Sure, as a matter of logic in the absence of chemical knowledge.

Once you study the various elements and realize that carbons' chemistry is uniquely rich with a set of capabilities other elements lack non carbon replication becomes meh.

Silicon comes close, but the energies suck, elemental Si is too stable, and its oxide a solid.

> oxide a solid

At room temperature and pressure of rooms built by beings made of carbon.

But we know what happens at temperatures and pressures -> things break down and become less interesting.

SiO2 is quartz. At a T high enough to melt it (never mind a vaporize it to have a cycle analogous to the C-CO2 cycle), Si chemistry breaks down.

Carbon chemistry is unique because it occupies a unique chemical niche. It makes interesting and stable compounds at T high enough to have appreciable rates, but low enough that things don't just rip themselves apart.

Not to mention at T high enough to vaporize SiO2 you won't have water, which is a pretty nifty solvent for life to have.

Think of it this way. We know the bond strength of the various chemical bondings. We cant get around that and each type of bonding is responsible for several unique and fundamental moiety in biological replication.

> Not to mention at T high enough to vaporize SiO2 you won't have water, which is a pretty nifty solvent for life to have.

Yeah, not even iron could work as a solvent at that temperature.

the logic here is extremely iffy

Sorry, to avoid embarrassment I didn't include the conclusion:

Since, as stated, non-carbon chemistry is limited, non-carbon life (very broadly defined as replication of information) is either impossible or incredibly boring.

but this is what I’m saying. perhaps it’s possible to have life from other elements, but carbon-based life simply dominates it to a degree that it doesn’t survive