# Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [July 5, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606 "2018-07-05T23:20:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/43 "2018-07-07T03:22:11Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> We certainly live in a universe governed by QM. What you claim to be a classical universe is a superposition of QM effects. All of today’s technology is QM in nature. Cell phones, HDTVs. At every level the rules of QM determines how the systems work. Photosynthesis is a QM process at certain wavelengths of light. Even the network of synapses in your brain is QM based. Try generating electricity with a solar panel without knowledge of QM. Are you keeping up with Quantum computing? We live in a universe where QM is the natural law, not GR, QM.

So much of this is fraught with uncertainty it is hard to know where to start. QM is immensely useful but most scientist think it is also incomplete. In that sense, it is not the natural law that governs the universe. We are still looking for the grand unification.

@Patrick, do you know what “provisionality” is in science?

Also, QM is clearly in contradiction with GR, but that does not mean it invalidates GR. We hold both things as provisionally true, even though they are in contradiction. Do you know what paradox is?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2018, 11:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/44 "2018-07-07T11:56:53Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> So much of this is fraught with uncertainty it is hard to know where to start. QM is immensely useful but most scientist think it is also incomplete. In that sense, it is not the natural law that governs the universe. We are still looking for the grand unification.
> 
> @Patrick, do you know what “provisionality” is in science?
> 
> Also, QM is clearly in contradiction with GR, but that does not mean it invalidates GR. We hold both things as provisionally true, even though they are in contradiction. Do you know what paradox is?

QM is the most tested and complete description of how nature works at the base level. New understanding are being made all the time so yes, it is provisional truth. But it is the basis for all natural laws. And it is no longer considered to be incomplete. Today, nearly all scientists consider QM the basis of the way nature works. QM is not in contradiction with GR, it is GR that must be modified to be a QM theory of gravity. That is what Hawking tried to do for black holes when he discovered that Black Holes evaporate.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2018, 1:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/45 "2018-07-07T13:35:57Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Most of the processes you are crediting as QM are better thought of as electromagnetism - one of the four fundamental forces of our classical universe.
> 
> However, I won’t try to persuade you further. We shall have to agree to disagree.

My PhD and 35 years career has been in this area. I am pretty current in the field and the latest discoveries in both the science and the technology. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction.

In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it “the jewel of physics” for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.

QED is at the foundation of all of the physical processes we experience - all chemical and biological processes. It is truly amazing that as you take apart emergent processes like chemistry and biology you get at the very foundation level - QED.

How is QED related to Peaceful Science? More so than you may think. Because the universe is fundamentally described by QM, discussions of an all knowing creator bump against the uncertain and random nature of QM. Does God really know the quantum state of an electron entangled with another electron? Does God know the outcome of a simple coin toss before I flip it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/6/6b7bf72453a5c60b0919b6b89a27dc18bc52382c.png) [@system](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [January 12, 2019, 7:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/46 "2019-01-12T07:26:28Z")

</div>



---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 1:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/47 "2019-02-01T13:52:27Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Please read Tour’s essays and watch his video and then get back to me.

I have. It’s mostly nonsense. In essence it commits two fallacies. Argument from ignorance, and begging the question.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 5:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/48 "2019-02-02T05:23:55Z")

</div>

2 posts were split to a new topic: [Rumraket: Response to Dr. Tour on Abiogenesis](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/rumraket-response-to-dr-tour-on-abiogenesis/4242)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/49 "2019-02-02T14:30:55Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Hi Patrick. The truth or falsity of this statement comes down to the question of whether we live in a quantum universe or a classical universe. I believe most physicists and philosophers of physics are coming to the view that we live in a classical universe that has some quantum effects. For example, we can generate electricity using only wave or wind power and there are no quantum effects involved at all. If our universe was strictly a quantum universe, this would not be true.

Coming into this very late, but @Patrick is on the right track here. It makes no sense to object to QM based on electromagnetism, as EM has been fully subsumed into QM via QED. QED can derive Maxwell’s equations and thus can explain the generation of wind power, for example.

@swamidass is also right in a way that there are outstanding problems in QM and physics in general that QM is the ultimate theory of reality. A really interesting recent one is the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, which casts doubt on the universality of quantum mechanics. But, this is not what @Ronald_Cram had in mind.

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/](https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 7:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/50 "2019-02-02T19:39:51Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> A really interesting recent one is the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, which casts doubt on the universality of quantum mechanics.

Daniel, you’re more versed at this stuff than I am; can you say what is wrong with this recent rebuttal to the Frauchiger-Renner paradox in section 9.1 of [this paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.11140.pdf)? Admittedly I did not check whether all his projections and decompositions are correct, but assuming that they are, at face value his arguments make sense to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronald\_Cram](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronald_cram/32/570_2.png) [@Ronald\_Cram](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ronald_Cram)\
**Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/51 "2019-02-03T16:28:15Z")

</div>

You are correct that the Frauchiger-Renner paradox is not what I had in mind. What I had in mind is the fact that wind and wave power can be used to generate electricity without any need for quantum inputs. In a purely quantum universe, this would not be possible.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/52 "2019-02-03T16:29:46Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> In a purely quantum universe, this would not be possible.

Can you explain why?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/53 "2019-02-03T16:42:32Z")

</div>

Interesting, I haven’t followed the debate since the original paper came out. Will read it when I have time…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronald\_Cram](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronald_cram/32/570_2.png) [@Ronald\_Cram](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ronald_Cram)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/54 "2019-02-04T18:31:07Z")

</div>

Because in a purely quantum universe, energy could only be generated by quantum effects.

Professor Carlson has a good explanation for why our universe is a classical universe with some quantum effects.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 9:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/55 "2019-02-04T21:53:13Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Because in a purely quantum universe, energy could only be generated by quantum effects.

I’m having difficulty making sense of that.

In a purely quantum universe, all of classical physics would be seen as something like a statistical summary of quantum effects. I don’t see how you could make the kind of distinction that you are trying to make.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronald\_Cram](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronald_cram/32/570_2.png) [@Ronald\_Cram](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ronald_Cram)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 10:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/56 "2019-02-04T22:01:56Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> In a purely quantum universe, all of classical physics would be seen as something like a statistical summary of quantum effects.

Yes, but the generation of power would require the input of quantum effects. Did you watch the video I linked for you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 10:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/57 "2019-02-04T22:27:14Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Yes, but the generation of power would require the input of quantum effects.

This part makes no sense.

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Did you watch the video I linked for you?

I was underwhelmed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 5:12am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/58 "2019-02-05T05:12:42Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> Did you watch the video I linked for you?

The video is a standard popular presentation of quantum mechanics. Nothing about power generation, nor of whether our universe is fundamentally quantum. In fact, Carlson tends to support the contention that fundamentally, matter is quantum if you look at small enough scales. If you zoom out, then statistics washes out quantum effects such that the universe looks classical. This is the standard explanation of quantum mechanics and how it relates to everyday life.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronald\_Cram](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronald_cram/32/570_2.png) [@Ronald\_Cram](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ronald_Cram)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/59 "2019-02-05T16:34:50Z")

</div>

It was a Carlson talk in which I learned about her reasons for saying we live in a classical universe with some quantum effects. She said the field is slowly turning to that view. That must not be the right talk.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronald\_Cram](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronald_cram/32/570_2.png) [@Ronald\_Cram](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ronald_Cram)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/60 "2019-02-05T16:37:34Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> This part makes no sense.

It makes sense to me. Waves and wind are classical entities, not quantum entities. Power generation without quantum entities involved in the input indicate the universe is mostly classical with some quantum effects. That conclusion makes perfect sense to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/61 "2019-02-05T16:39:36Z")

</div>

> [@Ronald\_Cram](#):
>
> It was a Carlson talk in which I learned about her reasons for saying we live in a classical universe with some quantum effects. She said the field is slowly turning to that view. That must not be the right talk.

It’s all quantum effects which results in a classical universe at macro-scales, if my understanding of physics is correct. Your description is a bit like saying that we live in a universe of molecules with a few atoms here and there.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606/62 "2019-02-05T16:50:26Z")

</div>

Can you give a link to the right talk then?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-abiogenesis-an-hypothesis-in-distress/606.md?page=4)