Replies

The paper I quoted is not by Kahre, it's by a Hungarian scientist with the charming name of Attil[a] Grandpierre. It refers to his (and Ashby's) law several times in describing the information paradox, but he is proposing a way out of the paradox--without resorting to an external agent.

Why did you rest on the "Hungarian scientist with the charming name," and not google Jan Kahre himself?

Of course, this "Hungarian scientist with the charming name" is "my friend the astrophysicist." I have been collaborating with him over the past decade as his English-language copy editor. And I can assure you that he rejects abiogenesis theory out of hand, while at the same time seeking a "B_N" explanation for the rise of life.

In retrospect, your quote sounded a whole lot like my friend. I should have picked up on that....

He and I have been having conversations for a long time now re: "B_I" vs. "B_N." He has told me that he has found such conversations "stimulating" and "valuable."

Over time, he has come to see that the "eternal universe" cosmological model (his preference) really doesn't work. And now accepts that the universe had an origin.

And that changes everything.

So, what was the date of the paper you are quoting here? If he has recently gone into "chemoton mode," it would be news to me.

Why did you rest on the "Hungarian scientist with the charming name," and not google Jan Kahre himself?

I googled "Kahre's Law of Diminishing Information" and that was the fourth hit. The first three didn't really do any more than state the law, which you had already done, so they didn't provide any context.

Of course, this "Hungarian scientist with the charming name" is "my friend the astrophysicist."

Really? Cool! You know, that even occurred to me while I was reading his paper. I don't know, I guess the paper just sounded like some of his quotes that you've posted or something.

So, what was the date of the paper you are quoting here? If he has recently gone into "chemoton mode," it would be news to me.

It says "Received: 15 September, 2005. Accepted: 15 October, 2005." (I gave the link in my earlier post, if you want to download it.) It'd be interesting to know what he meant when he wrote, "We think that chemoton theory is basic and will remain fundamental even when we turn our attention to a complementary aspect relative to chemical evolution: to the quantitative understanding of the origin of genetic information." [emphasis added]