[betty boop]

By the way, I agree with the "chemical soup" view of the origins of life, just as I believe in the "lump of iron" view of the origin of diesel engines. You start with a lump of iron, and inject energy and information (technology, plans, intelligent directed effort) and voila', an engine.

Great observation, marron! Here we are referred back to Aristotle's four causes: the formal (plan, blueprint, or schematic that specifies the design of the phenomenon "engine"), the material (the physical stuff used in its construction), the efficient (intelligent directed effort to realize the the intended phenomenon according to plan), and the final (the purpose or goal for which the phenomenon "engine" is being built). That's a heck of a lot of information at all four causal levels.

Seems to me the "chemical soup" scenario of the origin of life is directly analogous: It is a staggering improbability that the material cause alone can create a living cell, even adding an efficient cause (light, electricity, and so forth).

Ontological materialists reduce all of the universe to simple matter. That's all they've got to work with. And yet all systems in nature, living and non-living, are made up of the same exact particles and fields. Matter alone gives us no insight into what makes a thing a living thing.

Thanks for your excellent essay/post marron!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your excellent essay-post!

Ontological materialists reduce all of the universe to simple matter. That's all they've got to work with. And yet all systems in nature, living and non-living, are made up of the same exact particles and fields. Matter alone gives us no insight into what makes a thing a living thing.

So very true - as the Wimmer v Urey/Miller experiments illustrate. Urey/Miller were only able to create amino acids by zapping (Frankenstein type experiment.) But they didn't know about information theory and molecular biology back then.

Wimmer on the other hand started with the DNA message which he was able to synthesize to RNA and by using a cell-free juice, bootstrapped the polio virus. I repeat, he started with the message.

Following the Shannon model, a virus is tantamount to a broadcast message – somewhere in genesis there must be an explanation for autonomy - directed messaging - and semiosis et al.

It’ll take all four Aristotlean causes to investigate the complete picture IMHO.

[.30Carbine]

It is a staggering improbability that the material cause alone can create a living cell, even adding an efficient cause (light, electricity, and so forth).

Ontological materialists reduce all of the universe to simple matter. That's all they've got to work with. And yet all systems in nature, living and non-living, are made up of the same exact particles and fields. Matter alone gives us no insight into what makes a thing a living thing.

I love reading your words!

[aNYCguy]

It is a staggering improbability that the material cause alone can create a living cell, even adding an efficient cause (light, electricity, and so forth).

This is a mighty bold declaration. Does this mean that you have calculated the nonzero probability of "the material cause alone" creating a living cell?

all systems in nature, living and non-living, are made up of the same exact particles and fields. Matter alone gives us no insight into what makes a thing a living thing.

The second sentence here doesn't even begin to follow from the first. If you're well aware of that and are just making more declarations which are self-evident to you, then please continue.

Otherwise, you should consider that the statements "A living object is made of particles" and "A non-living object is made of particles" do not together imply that "allusion to magic is a requirement of any definition of life."