Boltzmann's casino and the unbridgeable chasm in emergence of life research

TL;DR

The paper argues that a fundamental divide exists between chemistry-based and engine-based models of life's emergence, with thermodynamics indicating chemistry models cannot produce organized, life-like states.

Contribution

It identifies a conceptual chasm in origin-of-life theories and argues that thermodynamics restricts chemistry models from generating organized life-like states.

Findings

Chemistry models are inherently incapable of producing non-equilibrium organized states.

A conceptual divide exists between chemistry and engine models of life's emergence.

Thermodynamics constrains the potential of chemistry-based origin theories.

Abstract

Notwithstanding its long history and compelling motivation, research seeking to explicate the emergence life (EoL) has throughout been a cacophony of unresolved speculation and dispute; absent still any clear convergence or other inarguable evidence of progress. This notwithstanding that it has also produced a rich and varied supply of putatively promising technical advances. Not surprising then the effort being advanced by some to establish a shared basis in fundamental assumptions upon which a more productive community research effort might arise. In this essay however, I press a case in opposition. First, that a chasm divides the rich fauna of contesting EoL models into two conceptually incommensurate classes; here named "chemistry models" (to which class belongs nearly all thinking and work in the field, past and present) and "engine models" (advanced in various more-or-less partial forms by a marginal minority of voices dating from Boltzmann forward). Second, that contemporary non-equilibrium thermodynamics dictates that 'engine-less' (i.e. 'chemistry') models cannot in principle generate non-equilibrium, organized states of matter and are in consequence inherently incapable of prizing life out of inanimate matter.