1

New Theories / SURVIVAL OF FITTEST CHEMICAL REACTIONS->LIFE??

« on: 08/02/2016 19:36:34 »

Any increasingly complex chemical reaction system undergo a sort of natural selection and some kind of survival of the fittest chemical reactions. Thus,  more and more sustainable systems of reactions will be selected and prevail in the final mixture. But what is life other than a collection of sustainable chemical systems?
 
Here are some interesting references on the problem of the origin of life:
 
a) The Bacteria: Their Origin, Structure, Function and Antibiosis By Arthur L. Koch; 2007.
 
 
B) http://philica.com/d...?article_id=483


Any comments?

2

Just Chat! / is life evolving chemistry?

« on: 29/12/2015 19:09:28 »

is life evolving chemistry?

3

Chemistry / Does the entropy of life actually increase as any common chemistry?

« on: 30/08/2015 15:28:19 »

According to the common viewpoint, life is an open system that interacts with external energy. The mainstream viewpoint is that this causes a decrease in its entropy, enabling life to emerge on the first place and to sustain itself, thus avoiding chemical chaos. In return, the system releases entropy to its surroundings so that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated.
 
The common view that the origin of life is characterized by accumulation of order, as order means lower entropy.
 
However, the term order can be very subjective, as an object non involved in life such as a rolling stone can say that it sees no order or no meaning in living systems’ chemical reactions. Just chaotic chemistry. So lets just leave order on the side and calculate entropy changes directly.
 
Does the entropy in living systems actually increase or decrease? If it increases, is it doing so in a pattern that suggests an arbitrary system? Although I am not a physicist I will welcome suggestions on how to calculate changes in the entropy of life over time.
 
Here are some simple approaches: Forgive me for any mistakes…

1)Does the life-associated heat production increase or decrease over time and how? Can life-associated changes in temperature be calculated?
2)Since chemical systems with higher entropy are characterized by increased gas production, does a life-associated gas production increase over time? In a system of decreasing entropy, one would expect a declining life-associated gas production…
Any ideas:?

4

Physiology & Medicine / can a strictly steady diet delay aging??

« on: 15/06/2015 20:41:11 »

And now a simple, almost childish assumption:

I think we all agree that life is all about chemical reactions at the end. So lets make an effort forget everything for a moment and focus heartlessly only on the reactions part of the organism. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these reactions are not arbitrary.

Chemical reactions and Aging.

If the phenotype of an organism is the sum of its chemical reactions, one thing is obvious. That these reactions become different as we age. However, we don’t know whether the initial reactions are programmed to change and lead to the latter ones, or the transition is a result of other events. In other words, is it possible to maintain the same composition of reactions for a long time, thus preventing changes in phenotype, thus preventing further aging?

Answer: In the case our reactions are programmed to change, then things are more complicated. However, in the case that the reactions can be maintained as they are, then it can happen. And below is a possible way to achieve it.

The most important thing is to prevent changes. This can be achieved by providing a certain amount, composition and pace of initial substrates to the reacting system in the form of food. We are only interested in maintaining the system unchanged. We don’t care about the composition of this system, as long as it remains unchanged. This means that any diet that repeats itself every day,( that is providing everyday the same nutrients, in the same manner without any deviations in the routine) can cause the maximum of phenotype preserving in an organism, providing that the diet is viable and supplies all essential elements for life.

Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality?

Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging.

Additionaly, anyone that tries to lose weight with the help of a specific nutrition, knows that even if he is very compliant to the perfect diet, he must periodically eat something else so as to further make changes in his body, because the body gets used to the diet and resists to further loss. It seems that eating the same food both in quality and quantity tend to cause stabilization of our body’s composition.

5

New Theories / Any complex chemical reactions system perceives itself as life!!

« on: 22/11/2014 11:28:08 »

Suppose we have a flask with simple chemical compounds and we constantly provide external energy so that random chemical reactions occur. If we continue to provide external energy then not only chemical equilibrium will not occur, but instead more and more reactions will occur and the system will thrive and become more and more complex.

    Through the eons, in a chaos of chemical reactions, only those with some kind of repeatability and periodicity will not lead to a dead end and will be able to continue happening in the long term. Additionally, many random chemical reactions will eventually lead to some molecules with the ability to adhere with other molecules and also with surfaces. These reactions will eventually prevail and become the basis for further complexity, because the chemical compounds will not diffuse around and lead to dead ends.
   Also, the reactions with the ability to promote their own existence would prevail and continue to exist, in a process which is a kind of natural selection and survival of the fittest reactions.
   Random chemical reactions does not promote a certain plan or any kind of order, but what we see, is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history. However, their end results are reactions that are characterized by survival capacities over others. And suppose that these end results are the observers of the whole system. Virtually they are composed from some chemical compounds, which are constantly changing.
    However, everything that happens leads to them. If they analyze their own reactions they will have a very good view to their homeostasis. In other words these systems of random reactions when used as a reference frame/ observers of their own systems, they would have exactly the same perspective as we ourselves have while thinking about what is life, evolution, reproduction (repeatability of reactions).
  But aren’t we a system of chemical reactions observing the system that creates us? To me, it might be the 2 different sides of the same coin. After all, what is the meaning of human biology (I am only referring to the mechanistic properties of our bodies) for a non living thing? Maybe meaningless chemicals?
   But can a things without brains used as observers? In science everything can be used as a reference frame. Human point of view is not so objective for things like speed of objects, spacetime metrics, motion etc.
  We once believed earth was standing still and everything was rotating around it. Finally we realized that we are not living in the center of the Universe. However, we still think that human biology stands in the center of Existence….

6

Chemistry / is life random and chaotic chemistry?

« on: 10/04/2014 12:08:24 »

In the beginning, people thought the earth was flat, because that was what everybody observed. However, there were fundamental inconsistencies with this model, both mathematical and logical. Additionally, human couldn’t feel the motion of the earth and thus, believed their eyes and tried to explain the skies with the assumption that earth was the center of the universe. However, things were getting far too complicated, and finally this model was replaced with the heliocentric which made things easy and clear. In all cases we were a part inside the system and we couldn’t have an objective view of things. However, can we say that today we got rid of all these subjectivities? Is there still way to go? I believe the latter is the case.
Take for instance the phenomenon of life. All that is there is a complex system of countless chemical reactions. These reactions however, seem to have some amazing properties rather than being random. What we have in life, is a system of sophisticated and stochastic reactions that lead to more and more sophisticated organisms with higher organization. These organisms are self-sustained through a complicated process that is called homeostasis. The complexity of the latter becomes more and more evident as we try to study every aspect of it in detail. For instance, acid base balance in an organism depends on a series of events that are cooperating in a way that if a single procedure was not there, then the whole system would be malfunctioning. Even a relatively simple process such as Krebs cycle is composed of such a complex system of reactions, including upregulators and downregulators that ensures that the cycle is self regulated. Countless reactions, but not a single one is placed in chance. How possible is that this can occur spontaneously? 
 My question is: Can human subjectivity help us find a more simple explanation? In fact, can we make this extremely simple and assume that all the reactions that compose life on earth are actually random? Can they just be reactions that with the help of external sources of energy like sunlight are simply becoming more and more complex over time?
Before you say that the answer is no, just think who is the observer of all these. WE. The end results. A part inside the system that judges this system from the inside. The causes judged by the result. In other words, subjectivity on its extreme.
Think about it: Even if there were only random chemical reactions what would happen on primordial earth? The reactions with repeatability that occur in a cyclic manner would not eventually lead to a dead end and eventually would go on indefinitely in the long term (what we perceive as reproduction?). In addition, some reactions with specific characteristics would eventually survive, either because they promote their own existence, or they give them survival advantage toward others. This fact, with a little help of repeatability would lead to the creation of reactions with three characteristics: survival capacity, complexity and repeatability. If the reference frame is the results of these, or else ourselves, the whole process is actually perceived as evolution. To put it mathematically, evolution is called the study of the random series of events that lead to the transformation of A to B, where B=[B1,B2,B3,….Bv], when things are viewed through the perspective of either B1, or B2, or B3, …….or Bv.
In other words, we exist not because a conspiracy force promotes our evolution, but because our reactions continue to occur. We are the ones that give value to our existence.
The importance of this viewpoint is that apart from the fact that it answers previously unanswered questions, it assumes that living beings are actually complex systems of reactions, and can thus be manipulated in predictable ways under chemical laws. This means that apart from the fact that the theory is testable and falsifiable, it indicates major implications for medicine.

7

New Theories / Physical laws through the eyes of light!!the only objective observer...

« on: 28/02/2013 14:26:57 »

As we previously stated, we are not completely objective observers of the universe, because we are a part inside the system.We are a system of chemical reactions, and so we can judge entities such as entropy, only in relativistic terms, because our own entropy is constantly changing.That is happening because we are composed from other things, and that’s why we are doomed in eternal subjectivity.
But the question is:are there objective observers in the universe?
As we are moving to smaller and simplier objects, we find better candidates that us, but still these can also be further subdivided.
But , according to quantum mechanics, virtually we cannot go smaller than the length of the light wave, because in that case, we cannot precisely estimate both the position and the speed of a particle.So, the best candidate for being the universal objective observer is the photon.
But, how are the laws of nature changing if we consider light as the only true observer?
From here on, we are moving to physics , and
I am not a physicist, so forgive me if my ideas sound stupid, but I want your opinion to this:
In electrical bulbs, the anode and the cathode are charged oppositely.The force that emerges between them is the natural tendency to contact to each other. The emerging force tries to bring the anode closer to the cathode.But this cannot happen, because of the design of the bulb.This resistance to the natural tendency is accompanied by the production of electromagnetic waves.Whether there is a causal effect, is very questionable.
Similarly, in a wire with electricity, the resistance of the wire resists to the natural tendency.
What is interesting is that if experiments showed that any opposition to the natural tendency of forces, creates electromagnetic radiation (e.g. destruction of atom nucleus, antigravity, or if we show that matter and antimatter opposes each other), and the level of resistance correlates with the amount of the produced electromagnetic radiation then we can make the amazing conclusion, that from the photons point of view, any natural tendency tends to lower the entropy of the system.Or else, from the lights point of view, there are no physical laws at all.Just the second law of thermodynamics.
This would mean that everything we perceive as natural laws are just the projections of the second law of thermodynamics because of our subjective point of view.If light is the only true observer, then the physical laws are the emergence of the entropic power of the universe.
Any thoughts?

8

New Theories / origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.

« on: 07/11/2012 17:22:35 »

When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happens with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.....Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.What would that mean to the way that we see the world?First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally during a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place any chemical reactions inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals.But maybe not.If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.


..The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions.Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seem

s to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.

Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees things in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.





..entropy of life 1)what is the difference between a man that is alive and a man that is dead?In both cases the body is consisted from the same elements and compounds.But in the first case these compounds are reacting with each other and the structure of the body changes every moment.In the second case the chemical reactions of the body are lead to an equillibrium and so the composition of the body remains unchanged.The structure of a dead man cannot change if there are not microorganisms in its environment.
The relativity of entropy

What happens with the entropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next toother to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively to the whole system of the birds.


the illusion of life

living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.The complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
the position to answer if the spores that some microorganisms forms(e.g. cryptobiosis,anhydrobiosis etc) are living forms.If their metabolismis not zero, if it exists but it cant be detected because it is so weak, then they dont differ in anything from the other organisms.If their metabolism is absolute zero, then the answer gets more complicated.The fact is that it doesnt matter what it is, because the question is useless.Life as we see it is simply the result of the chemical reactions on earth.As we said ,we are part of the system and we dont realize it, but if we were alien forms of life for example, and we were watching the earth from outer space, then we would see only a very complicated network of reactions that are becoming more and more because of the energy of light.This system would have different structural forms, colours, etc.So, what happens with the spores is that because they face very unfriendly conditions ,the certain chemical reactions stop happening or they are lowering their rate.According to our definition, they are not life, but what is life?Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look likeus, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.

We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.