This working paper develops a theoretical framework to identify conditions for abiogenesis viability, suggesting implications for origin-of-life research.
The Conditional Abiogenesis Problem — Part II: Sufficient Physical Conditions for Conditional Necessity This working paper develops a theoretical framework for identifying the physical and dynamical conditions under which the transition from abiotic chemistry to endogenous viability may become conditionally necessary within a specified physical regime. Rather than treating the origin of life as the appearance of a particular molecule, reaction, or compartment, the analysis focuses on the transition into a state capable of maintaining and reconstructing the conditions required for its own continuation. The framework distinguishes three independent sources of failure: persistent abiotic alternatives, failure to reach the viable regime within a declared time horizon, and failure of endogenous reconstruction or recursive continuation after entry. Conditional necessity is obtained only when all three failure channels remain within a prospectively defined tolerance. A central requirement is that the relevant system boundary, environmental conditions, initial states, viability criteria, time horizons, and tolerances are fixed before evaluating the outcome. External experimental support cannot retrospectively be counted as endogenous reconstruction. The approach is carrier-independent and does not privilege RNA-first, metabolism-first, replication-first, lipid-first, or other specific origin-of-life scenarios. Instead, it provides a falsifiable criterion that can in principle be applied to different chemical, protocellular, or synthetic-cell systems. The paper does not claim that life is universally inevitable, nor does it reconstruct terrestrial abiogenesis. It establishes the conditions that would have to be physically satisfied for endogenous viability to become a conditionally necessary dynamical outcome within a declared regime.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rudolf Schaefer (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: