Thread: Where did life come from?

Energy in motion is the essence of matter

Energy at rest is emptiness, ie Nothing

Motion is required for the concept of time to come into effect

No motion = No time = Timless Emptiness



People could argue that Enegy and matter are dualistic opposites

Yet this is not so

Energy is all there is

The primary duality is motion itself


So, the primal question would have to be :

What brought/brings about movement from non movement?

This itself is not possible

One is in time one is not

Non movement cannot move itself, cannot be a cause


The only likley answer is in if the energy itself were alive and aware

Willfully moving or not moving

This brings about questions concerning Will, Awareness and Consciousness

What is the nature of these aspects and their relationship to one another?



If there is awareness, then there must be something to be aware of

Without movement there is no awareness

Thus there must be some subtle movement somehwere

Perhaps movement is an inherent aspect of awareness?

Perhaps this is the primary mover itself?

Already built into the works

Ever present

Perhaps one has to think that there was ever a nothing. Maybe a point/singularity from which spawned our universe, but the energy itself was always there. Perhaps that singularity is the product of some other universe, or that our current universe is an expanding fragment of a former universe. There are lot of ideas going about within the scientific community, of which are going through the Scientific method and peer-review in order to weed out the crazy ideas and the valid ones. However, the problem with this is whilst we can figure out the start of our universe, because we are bound to this universe, we can never look beyond it and thus discern for certain the actual cause for the beginning. We can make guesses, and some will be more valid than others, but it'll never be a 100% certainty.

As for the origins of life, look for abiogenesis. It is currently a hypothesis undergoing experimentation and refinement, and which seeks to explain the emergence (not diversification) of life. More or less summoned up as non-self-reproducing chemicals combining in certain forms in certain conditions for self-replicating chemicals to arise (from which begin to arrange in more complex arrangements in order to facilitate replication).

I would say life and lifelike systems are consistent with the tendency of the basic stuff of being to take on more heterogeneous and complex forms in ever more intricate relation to each other.

Originally Posted by Dreamhope11

Everything has a start and an end.

Well, no. If you truly examine anything, there is no clear "beginning" that does not demand another cause. You just get caught in the logical paradox of chasing ever expanding chains of causation into infinity, because the universe as a traceable chain of causes and effects is a nonsense proposition. The universe--the total field of being--is self-causing, exhibiting the world of forms perpetually through its natural activity. Cause-and-effect is useful in exploring relationships and gaining leverage against phenomena within the universe, but it has no meaning when applied to the timeless depth of being itself.

Life is animated matter.

Where do you think it comes from?

I love how people say "life cannot come from non-life." That is ridiculously absurd for many reasons.

1. We do not even know what life is. That is to say, we do not know what quantifies "life."
2. Even if we did, where would the "line" be? If there is a certain criteria, such as a digestive system, does quality of the attribute matter? What defines a digestive system? What about an incredibly rudimentary digestive system? What is a digestive system but something that harvests energy essentially? So wouldn't an engine (such as one in your car) be a "digestive system? Perhaps that is not what a digestive system is currently "defined" as (I'm no biologist), but hopefully you understand my analogy do understand why defining life and attributing it to certain objects is a very nebulous procedure.
3. What is any living thing but a collection of atoms in a certain order? So how can life (collection of atoms) not come from nonlife (collection of atoms). I know this is a large oversimplification as it stands, but bare with me. As I said, you can start with a certain (nonliving) chemical and a particular process can add something else to it which gives it an additional property. The summation of all its properties may create a system which has some sort of function. And life is nothing but systems of function to reach some intended purpose.


That's all I got right now.

Consciousness is the basis of everything, life included.

So a unicellular organism is not life...?

Sure, why wouldn't they be?