top of page
Banner-Community.png
Rushton Research Favicon

Welcome to the Rushton Research community!

Great scientific shifts never happened in a vacuum. We launched Rushton Research to open a completely different avenue into the origin of life - and we want you to help us test its boundaries.

​This is a space for open, rigorous and respectful discussion of the ideas being developed at Rushton Research. You don't have to agree with them -- challenging them is part of the point of this forum.

To keep this a high quality, spam-free space, you must create a free member account to begin posting comments. Either click the profile icon in the menu, or simply tap the sign up button below. 

Sign up today. We can't wait to hear your insights on life!

Already a member? Log in.

Podcast Comments (4)

The Greatest Conceptual Crisis in the History of Science?


In his 1979 book An Outline of Animal Development, Richard Davenport wrote:


Present attempts to develop adequate principles of life represent perhaps the greatest conceptual crisis in the history of science.

Do you think Davenport's assessment was overblown - or was he right? Davenport had more to say:


...Thus, biology has attempted to describe Nature without developing an adequate understanding of its own metaphysical basis.

Fascinating. What do you think the "metaphysical basis" of biology could possibly be?


🤔


Like

Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2026


Congratulations to Henri Kagan and Kenso Soai for winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry this year for developing a way to artificially amplify homochirality. Fantastic work - 2nd only to life itself!


Here's a question to ponder: why did life select left-handed amino acids/right-handed sugars, and not the other way round?


Is this nothing more than a case of eeny-meeny-miny-moe?


Or is there a d->e->e->p->e->r r->e->a->s->o->n?


🤔


Like

Is life a philosophical, or a scientific question?


Whether life is a philosophical or a scientific question has long divided thinkers.

Without a resolution, the result is a stalemate.


Rushton Research offers a solution that may overcome this divide.

The answer is both philosophical and scientific.


Our view is that life is a communication architecture derived from pure logic (philosophy),

which is physically embodied in cells as DNA, RNA and protein (science).


Any comments?

Like

Welcome to the Rushton Research Community


This is where I hope we can have an open conversation about one of the biggest unanswered questions in science: What is life?


This community is not intended simply to be a place where people agree with the views of Rushton Research. On the contrary. We want to hear your questions, objections, counterexamples, and alternative explanations.


We would like to start by giving you our definition of life itself:


Life is the physical embodiment of the Canonical Communication Architecture or CCA; the CCA is the architecture that can be derived from the logic of communication itself.


This definition may seem rather abstract, but one of the purposes of this Community is to understand this definition and explore its consequences.


Another reason is to attack it. This serves two purposes.


First, to prove it wrong. Second, to improve our understanding of it, if it is correct.


So, with this in mind, we'd like to kick-start the Community with the following invitation:


What is the most difficult question about life that you would like a theory of life to answer?


Ask us your hardest questions. We'll do our best to answer them.


Like
bottom of page