As the question and answer from the university of Illinois shows alongside all of the evidence that Quantum Information is at the heart of Quantum Biology, which means life has always existed as a pure state of Quantum Information and what we see locally is a mixed state that corresponds to a pure state which is described by the wave function.

I know pseudoskeptics will not grasp this from Plato's Cave where they only hear materialism, see materialism and speak materialism.

The evidence that life has NOT always existed—or more appropriate would be to say that, the UNIVERSE has not always existed—is entropy.

Entropy exists. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed eternally.

This is simple logic.

Only something immaterial, ie God, might be immune to entropy. However, all physical matter is not immune.

So it makes sense if all life originated in the metaphysical state, and became physical life, through God's creating it, and Earth to hold all life, and when life ends, it returns to the metaphysical realm.

It would explain how life began, in the physical realm, and will eventually finish, when the Sun and Earth die, and the whole cycle is done, and perhaps another cycle will begin, with another Earth-like planet, so life can once again exist, in physical form....


Thanks for the post, it made me think a bit more about this issue.

a reply to: turbonium1
What is appearing now is constantly disappearing.... it appears and disappears at the same instant.
Watch a thought or sensation... it is changing form.

The illusion is that there are solid long lasting things.

a reply to: turbonium1
Nothing was ever created....

There is just what is appearing.... what is appearing is the entire field..... the entire field is divided into parts by words.... but words cannot really divide the whole.

Concepts arise within the whole and speak of things which are not.

Where is the past?

I think that our entire life happened at once, but we play it out over the 85 years or so on Earth. Deja vu is like a 'glitch' where we know we've done something already, at that same place, with the same people there, and we can't understand why that would be. To me, the only way to explain it is that it HAS happened, everything in our life has happened, and we have glimpses of what we've 'done' already, which we call deja vu. Our life exists, and plays out on Earth, until it's completed.

It's like seeing a movie you think you've never seen before, even though you did see it years ago, but don't remember it. You enjoy it because you don't remember seeing it before, and if you did remember it, you wouldn't enjoy it as much. You already know what happens. There's no surprises, no plot twists that made it so interesting the first time you saw it.


Can you imagine what life would be like if we constantly had deja vu happening, every minute of our lives? When I've had deja vu, the first thing I want to do is stop it, because it's so weird to feel that you've experienced something before!

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: turbonium1
Nothing was ever created....

There is just what is appearing.... what is appearing is the entire field..... the entire field is divided into parts by words.... but words cannot really divide the whole.

Concepts arise within the whole and speak of things which are not.

Where is the past?

No past, present, or future exists. All exists at once, imo.

If you think there is no creation, do you not think we have created things on Earth?

a reply to: turbonium1
What is appearing is what there is.

Even thoughts are just appearances.

Imagination is just images appearing.

What else has there ever been but what is actually appearing?

a reply to: turbonium1

This is what there is no matter what name is overlaying it.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: turbonium1
What is appearing is what there is.

Even thoughts are just appearances.

Imagination is just images appearing.

What else has there ever been but what is actually appearing?

Feeling an emotion can occur with no appearance of anything, yet it still exists.

And appearances can mean one thing to you, and mean another thing to someone else, yet both occur. The same thing can be 'seen' in many different ways.

a reply to: turbonium1
The emotion is the appearance.
But there isn't a separate thing feeling the emotion......

The illusion is that there is someone plus the feeling/emotion.

There is just what is happening.... always just this imedicy.

a reply to: neoholographic

You have to explain in your own concise words what you refer to as ‘life’. I for one don’t have the quantity of hours available to read through your source material to understand your misunderstanding.

To the vast majority of people life - or something that is alive - is a physical embodiment. It’s tangible. If you’re talking about spirits or ghosts then I know exactly how much attention to pay to this thread...

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: neoholographic

You have to explain in your own concise words what you refer to as ‘life’. I for one don’t have the quantity of hours available to read through your source material to understand your misunderstanding.

To the vast majority of people life - or something that is alive - is a physical embodiment. It’s tangible. If you’re talking about spirits or ghosts then I know exactly how much attention to pay to this thread...

Really??

I have explained it over and over again but why should I repeat myself when you say this?

I for one don’t have the quantity of hours available to read through your source material to understand your misunderstanding.

This is just pure laziness.

I read or at least look at everything that someone posts that I'm debating because If I'm wrong, I want to know it. You on the other hand are so blinded by pseudoskepticism, you can't even take the time to read evidence that you're debating????

You say this:

to read through your source material to understand your misunderstanding.

This is just ignorant.

You don't read the evidence provided that you're debating against but you say that I have misunderstood the material but you haven't read the material.

This Plato's Cave personified.

If you want answers, read my posts and the links I added. I'm not going to keep repeating myself to someone that can't take the time to actually read what you're debating against!

I read or at least skim over links that people post that I'm debating against. How can you learn anything if you're not willing to read an opposing viewpoint?

a reply to: neoholographic

Your proposal is preposterous - that life existed at the birth of the universe. For you to try justify that with dozens of links on quantum relationships is equally preposterous.

So, how could life, as we know it, exist with such little source material? Explain ‘life’ to me. If you are saying life is some pre-existing ‘thought’ that eventually a physical body will retrieve, then I don’t believe you or anyone else who claims it.

If you’re saying that physical entities were there at the beginning then I don’t believe that either.

Which is it?

a reply to: TerraLiga

Like I said, I don't want to hear your proclamations and hyperbole.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, you can ask but I'm not going to explain it to you again when you're too lazy to read a few links. I provided a gang of evidence and commentary to support what I'm saying.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, just say it.

If you do understand, then tell me why I'm wrong and provide evidence that life had to start somewhere.

a reply to: neoholographic

I read or skimmed everything you linked to. Everything, bar one experiment, is supposition and theory. You said you posted proof. There is none in your links.

Our life originated on earth approx a billion years after its formation. DNA suggests this at least. I have no idea when it started in other parts of the universe, but it has never ‘always existed’ either physically or in thought.

You’re a very angry person when you’re not agreed with. I suggest you that that problem looked at.