Methodology to Expand Science: Relative Fermi Estimation
I conduct personal research on the origin of life from the perspective of a systems engineer.
The main debates regarding the origin of life focus on where life originated on Earth and which chemical substances played central roles. Other discussions largely involve meticulous investigations into how specific chemicals used by life forms were produced.
However, from a systems efficiency perspective, I believe it is more realistic to assume that chemical evolution progressed through the interaction of a wide variety of chemicals utilizing all available locations on Earth. This intuitively seems to be the most functional mechanism from a systems engineering standpoint, and analyses from various perspectives also support its validity.
On the other hand, formally and scientifically validating this insight typically requires gathering evidence, conducting experiments, or performing simulations. Without such validation, this idea remains merely a hypothesis, treated on par with or even less than other unvalidated hypotheses, especially if it lacks the support of other scientists.
Scientific validation is, of course, crucial. However, when bound by this requirement, hypotheses that are difficult to test experimentally or simulate may be unfairly disadvantaged compared to those that are easier to test, even if theoretically sound. As long as hypotheses are evaluated based on the degree of validation, their plausibility and credibility can become inverted.
To overcome the limitations inherent in the methodology of scientific validation, it is essential to establish an alternative scientific methodology for domains where gathering evidence or conducting experiments and simulations is challenging. This is necessary not only for my research but also for many other fields where science struggles.
To this end, I propose a methodology called “Relative Fermi Estimation.” This applies the concept of Fermi estimation, which involves making approximations based on ambiguous information, to evaluate the validity of scientific hypotheses. Using relative Fermi estimation, it becomes possible to objectively and rationally compare and evaluate the validity of hypotheses without relying on empirical evidence.
In this article, to clarify this concept, I will begin with an illustrative discussion about pyramid construction as a hypothetical example.
Artificial Mysteries
Please read the following passage. This narrative is my creation and not a true story. While logically constructed, it contains a deliberate setup designed to evoke a sense of incongruity.
The setup involves researchers in the story thinking under the assumption that only the minimum possible participants and skills are available. This serves as a thought experiment to highlight how artificially imposed constraints can create apparent mysteries.
＜The Mystery of Pyramid Construction＞
The construction of monumental structures like pyramids remains a significant mystery.
Researchers debate which specific settlement’s people built them. Prominent theories include one suggesting a nearby settlement’s inhabitants and another proposing a distant settlement with a surplus of young men.
Additionally, debates about the skills involved are active. Some propose that strong laborers were gathered to build the pyramids, while others suggest it was a team of stonecutters and transporters. Recently, some researchers argue that a collaborative effort by these groups was responsible.
None of these theories are definitive. Experimental studies attempting to replicate pyramid construction using various configurations of people have led to numerous discoveries.
Meanwhile, some believe that these methods were insufficient to build the pyramids, proposing theories involving extraterrestrial interventions or unknown forces.
Recent progress in empirical research has strengthened support for the theory that local inhabitants built the pyramids.
Neglecting Intuitive Understanding
In the narrative, the intuitive insight that building monumental structures like pyramids could not rely solely on people from a specific settlement or with specific skills is deliberately ignored. Intuitively, we assume such projects would require a vast workforce with diverse skills, including physical laborers and skilled technicians.
Moreover, disregarding the feasibility of a comprehensive approach and focusing only on skewed assumptions creates the perception of an inexplicable mystery, prompting some to prematurely attribute it to extraterrestrial or supernatural forces. This neglect of holistic reasoning underpins the sense of incongruity in the passage.
Is It Truly a Mystery or Just Contains Mysteries?
Most people would not consider pyramid construction itself a mystery. Rather, many details remain unknown due to historical information loss, meaning mysteries exist within the broader context of pyramid construction. While specific details are unclear, the overall feasibility of such projects is within the realm of achievable undertakings given sufficient planning and manpower.
In the narrative, pyramid construction is labeled a mystery because of artificially imposed assumptions that restrict consideration to specific settlements and skill sets. Removing these assumptions eliminates the mystery surrounding pyramid construction itself.
Alternatively, if historical estimates indicated that even accounting for all resources available at the time, the pyramids could not have been built, then it might warrant being called a mystery. For instance, if the efficiency required were tens of times higher than estimated, it would imply a substantial technological breakthrough is missing.
If no amount of increased manpower or efficiency could feasibly overcome the challenge, then pyramid construction might indeed qualify as a fundamental mystery.
Counterarguments Based on Scientific Reasoning
Intuitively, we believe that many people with diverse skills were involved in building the pyramids. We also reject the premise that only people from a specific settlement or skillset could have been responsible.
However, the following counterargument might arise:
“There is no evidence to support your belief. You need to provide proof. Furthermore, the exact number of participants and the skills required remain unclear. Without direct reproduction, your hypothesis cannot be confirmed. Thus, your intuitive hypothesis and the specific-settlement hypothesis are both unverified. Intuition alone is not scientific, so pyramid construction remains an unresolved mystery.”
Though seemingly far-fetched, this argument is logically valid.
Relative Fermi Estimation
To avoid labeling such discussions as “scientific,” we must reform methodologies that recognize only evidence- and validation-based theories as valid. Specifically, for phenomena where evidence is unattainable and experiments infeasible, an alternative methodology must be acknowledged.
This is where I propose Relative Fermi Estimation.
Traditional Fermi estimation approximates results for phenomena with limited data and experimental constraints. Although these approximations often diverge significantly from precise values, they can reasonably indicate whether a threshold is surpassed — for instance, a value estimated to exceed a benchmark by 1,000 times is likely to do so.
Relative Fermi Estimation applies this principle to compare the validity of competing hypotheses.
Evaluation Using Relative Fermi Estimation
Consider the pyramid construction example. Compare a hypothesis involving only a specific settlement with specialized skills to another positing the participation of all settlements with diverse skills.
From a manpower perspective, the latter could involve roughly 100 times more workers. Similarly, the impact of diverse skills might yield a tenfold advantage in productivity per unit time.
Combining these estimates suggests a 1,000-fold productivity advantage. Despite this stark difference, conventional science treats both hypotheses as equivalent until further evidence emerges. However, under Relative Fermi Estimation, the second hypothesis is 1,000 times more plausible.
Even if new discoveries benefit the first hypothesis, their relative advantage would still pale in comparison, leaving the 1,000-fold differential intact.
This approach does not dismiss the first hypothesis but emphasizes that its significantly lower productivity estimate should be a foundational consideration in discussions.
To enhance scientific validity, this method must transparently disclose estimation processes, assumptions, and results from independent evaluations, integrating substantial discrepancies into scientific discourse as essential evidence.
The Origin of Life
Let us apply relative Fermi estimation to the discussion on the origin of life.
Many mainstream theories assume that life originated in specific locations such as hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, mineral surfaces exposed to tidal fluctuations, or hot springs. These theories also propose that certain self-catalyzing chemical groups, like those central to the RNA World Hypothesis or metabolism-first models, played a pivotal role.
However, as I argued earlier, I believe that chemical evolution must have progressed through the interaction of a wide variety of chemicals utilizing all locations on Earth. While events at specific locations or the emergence of particular chemicals could have been critical milestones or breakthroughs in the origin of life, life is evidently too complex to be fully explained by these alone.
Both mainstream assumptions and my hypothesis lack conclusive evidence and remain unverified by experiments or simulations. In this sense, they are treated as equivalent hypotheses.
Yet, applying relative Fermi estimation reveals a significant difference in validity and feasibility between them.
Relative Fermi Estimation for the Origin of Life
Considering the efficiency of chemical evolution, the key parameters are the number and variety of chemicals and the frequency of new combinations over a given time. When comparing a scenario confined to specific locations with one encompassing the entire Earth, my hypothesis is at least 1,000 times more advantageous in terms of the number of chemicals involved. Regarding the variety of chemicals, it is likely more than tenfold better.
Additionally, in terms of the frequency of new combinations per unit of time, my hypothesis offers an advantage of at least 1,000 times. By not limiting the chemicals available for interactions to specific types, this further amplifies its benefits by a factor of more than ten.
Furthermore, dispersing chemical evolution across compartmentalized regions with diverse chemical conditions promotes stable progression and prevents saturation. A dispersed model with multiple evolutionary pathways is inherently more stable than a single-path approach.
Given Earth’s composition — land, oceans, numerous lakes, and ponds — it provides countless compartments that can facilitate chemical evolution. Earth’s water and atmospheric circulation systems also enhance the dispersal and recycling of chemicals synthesized in these compartments. Compared to hypotheses focused on specific environments or chemical groups, this model is at least tenfold more advantageous in terms of saturation prevention and stability of evolutionary progress.
Even a simple multiplication of these factors yields a difference of a billionfold.
Of course, these estimates likely involve significant errors, and I might have unconsciously favored my hypothesis in my calculations. However, even allowing for uncertainty in the exact figures, it is clear that my hypothesis offers a much higher efficiency for driving chemical evolution.
Thus, applying relative Fermi estimation demonstrates a significant difference in the feasibility and validity of conventional hypotheses compared to mine.
The Mystery of the Origin of Life
Research into the origin of life has already established, from a systems-theory perspective, that chemical interactions form feedback loops, with new chemicals synthesizing and forming additional feedback loops. It is also known that these loops are subject to natural selection, being either sustained or disrupted, driving chemical evolution forward.
Moreover, experimental evidence confirms that the major chemical components of life — nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids — can be synthesized under abiotic conditions given the necessary precursor molecules and energy. The polymerization of these molecules into complex polymers has also been demonstrated.
When these known findings are combined with my hypothesis, it becomes evident that chemical evolution on a planetary scale would proceed far more efficiently than suggested by conventional theories.
This means that the origin of life is no longer a mystery in itself. Instead, the mystery lies in the specific pathways, sequences, and processes that remain to be elucidated.
This is akin to the example of pyramid construction. While details about the pyramid-building process remain unknown due to lost historical records, it is reasonable to assume that a large workforce over a long period achieved the construction. Thus, the mystery lies in the details, not the construction itself.
Similarly, in the case of the origin of life, the specific evolutionary steps, the order of emergence of functions and chemicals, remain mysteries. However, this does not mean that the origin of life itself is mysterious.
In Conclusion
My hypothesis remains a hypothesis and requires evidence, empirical testing, or simulations for validation. Relative Fermi estimation confirms that my hypothesis is more plausible than conventional location-specific or limited-chemical hypotheses, but this does not guarantee its correctness or factuality. For instance, reality might lie somewhere between my hypothesis and traditional ones, such as a localized scenario involving RNA-protein hybrids driving chemical evolution.
Nevertheless, the fact that the origin of life itself is no longer a mystery remains unshaken. Just as pyramid construction could be accomplished with fewer people and skills than currently assumed but remains feasible with sufficient resources, the origin of life no longer qualifies as a fundamental mystery.
For both the origin of life and pyramid construction, the remaining challenge is to uncover plausible pathways and explanations for the details lost in history. These details are mysteries, but they do not render the phenomena themselves mysterious.
Furthermore, this discussion highlights the utility of relative Fermi estimation as an extension of scientific methodology. By applying relative Fermi estimation to the origin of life, we have clarified previously unresolved aspects, demonstrating that the origin of life is no longer a mystery.
Without relative Fermi estimation, my hypothesis would be treated as an unverified hypothesis, and I could not reasonably claim that the origin of life is no longer a mystery. Whether or not we accept relative Fermi estimation determines whether the origin of life remains an enigma or is considered resolved in scientific terms.
This methodology also has similar implications for fields where scientific validation is difficult or time-consuming. It is not about bypassing rigor or neglecting scientific precision. The essence of science lies in understanding nature through reasonable, verifiable means. Evidence-based validation is a primary and robust method, but relative Fermi estimation is equally scientific in its rationale.
Accepting such a methodology is not merely a matter of preference; it fundamentally alters the reach of science. Expanding scientific methodologies while retaining scientific principles broadens humanity’s ability to explore and understand. From this perspective, we must seriously consider extending science with methods like relative Fermi estimation.
