Can Quantum Mechanics Help Resolve the Origin of Life Mystery?

The physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist, Paul Davies reported in his paper titled, "Does Quantum Mechanics Play a Non-Trivial Role In Life?" that "[s]imple calculation shows that it would take much longer than the age of the universe, even if all the matter in the universe consisted of pre-biotic soup, for even a single protein to form by chance..." and that "...the classical chance hypothesis [to explain the Origin of Life] seems unsatisfactory." Is Dr. Davies correct in his opinion? Richard Cevantis Carrier (who is an historian and fervent advocate of metaphysical naturalism), reported on 46 "probability of life" studies in a 2004 paper in which Dr. Carrier argued that all of the studies which had rendered the natural origin of life to be statistically impossible (one change in 10 to the 50th power or less) were flawed. Nonetheless, considering that the age of our universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years (e.g. 13.7 x 10 to the 9 power years) the probabilities that Dr. Carrier reported seem incredibly small: Barrow and Tipler (1986: 565) one chance in 4.3 x 10 to the 109 power Borel, cited in Baudin (1962: 28) one chance in 10 to the 50 power Bradley and Thaxton (1994: 190) one chance in 4.9 x 10 to the 191 power Bradley and Thaxton (1994: 322323) one chance in 10 to the 65 power Bradley and Thaxton (1984: 145) one chance in 10 to the 117 power Bradley and Thaxton (1984: 146) one chance in 10 to the 45 power Bradley and Thaxton (1984: 157) one chance in 10 to the 175 power Cairns-Smith (1984: 4748) one chance in 10 to the 109 power Coppedge (1973: 76) one chance in 10 to the 8,318 power Coppedge (102) one chance in 10 to the 106 power Coppedge (109) one chance in 10 to the 161 power Coppedge (111) one chance in 10 to the 119,701 power Coppedge (113) one chance in 10 to the 35 power Coppedge (249) one chance in 10 to the 236 power Coppedge (235) one chance in 10 to the 339,999,866 power Cramer (1998) one chance in 10 to the 119,701 power Eden (1967: 7) one chance in 10 to the 325 power Foster (1993: 79) one chance in 10 to the 650 power Foster (82, 172) one chance in 10 to the 88,000 power Foster (3940) one chance in 10 to the 68 power Foster (52) one chance in 10 to the 163 power Guye, via Lecompte du Noy (3334) one chance in 10 to the 243 power Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (1981: 24) one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power Hoyle (1981: 526527) one chance in 4 x 10 to the 69 power Huxley (1953: 4546) one chance in 10,000 x 10 to the 1,000,000 power Ludwig (1993: 274) one chance in 10 to the 2,300,000 power McFadden (2000: 98) one chance in 10 to the 60 power McFadden (98) one chance in 10 to the 41 power Morowitz (1979: 99) one chance in 10 to the 399,999,896 power

Morris (1974: 6061) one chance in 10 to the 53 power Morris (6465) one chance in 10 to the 450 power Morris (69) one chance in 10 to the 299,843 power Overman (1997: 5455) one chance in 10 to the 536 power Quastler (4) one chance in 10 to the 301 power Quastler (6) one chance in 10 to the 255 power Quastler (46) one chance in 10 to the 20 power Quarter (58) one chance in 10 to the 6 power to one chance in 10 to the 30 power Sagan (1973: 4546) one chance in 10 to the 2,000,000,000 power Sagan (4546) one chance in 10 to the 130 power Salisbury (1969) one chance in 10 to the 415 power Salisbury (1971) one chance in 10 to the 600 power Schroeder (1997: 9192) one chance in 10 to the 850 power Yockey (1992: 154157) one chance in 2 x 10 to the 53 power Yockey (1981) one chance in 10 to the 60 power Yockey (1992: 154157) one chance in 2.3 x 10 to the 75 power Yockey (1981) one chance in 10 to the 125 power (SOURCE: R.C. CARRIER, "The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life", Biology and Philosophy 19: 739764, 2004.) In should be noted that only six out of these 46 studies could support any argument that the natural origin of life was even possible within the time our universe has existed (13.7 x 10 to the 9 power years) with the most optimistic (Quarter, 58) providing a range of probabilities from one chance out of 10 to the 6th power to one chance out of 10 to the 30th power. It would appear that, at best, the probability that life arose naturally in accordance with the conventional scientific explanations is vanishingly small. Is there an alternative? According to a 2009 paper, "The consensus is growing that the emergence of the living cell from prebiotic syntheses is related with the onset of a particular phase of matter made of a macroscopic coherent state of biochemical reactions where the interaction with the ambient results in the Darwinian evolution. The coherent state of living matter could emerge in the proximity of a critical point (biological order at the edge of c[h]aos) (Rupley et al. 1988), and there is growing experimental evidence that quantum coherence could play a relevant role (Engel et al., 2007, Hagan et al. 2002). In this scenario the key physical problem is how it is possible that the quantum coherence phase could resist to the de-coherence attacks of temperature (Barrow et al. 2004; Davies 2004)." [SOURCE: Evading Quantum De-coherence in Living Matter by Feshbach Resonance Antonio Bianconi, Rocchina Caivano, Nicola Poccia, Alessandro Ricci, Alessandro Puri, Michela Fratini; Orig Life Evol Biosph (2009) 39:page 335] Is decoherence the only problem in applying quantum mechanics to resolve the Origin of Life mystery?

Dr. Davies would say: "no". He goes on in his 2004 paper to write that "Quantum mechanics may offer a radical alternative ...[to the classical chance hypothesis]. Since quantum systems can exist in superpositions of states, searches of sequence space or configuration space may proceed much faster. In effect, a quantum system may 'feel out' a vast array of alternatives simultaneously. In some cases, this speed-up factor is exponential (Farhi and Gutmann, 1998). So the question is: Can quantum mechanics fast-track matter to life by 'discovering' biologically potent molecular configurations much faster than one might expect using classical estimates?" In answer to his own question, Dr. Davies (on page 75 of his paper) goes on to write: "Though it is easy to believe that quantum superpositions might accelerate the discovery of a specific, special, physical state (e.g., the 'living' state), there is an element of teleology creeping into this mode of thought. We might be familiar with what it takes for a system to be living, but a molecular mixture isnt. The concept of a 'target sequence' or 'goal' at the end of a search is meaningless for molecules. Nevertheless, a quantum search could speed up the discovery of life if there is some way in which the system 'knows when it is getting hot,' i.e., if there is some sort of feedback that senses the proximity to life, and focuses or canalizes the search toward it. Sometimes it is claimed (Fox and Dose, 1977) that 'life is built into the laws of physics,' i.e., that there is an inbuilt bias or directionality in physical processes that guide them toward 'life.' Expressed more neutrally, 'life' constitutes an attractor in chemical sequence space. But to suppose that such an attractor is conveniently built into the laws of nature is just too contrived to be believable (Davies, 2003)." How does a uniform distribution of matter spontaneously develop a nonuniform distribution while continuing to obey the standard principles of nature such as entropy and the conservation of momentum, energy, and matter? It would appear that unless some "element of teleology" can be discovered that is "built into the laws of nature, there is little hope that quantum mechanics can help science resolve the origin of life mystery. In what follows, I will first discuss how the same boundary condition that has been posited to mathematically derive a background independent quantum gravity, by causal dynamical triangulation (CDT) theorists, might, in the context of the time symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics (TSQM) of Drs. Yakir Aharonov and Jeffery Tollaksen, provide a plausible contextuality to overcome the issues raised in Dr. Davies' paper and potentially resolve the "origin of life" mystery. Specifically, I will, by speculatively joining aspects of CDT and TSQM research, attempt to show how a form of "teleology" may be introduced into the time evolution of creation. Let's begin: In quantum mechanics, the initial quantum state of any system evolves over time into a probability distribution of all possible states consistent with the initial boundary condition. If an initial state is assumed in which all possible states and spacetime geometries are subsumed, a probability distribution of possible states, including all observable states, will necessarily arise. Applying time symmetry, this probability distribution will simultaneously appear as the set of all futures and the set all histories which can arise from and lead to this common point of origination

and destiny. As this point of origination constitutes both the systems beginning and ending boundary condition, all actualizations must occur within this contextuality. If the big bang is then understood to have occurred as an actualization event within this preexistent contextuality, it would constitute the initial boundary condition for our universe and, inter alia, embody all of the laws of physics pursuant to which our universe could thereafter evolve. All subsequent actualizations would then be strongly bounded by this and the set of all immediately preceding actualizations; but would also be subtly influenced by a future unity or destiny toward which all of our possible futures would necessarily converge. As can be seen, this speculation introduces a kind of teleology into the time-evolution of Creation which is the vary factor Dr. Davies saw missing . From the frame of reference of Dr. Carrier and science, the process is an entirely natural phenomena while the centripetal convergence toward unity may, from the frame of reference of the theologian, be understood as the "Divine destiny" of creation "ordained by God. The beauty of the speculation is that determinism comprised of contingency preserves Free Will within that contingency. In other words, human choice exists within those individualized boundary conditions of each persons Now. Additionally, as to the "Origin of Life" question, we now have an "end" which potentially provides the "feedback" loop and "attractor in chemical sequence space" that, in Davies' view, any quantum mechanical explanation to the Origin of Life" mystery would require. Key Scientific Assumptions: There are two key assumptions that I have made in this speculation that require further explanation. The first assumption relates to the systems' initial state. For the purposes of this conjecture, I have assumed that the initial state is a superposition of all possible states, to include all possible space time geometries. As noted in Wikipedia, "Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines the collection of all possible states that an object can have. The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two...." Additionally, my assumption that the initial state is a superposition of all possible states is equivalent to that made by a promising quantum gravity theory called "Causal Dynamical Triangulation". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causaldynamicaltriangulation, and http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/0509010 As you will note from the cited resources, that my initial state and that assumed in Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) are equivalent. You will also see that Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) has had some significant successes and is now the third leading quantum gravity theory--behind string theory and loop quantum gravity. Although CDT is way too nascent for any predictions about its ultimate success to be made, CDT appears to be emergent, with both string and Loop Quantum Gravity theorists taking a harder look at it in the last few years.

The second critical assumption involves time symmetry. In this regard, please note that virtually all of the laws of physics are time symmetric. I wish the consideration of time symmetry in the context of a final boundary condition were entirely original to me. It is not. For example, Roger Penrose, in the article titled The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy, wrote: Normally, one thinks in terms of systems evolving into the future, from data specified in the past, where the particular evolution takes place is determined by differential equations. ... One does not, on the other hand, tend to think of evolving these same equations into the past, despite the fact that the dynamical equations of classical and quantum mechanics are symmetrical under a reversal of the direction of time! As far as the mathematics is concerned, one can just as well specify final conditions, at some remote future time, and evolve backward in time. Mathematically, final conditions are just as good as initial ones for determining the evolution of a system. (Quoted from Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Universe, Chapter 27, The Big Bang and its thermodynamic legacy, p. 687) Additionally, in a paper titled New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics (See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.1232 Jun 2007) Yakir Aharonov and Jeffrey Tollaksen have written as follows: "Up until now we have limited ourselves to the possibility of 2 boundary conditions which obtain their assignment due to selections made before and after a measurement. It is feasible and even suggestive to consider an extension of QM to include both a wavefunction arriving from the past and a second destiny wavefunction coming from the future, which are determined by 2 boundary conditions, rather than a measurement and selection. This proposal could solve the issue of the collapse of the wavefunction in a new and more natural way: every time a measurement takes place and the possible measurement outcomes decohere, then the future boundary condition simply selects one out of many possible outcomes [35, 32]. It also implies a kind of teleology which might prove fruitful in addressing the anthropic and fine-tuning issues [77]. The possibility of a final boundary condition on the universe could be probed experimentally by searching for quantum miracles on a cosmological scale. While a classical miracle is a rare event that can be explained by a very unusual initial boundary-condition, Quantum Miracles are those events which cannot naturally be explained through any special initial boundary-condition, only through initial-and-final boundary-conditions." It must next be asked if the claims of those promoting TSQM should be believed? In this regard it is extremely relevant that recent studies have quantitatively confirmed predicted outcomes which were unique to the TSQM formulation of quantum mechanics. As these outcomes cannot be explained by the traditional formulations of quantum mechanics, it appears that paradigm shifting "proofs" of TSQM are both beginning to be reported by independent research groups and to be recognized in the popular media. In the book "Atheism and Theism" John Jamieson Carswell (J.J.C.) Smart writes, in his "Reply to Haldane", "As a philosopher I am happy enough if we can see that the origin of life is not impossible according to physical principles and cosmological knowledge. We do not need a detailed theory of it to prefer a naturalistic explanation (thin and as yet speculative as it may be) to a supernaturalist explanation. (page 152)

The above provides an even better alternative. It provides a plausible "Origin of Life" narrative in which both scientists and theologians might be able to agree.