Origin of life challenge

 The other day I made a bet with some friends that I would be able to crack the code of one of the great scientific discoveries. It happened that, after painting a lovely picture, I was able to remember one of the special ideas I had had when I was younger. The order with which the above transpired isn't perfect, as the details of this paper are, at best, run together and stitched according to my best understanding of a number of things that are going on in the greater world without my being a part of them. 

Before I did this and while I set out on my journey, I decided that I would not dwell on religion, although it has since come to my attention that the use of religious themes is as important to the overall development of my case as it is important to the painting which led me to challenge my friends. I decided that the religious sentiment which is so carefully guarding this particular claim is capable of being realized through a number of channels, which has made me side with the polite society, which doesn't get into discussion about beliefs. I am also so happy that when we speak of things in accordance with our complete knowledge in a worldly

 fashion, we are able to include all men, which has been particularly meaningful to me. So science then belongs to all mankind, every race, creed, and nationality.

Without concerning you anymore with these trifling details, let me set out to prove my case. Many years ago, I had a blog in this very same location which I had decided I was going to use as a sort of playground for my ideas and to discover who I was as a writer. I was interested in a number of things as I had just received a bachelor's degree and was still hungry for the things I had been fed in school. One of them was history. 

History was a class which taught me things that I knew little about before college, which came as a very big surprise to me. I learned the use of the mechanics of education while I attended university and the discovery that I made was that while I was learning about histories in the class which was called history, I was also learning about the histories that took place at that time. So that I learned that Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great, and that while Charles Dickens was writing his pieces about the poor in England, the Industrial Revolution had just taken place. All of these things struck me as a much more enriching experience with the world than I had before had within a learning institution. I was set on becoming a professor, learned to write and planned to one day become a researcher. All of this set the foundation for my "discovery". What I mean to say is, I set out to discover something for the express purpose of being involved in the wonderful world of the educated class, which I saw as having a more beautiful and enriching life.

When after college I started to collect books, mostly due to the idealizing life of a writer, believing one could write books about anything and everything, and because the 2010's were filled with a kind of raw edge, I went looking online for books by H.G. Wells of whom I was in awe. However, the new student who learned so many fun facts in school only months prior was still interested in non-fiction. So my first book I purchased was his history from the beginning of time. What a wonderful book he might have written, I thought. I was most inspired by his achievement, as his fictions were so smart, and his history as well. In the opening pages, I found the very beginnings of our Earth and solar system, and I accepted them as gospel truths with a pure heart because my faith in him was so strong. He could have been wrong in his facts, the book was written in 1920. 

But instead of worrying, I allowed myself to run his self-same course, and became the man of great imaginative genius. For some reason which escapes me now, I decided that life had mimicked non-life, and I knew now the origin of life. Sometimes things like that happen, I said to myself, we have inspirations. I wrote it into my first blog, learning more after the fact. 

Here is how I learned. I first learned what abiogenesis is, then I wondered what the use of infinity was in "The Fault in our Stars".  I learned about what the philosophers thought of these things, and about Einstein. I read about the not yet discovered black holes, about other dimensions. I found out who the Philosophers of old times and new times were, the who's who. The mathematicians, the scientists, the award winners, the one's who stood on the shoulders of giants, and the one just behind him. About the schools and societies which helped to form the group of people which I longed to belong to. I learned about physics, math, philosophy, metaphysics, biology, popular discoveries, science fiction writers. I had abandoned my claim and have since deleted the material from which I had written so much. I changed course and started anew, so that my blog might actually someday lead to a career in writing, which had been the greater part of my work. 

Flash forward ten years, I am now making art. I found a nice past time and hobby in doing small digital portraits. I had always enjoyed painting for pleasure and picked up the paintbrush again to maybe make a little money as an aside to my regular work, which had yet to be teaching and research. But as I read in the opening of the second edition to Hawthorne's "Scarlett Letter", we sometimes put things away and rediscover them for a later time, not even noticing the person who we believed ourselves to be.

In the painting that most inspired my discovery of life's origin, and I hope to be able to carefully orchestrate a believable argument, I painted with absent mind and whimsy a Garden of Eden, with Shiva and earth, both women, with a telescope pointed inward instead of outward, with space as a heaven but still more beyond, illustrating the possibilities that we all are most intrigued by in our times. 

When earth's face was beginging to appear, it was as gray as stone, and I was making it stone, but now it appears as a storm. I have painted the sun revolving around the earth, the beautiful vapors of water and air pour forth from the mouth of Shiva, who wears two dragons on her head, one who's mouth is pushed up by what I called life, and the other pouring into what looks like a hot furnace. The furnace, without the explanation of the art from me as the artist, looks as though it is a scary face. I would have painted over it, as it is a popular subject matter for me to paint portraits. I thought it was ugly, but this happy accident inspired my belief in the idea which becomes a great part of my hypothesis. For at first sight the painting is ugly. It appears a hideous monster. The furnace at the center of my Earth reminds me of Gehenna, known to the Hebrews as hell. Because of this, I realized that death is a great aspect of life, and made the comment that life on Earth is sad, and that the reason why is because "she" saw only part of the story. Earth was all green and stony, and the rendition of Shiva was all encompassing of a number of popular motifs, if not possible scientific facts, especially that the Earth started as a void which had grown from the material that we recognize, which we as limited human beings must have sprung from.

As I was so enamored of my story, I made a bet with my friends that I would discover the origin of life in an afternoon. I would feel like Isaac Newton if I were right.

I said, "Once I said I had discovered the origin of life itself in my H.G. Wells book," and opened it up and went to work. I remembered that "life mimicked non-life. I remembered that the last I'd heard of this quest for the origin of life it was concerned with the minutest possible life forms, and that RNA was of a particular interest to scientists. Wells said we are broken off from the sun. I said everything necessary for life was already here. He said that there were waters and vapors and thick clouds. I said it was like a cake, being mixed together. I wondered about the necessary things that make life possible, I discovered that we now believe that water may have come from asteroids. I thought of the different colors and sizes of planets and thought of them spinning in space for billions of years, losing what they were as pieces of a star, and Earth as it's magnificent unique self, teeming with life. 

As I read Wells again, I saw that there were two paragraphs at the opening of his book that gave me this impression. The first states that the rocks were dead as the foundation of Earth was being laid. It also states that life produces some of the things which combined to create the elements that began to appear. The second paragraph tells of the first traceable elements of life. Then I looked up the periodic table, found that many elements are crystals, I looked at what was thought to be first life, again. I remembered that only a few weeks before I had imagined that man was crushed under the stony grounds which we tread daily. And realized that the search for first life was outside a positive recognition. That our soft bones and early settlements were lost to time. Then as I sat wondering about the first creatures in the geological record, I remembered, once again, 'life mimics non-life". And I remembered why it mattered to me. That I thought of the stones as the hard coverings of life. Bones, shells.

Life, I decided, used the materials that it saw. How was that possible? Well, the answer is, life was already there. And that is the answer. 

If Earth was spat from the sun, received its nourishment from asteroids, then all these materials showed up and were of use for the development of this "life"? Which we already know are made possible by anthropic coincidences, and there is no need to argue whether life may have existed or might still underly other material locations in the known universe. The only thing necessary for life then is life. And the claim that it doesn't live elsewhere is unnecessary as it becomes clear that life only proceeds when and where there is a nice place to inhabit. Then it follows that the shell is the product that holds life. and that life lives on this product. 

This can have proceeded from the big bang. It occurred to me that the death of things was the beginning of life, as death accompanies life, and that if things work in the totality of all things known, the first things may have been a sort of decay. (This is another hypothesis which had come from this. I have not had the ability to spend time on this, however, as a good catholic, the idea that there is a place of perfection elsewhere has appealed to my imagination. If we here in space/time were birthed from a death, than the decay which fed our first moments might be something to think on.)

It occurred to me that if this were true then that which I saw in my painting, a telescope from beyond the known universe(s), would be in something that was not space time. And today I challenged the idea that things in spacetime like dimensions, were possible. Not that we do not know what is around us, but that what lies beyond is life, and that dimensions do not exist in this place, for it is outside of spacetime, and death has separated it from us. This was an intriguing thought. Dimensions being of particular interest, I made a little check in my head there, which I also wish to return to eventually. 

So that, in conclusion, life is the source, and the existence of all known things, materially, is from the first decay, and that dimensionally, we exist in all known things. This is my argument for the origin of life.  (Or you know, it was on that day, lol :)

In my picture that light is in the upper right corner, thanks a lot.