I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that if we take established scientific theories as our premise, then the question is: "What follows from established scientific theory?".Which established scientific theory leads to the emergence of universal life ?
I explicitly phrased it as a question. How is it possible that you could have overlooked that?
This is what you said:It doesn't ! Did I say it had to ?Specifically, which laws of nature, and which currently established scientific theories are you formulating your premise on ... and why ?
On your question of "which laws of nature" I'm formulating my premise. Exactly which laws, is not really relevant in terms of my argument. Let's just call it X. Let's call "exo-life" L. The question would then be: Does X--> L? So I'm not formulating a premise. I'm explaining on a general level what the relation between premise and conclusion is, as far as it relates to the problem of life emergence.
Physical theory is mathematical at its core. You cannot separate mathematics from theory as you're doing, and what is "theoretical" mathematics supposed to refer to? Mathematics is theoretical. And how can mathematics be deterministic/ non-deterministic? If chaos theory is mathematical at it's core, how can it tell us how mathematics maps to the real world? How do we conceptualise this mapping transformation without mathematics? I suspect that this "big lesson" you've apparently learned from chaos theory is one big misconception.I would've said that mathematics exposed the existence of chaotic behaviours in theory. Measured data then confirmed its existence in nature. The expected determinism inherent in theoretical mathematics however, doesn't nessarily map across into the real world .. and that is one of the big lessons from Chaos Theory. Huh ?? Please explain further the concepts you are trying to express on my behalf !??!
I do not recognise them from your paraphrasing !