Possible objection no 6
Some yet to be discovered law of physics will prove to be the source of biological information
This is an interesting question that forms the fundamental basis of all origin of life research. So this is one question that really needs to be addressed. Is this hope realistic? Can the laws of nature create semiotic information, the computational algorithm that manipulates the laws of chemistry to form biological systems?
I believe the main body of this site has definitively answered this question already, however for the sake of a comprehensive coverage of this question I think it is worth covering from a slightly different angle.
While the laws of physics are without question the driving force of much of our physical reality, as already stated, the immaterial nature of information poses a quite different challenge. The specific nature of this challenge will be explored in the following section.
The physical laws are quite capable of driving disordered matter into ordered structures. Stars, planets, tornadoes, crystals and snowflakes for example. These are all examples of physical order but most importantly not organisation. On the other hand any computational algorithm requires organisation not order. What is the difference? And why is it important? Here is an example of the difference
Snowflakes and symphonies
It is said that every single snowflake is unique in shape and structure. If that is the case the total number of different snowflake shapes must be truly vast. The laws of physics that create snowflakes have been in existence since the beginning of time, therefore the variety of snowflakes that have ever existed is beyond calculation.
However, have any of these snowflakes ever formed in such a way to create the musical notations of a symphony? Or to form the solution to a pre existing complex mathematical equation? No. And no matter how long we wait, that will never occur. Why?
The reason is that the laws of physics while they certainly have creative power, they also operate as a constraint on possible outcomes, they restrict possible outcomes to within certain boundaries. As a result, what they produce is an example of order. Tornadoes for example will always form a nicely ordered vortex, never an organised dictionary.
The laws of physics are by their very nature very predictable, that is why they are referred to as laws, the outcomes of their operation can be accurately calculated in advance. As a result mathematicians can use the laws of gravity and motion to calculate the trajectory of both the moon and a space rocket with incredible accuracy to ensure they meet. They know that if a spacecraft is launched in a certain direction with sufficient force the rocket will rendezvous with its target at a precise time and place.
The laws of physics produce ordered, fixed outcomes. By contrast the ability to form the kind of complex algorithmic programing required by both biology and an orchestra requires that pragmatic choices are made toward a known goal at each and every step along the way. This directional objective choice selection is an example of organisation to accomplish a goal as opposed to lawlike order which restricts possible outcomes in a way that is blind to any future goal.
It is this goal driven choice selection that marks the difference between the constraints of lawlike order and the spectacular organisation that is required to create both a symphony and to write a complex algorithm.
Chance and necessity
What about introducing an element of chance into the mix? It is certainly realistic to expect a certain level of random chance events to be part of any processes in a prebiotic world. Surely this opens up the opportunity for randomly generated success?
The problem is that just like the laws of physics, chance events when viewed over the long term, are also very predictable.
If you flip a coin 10 times you will likely get an uneven distribution of results. Flip our coin a hundred times and the ratio of heads to tails will likely begin to even out. However if you flip a fair coin a million times you will get very close to a 50 / 50 ratio.
If you are expecting chance to have a positive effect on the production of a large scale computational algorithm you will need to factor into your reckoning the fact that any fortuitous chance selection will inevitably be undermined by an equal number of undesirable selections.
In fact this problem of random chance is much worse for the random creation of a functional biological sequence than our illustration of flipping a coin might suggest. While flipping a coin has just two possible outcomes, one of them perhaps could be viewed as the desired outcome the other undesired, by contrast there are vastly more ways to produce a non-functioning biological sequence than there are to produce a functional one.
Therefore, a random chance selection process would be vastly more likely to a produce a non-functioning sequence.
Chance is a very poor strategy for success.
So what is required?
To demonstrate exactly what is required to create organisation lets take as an example something that we definitively know is capable of writing an algorithm - a human computer programmer.
A skilled computer programmer uses his previous knowledge and experience to write a functioning code. However to make a comparison lets change some of the circumstances to more realistically reflect the nature of the task of creating coded information without the benefit of an intelligent agent and using only the constraining laws of physics.
First of all let's remove our unfortunate programmer's access to a known goal. Without a stated objective, our programmer, just like every blind material process lacks a direction for his actions. He lacks the ability to see in advance and therefore navigate his choice selections toward the required function.
Next, lets introduce some random chance to this process by removing the lettering from and redistributing the keys of his computer keyboard as well as switching off his monitor.
Now lets introduce some lawlike constraints to his actions by disabling a percentage of his keyboards keys. This will remove a considerable amount of the possible outcomes and narrow down the choices he is able to make with each keystroke.
We can also delete our programmers previous knowledge of the semiotic conventions of computer programming by removing the skilled programmer himself and replacing him with a complete novice.
And finally, lets remove his volition, his conscious desire to achieve anything at all.
This scenario helps us see just what is required to organise individual pragmatic choices into a coherent functional algorithm - a desire coupled with knowledge and complete freedom to accurately express those choices.