What is life?

[Essay]

Ah, is the word "*****" a scientific term? I do not understand the meaning of the word as Boerseun is using it.

Life is compelled by, or a slave to, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT).

 

:hihi:Thanks Boersuen, That is a neat way of saying:

"Life is Nature's way of turning light into heat."

 

...&....

...extrasomatically...!

ding! ding! ding! ding!

You've coined a new word (isn't it?)! I love it!

It'll be ringing in my head all day.

 

...secondary thoughts: (with implications for Artificial Intelligence?)

Doesn't all life use information to maintain homeostatis?

:naughty:

[Thunderbird]

[

 

That film is pseudoscientific nonsense, and is cut from the same cloth as Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and should not be taken seriously.

 

The quotes your you gave are well balanced science based accounts of where traditional physics ends, and were the uncertainty of quantum mechanics begins.

 

You statement above however goes to far, and is obvious in your connecting “No Intelligent Allowed” with "What The Bleep do We Know" you haven't seen the film WTBDWK. I have been reading material from several physicist and scholars on these subjects before the film came out and there was no claims being made by the men and women of the film that haven't been made in science lately, by lately.. I mean in the last 35 yrs, and spiritualist for millennia. This is the point of the film, that there does exist a correlation between some modern western physics and ancient views on the nature of reality. The point of your quote is these cross disciplinary theorys should not be judged without a good working knowledge of the subjects.

This not only applies to the scientific views but also to the side of interpersonal cognitive relationship we have with our memories. Having a viewpoint that we can be trapped in seeing the world from the perspective from our past memories, and how we can break these negative feedback cycles, is a good and healthy way to lead ones life, try watching the film first.... and see it that light,.... and then you may get some truths out of it.

[HydrogenBond]

Life often gets stuck at metaphysical, including quantum discussions, because many people sense something is missing from the existing theory. What is missing is the impact of Hydrogen. If we ignore that affect, what we get is existing wisdom as the base, with many trying to add this hydrogen same affect in a metaphysical way. The metaphysical life force tries to describe an integrating principle that underlies life. That integration occurs at the level hydrogen. The quantum approach is trying to add another layer of affect beyond traditional chemistry, because the rational of hydrogen is missing.

 

This is way over simplified. If we do an atom count in a cell, hydrogen atoms count for about 60-70%. Just the assumption of 90% water, means 60% hydrogen. If we work under the assumption the hydrogen is trying to gain electron density, out of proportion with the rest of inanimate matter in an oxidizing environment, the cell does exactly that. One may say the DNA is responsible. But the DNA only works because of hydrogen.

 

This is not needed for the discussion, but I will bring it up for the quantum people. If you look at the hydrogen proton, what sets it apart from all the protons within the nuclei of C, N, O is the hydrogen proton never underwent mass burn. The hydrogen proton contains some additional potential relative to these atomic protons, while also not having any sub-particle changes required due to the nuclear forces. In the cell, we have 60-70% of the atoms with this extra potential energy. One can never get a nuclear reaction, but maybe there is quantum foreplay. I am more concerned at the chemical level, but I thought I would add that.

[Thunderbird]

Life often gets stuck at metaphysical, including quantum discussions, because many people sense something is missing from the existing theory. What is missing is the impact of Hydrogen. If we ignore that affect, what we get is existing wisdom as the base, with many trying to add this hydrogen same affect in a metaphysical way. The metaphysical life force tries to describe an integrating principle that underlies life. That integration occurs at the level hydrogen. The quantum approach is trying to add another layer of affect beyond traditional chemistry, because the rational of hydrogen is missing.

 

This is way over simplified. If we do an atom count in a cell, hydrogen atoms count for about 60-70%. Just the assumption of 90% water, means 60% hydrogen. If we work under the assumption the hydrogen is trying to gain electron density, out of proportion with the rest of inanimate matter in an oxidizing environment, the cell does exactly that. One may say the DNA is responsible. But the DNA only works because of hydrogen.

 

This is not needed for the discussion, but I will bring it up for the quantum people. If you look at the hydrogen proton, what sets it apart from all the protons within the nuclei of C, N, O is the hydrogen proton never underwent mass burn. The hydrogen proton contains some additional potential relative to these atomic protons, while also not having any sub-particle changes required due to the nuclear forces. In the cell, we have 60-70% of the atoms with this extra potential energy. One can never get a nuclear reaction, but maybe there is quantum foreplay. I am more concerned at the chemical level, but I thought I would add that.

Well the dipole structure of water is what I would call quantum coherent. DNA double helix is quantum coherent. There were interesting experiments done that show that waters structure can be effected by thoughts. I cannot say if this is true but I would have to say that water is the conductor, and consequent constructor of quantum coherent structures. In this view life is like some complex phantasmagoric field cycling though and generated by the medium of water.

[CraigD]

The quotes your you [Galapagos] gave are well balanced science based accounts of where traditional physics ends, and were the uncertainty of quantum mechanics begins.

 

You statement above however goes to far, and is obvious in your connecting “No Intelligent Allowed” with "What The Bleep do We Know" you haven't seen the film WTBDWK.

I don’t know if Galapagos has seen the film, but I saw What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? shortly after its video release, both because so many folk I knew of both the scientific and mystical sort, and also folk interested in sign language, were interested in it, and because I was curious to see Marlee Matlin in such an unusual role.

 

It’s a likable and beautifully made movie - how can you not feel at least a little affection for a movie with CG depictions of behavior-influencing chemicals emulating Robert Palmer music videos?. I agree that the comparison of it to the allegedly mean-spirited, religiously-inspired “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (which I’ve not seen) isn’t very apt. However, the label of pseudoscience is, I think, very apt, and applied by all but a small fringe of the hard scientists who’ve commented on the film.

I have been reading material from several physicist and scholars on these subjects before the film came out and there was no claims being made by the men and women of the film that haven't been made in science lately, by lately. I mean in the last 35 yrs, and spiritualist for millennia.

At the ACS review Galopogos linked to and many other similar and more extensive critiques detail, “WTBDWK” contains several notoriously claims that have not been made in any accepted scientific publication. Perhaps the most visible are those of Masaru Emoto, who claims that thoughts, emotions, intentions, etc. can be measured by microscopic photographs of water ice frozen shortly after the thoughts, emotions, intentions etc. occur, a claim that no credible scientist of scientific organization of which I’m aware supports, and even Emoto describes as being more works of art than science. As are many images of water ice (famously snowflakes), Emoto’s photos are very beautiful, but his claim of a link with emotions and thought are, in my and the opinions of many others, some of the worst of pseudoscience.

 

Despite its visual beauty and the emotionally pleasant mood experienced by many who view it, “WT#$*!DWK” is, I think, disingenuous, in that it strives to give the impression that a growing fraction of mainstream scientists accept the new age beliefs it promotes. In this regard, it does share a characteristic with “Expelled” in suggesting a scientific consensus greater than actually exists. I agree with ACS reviewers that, while this may have little impact on mainstream scientists who understand the scientific consensus, or new age proponents, who don’t subscribe to it, such disingenuousness can be damaging to the understanding of people who are neither, and needs to be vigorously pointed out by science enthusiasts and advocacy sites such as hypography

This is the point of the film, that there does exist a correlation between some modern western physics and ancient views on the nature of reality.

I agree that this is one of the central points of “WT#$*!DWK”. However, I believe that, as the scientific community continues to explore and gain insights into quantum physics, this perceived correlation is becoming weaker and less accepted.

 

To summarize the subject – to which whole books have been dedicated – it’s been noted since he beginning of modern quantum physics in the early 20th century that many popular interpretations of quantum physics place special significance on observation – for example, the quantum eraser experiment shows that simple making it possible in principle for a human experimenter to know certain data about a simple physical system changes the behavior of that system in very pronounced ways, even when their observation doesn’t physically change the system. This suggests that something unique to human perception and consciousness in intricately involved in the nature of even simple physical reality.

 

Increased exposure and familiarity with this idea, however, has IMHO lead most people to the conclusion that such “changes due to observation” don’t require a human or other obviously living participant to occur. In short, decoherence appears to happen whenever particles interact with particles outside of a particular system, whether those outside particles are part of a living, conscious observer, or simple inanimate mater. Coherance is not so easily maintained as though experiments such as Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend hinted – a significantly vexing turn of events, as it would be convenient for the development of such potentially useful machines as quantum computers if this were not the case.

 

To my thinking, quantum physics continues to provide profound insights to philosophical traditions, but, not surprisingly, those insights are different than were once expected, bringing to mind one of the many wonderful quotes of the late Arthur C Clarke:

"Not only is the universe stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you can imagine.”

[Thunderbird]

 

Increased exposure and familiarity with this idea, however, has IMHO lead most people to the conclusion that such “changes due to observation” don’t require a human or other obviously living participant to occur. In short, decoherence appears to happen whenever particles interact with particles outside of a particular system, whether those outside particles are part of a living, conscious observer, or simple inanimate mater. Coherance is not so easily maintained as though experiments such as Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend hinted – a significantly vexing turn of events, as it would be convenient for the development of such potentially useful machines as quantum computers if this were not the case.

 

To my thinking, quantum physics continues to provide profound insights to philosophical traditions, but, not surprisingly, those insights are different than were once expected, bringing to mind one of the many wonderful quotes of the late Arthur C Clarke:

"Not only is the universe stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you can imagine.”

 

I have always preferred the very simple question "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Every intelligent person that I have posed this question to comes up with the same explanation about sound waves would still being generated.. so on, and so on.

I seemed to be either daft, or had at some time in the past, a moment of clarity about the nature of consciousness and reality, cause my answerer now is a resounding no! Not only is there no sound, there is no tree, and no forest, earth or any thing at all. I am not attempting to be fugitive, metaphorical, philosophical or even controversial. I saying this as literal truth. This is a logical fact of reality.

 

Without an observer. there is no reality whatsoever period.

To me this doesn't even have anything to do with physics its just to me...well... obvious.

[freeztar]

To be continued on a new thread. :bouquet:

 

Thanks Tbird. I was about to say something, again.

It's a cool topic, but it belongs in philosophy. If you create a thread, let me know and I will move the related posts from here over to the new thread. :(

[Rade]

...Without an observer. there is no reality whatsoever period. To me this doesn't even have anything to do with physics its just to me...well... obvious.

I like it better to say:

 

(1) without reality there is no observer whatsoever period (this correctly puts priority on existence over consciousness as axiom to begin process of philosophy)

(2) without observer there is no knowledge of reality whatsoever period (this shows importance of consciousness in its role to perceive reality, not to create it)

(3) the association between the two concepts thus leads to an important dialectic:

[observer + reality] = Science (as uncertain knowledge)

[Boerseun]

The "Nothing Exists Without an Observer" argument is a philosophical cop-out to the n'th degree.

 

It's akin to a tree falling in a forest not making a sound.

 

Let's consider:

 

Stellar evolution led to the formation of the Sun, which is not a first-generation star. Stellar nucleosynthesis tells us that, as well as the abundance of elements in our solar system which tells us that a much mightier star than the sun must have existed before the sun. Then, the debris around the sun fell together to form the planets, of which our rock is one. And a lot of events on this rock eventually led up to the appearance of Life, and only very late in this chain of events, humans came to the fore.

 

So the argument says that nothing was there until the first human looked up and observed it.

 

Sure - nothing was there in the human experience. But everything, surely, was there before, because without millions of random events happening over billions of years, humans wouldn't be there to philosophise about it.

 

It's a cop-out, a non-issue, and pretty much off-topic, I guess.

[Thunderbird]

The "Nothing Exists Without an Observer" argument is a philosophical cop-out to the n'th degree.

 

It's akin to a tree falling in a forest not making a sound.

 

Let's consider:

 

Stellar evolution led to the formation of the Sun, which is not a first-generation star. Stellar nucleosynthesis tells us that, as well as the abundance of elements in our solar system which tells us that a much mightier star than the sun must have existed before the sun. Then, the debris around the sun fell together to form the planets, of which our rock is one. And a lot of events on this rock eventually led up to the appearance of Life, and only very late in this chain of events, humans came to the fore.

 

So the argument says that nothing was there until the first human looked up and observed it.

 

Sure - nothing was there in the human experience. But everything, surely, was there before, because without millions of random events happening over billions of years, humans wouldn't be there to philosophise about it.

 

It's a cop-out, a non-issue, and pretty much off-topic, I guess.

 

If you want to debate the above post there is a new thread in philosophies and humanities, under “Where does reality reside. I will cut and past this post and attempt to show were your logic, or assumptions, have gone awry.

[nutronjon]

Life often gets stuck at metaphysical, including quantum discussions, because many people sense something is missing from the existing theory. What is missing is the impact of Hydrogen. If we ignore that affect, what we get is existing wisdom as the base, with many trying to add this hydrogen same affect in a metaphysical way. The metaphysical life force tries to describe an integrating principle that underlies life. That integration occurs at the level hydrogen. The quantum approach is trying to add another layer of affect beyond traditional chemistry, because the rational of hydrogen is missing.

 

This is way over simplified. If we do an atom count in a cell, hydrogen atoms count for about 60-70%. Just the assumption of 90% water, means 60% hydrogen. If we work under the assumption the hydrogen is trying to gain electron density, out of proportion with the rest of inanimate matter in an oxidizing environment, the cell does exactly that. One may say the DNA is responsible. But the DNA only works because of hydrogen.

 

This is not needed for the discussion, but I will bring it up for the quantum people. If you look at the hydrogen proton, what sets it apart from all the protons within the nuclei of C, N, O is the hydrogen proton never underwent mass burn. The hydrogen proton contains some additional potential relative to these atomic protons, while also not having any sub-particle changes required due to the nuclear forces. In the cell, we have 60-70% of the atoms with this extra potential energy. One can never get a nuclear reaction, but maybe there is quantum foreplay. I am more concerned at the chemical level, but I thought I would add that.

 

What does not contain hydrogen?

 

What about geometry? manifestation is not just chemicals and not just atoms, it is also form. Geometry and physics is what creates order out of chaos. What is missing from the present discuss, is the force that give chaos form.

[nutronjon]

This got posted in the wrong thread, so I am bringing it back here.

 

Back to what really excites me. I googled the Second law of thermodynamics and get there must be a few molecules before this law goes into operation. So then I goolged the Molecules of DNA, and see that the position a molecule takes matters, and geometry of the RNA is different from the geometry of DNA.

 

 

Quote:

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Microscopic systems

Thermodynamics is a theory of macroscopic systems at equilibrium and therefore the second law applies only to macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures. On scales of a few atoms, the second law does not apply; for example, in a system of two molecules, it is possible for the slower-moving ("cold") molecule to transfer energy to the faster-moving ("hot") molecule. Such tiny systems are outside the domain of classical thermodynamics, but they can be investigated in quantum thermodynamics by using statistical mechanics. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.

 

Quote:

RNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1]An important structural feature of RNA that distinguishes it from DNA is the presence of a hydroxyl group at the 2' position of the ribose sugar. The presence of this functional group causes the helix to adopt the A-form geometry rather than the B-form most commonly observed in DNA.[3] This results in a very deep and narrow major groove and a shallow and wide minor groove.[4] A second consequence of the presence of the 2'-hydroxyl group is that in conformationally flexible regions of an RNA molecule (that is, not involved in formation of a double helix), it can chemically attack the adjacent phosphodiester bond to cleave the backbone.[5]

 

Quote:

The principle of "twoness" of "otherness", was called Dyad by the Greek philosophers of the five centuries before Christ. They were suspicious of it because it seemed to revolt from unity, distancing inself from the divine Monad. They referred to the Dyad as "audacity" for its boldness in implying a separation from the original whileness and "anguish" due to its invitable yearning to return to unity. It was also called "distress", "falling short", "the lie", and "illusion" since they believed the Monad alone was all. Today, we employ this negative aspect in the derogatory phrase "two-faced" and "speaking with a forked tongue."

 

The principle of the Dyad is polarity.... The paradox of the Dyad is that while it appears to separate the ;unity, its opposite poles remember their source and attract each other in an attempt to merge and return to that state of unity. quoted from A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe

 

Now think of the meaning of God and Satan, and Jesus saying to conqure death you only have to die. Can we do this with the past consciousness, instead of our present one? This agains is getting from biology, but I am not sure the question, "What is life" is different from the question "Does

God exist"? Darn out of time bye I have to fly

__________________

[CraigD]

If you look at the hydrogen proton, what sets it apart from all the protons within the nuclei of C, N, O is the hydrogen proton never underwent mass burn. The hydrogen proton contains some additional potential relative to these atomic protons, while also not having any sub-particle changes required due to the nuclear forces.

HBond, what’s the source of your claim? Can you cite a text, or some experimental data supporting it? Your claims give me the impression that you are describing accepted scientific theory, but I’m unable to find anything similar in any scientific literature.

 

Specifically, in the conventional terminology of particle physics, what particles are involved in the “sub-particle changes” you ascribe to protons in atoms other than hydrogen, but not those in hydrogen?

[InfiniteNow]

HBond, what’s the source of your claim?

I'm going to guess either colon or rectum. I'm not sure, however, which is more appropriate. ;)

[REASON]

Geometry and physics is what creates order out of chaos. What is missing from the present discuss, is the force that give chaos form.

 

Have you considered Electromagnatism? Or how about Gravitation? Maybe Conservation of Energy?

 

How about all of the above and more?

 

Maybe it is geometry and physics as you mention above.

[Moontanman]

Come on guys, lets get this back to what nutron asked to begin with, what is life..... I like NASA's definition, life is a self replicating chemical reaction that stores information and can evolve to adapt to it's environment... or something like that. Choas cannot be defined as a force in of it's self, any of the known forces can be involved in chaos (since you asked)

[nutronjon]

Have you considered Electromagnatism? Or how about Gravitation? Maybe Conservation of Energy?

 

How about all of the above and more?

 

Maybe it is geometry and physics as you mention above.

 

Those are the forces I would like to see in this discussion, and an explanation of how they hang together.

 

If am correct, hydrogen was the first element, and the others transmutated from it. That is evolution begins with hydrogen, and becomes increasingly complex. The elements become gases and solids. Out of this comes a planet that can sustain life, and perhaps more than one.

 

Somehow, a spark of life occurred in a cell. This is different from all other elements, because it doesn't lie there dependent on what is in the environment to adhere to it or dissolve it, but it has a will to live and acts on this will to live. It has a membrane separating it from the environment, and then sucks in nurishment, assimulates what it can use and excretes what it can not use, and begins to move to increase its survival. It has a will to live, and that is what I call internalized life, different from being an element that we do not consider living.

 

Chardin said, "God is sleeping in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man". Now if we replace the word "God" with the word "life", we get, "life is sleeping in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals to know self in man". :wink: It was not my intention to take this thread in this direction, but as I pondered what was posted here, it came to me, a discussion of what is life is also a discussion of what is God. However, this is not a mythical understanding of God, but a scientific one. Geometry and the laws of physics come together, and elements become increasingly complex under the laws of geometry and physics, until finally they are expressed as life, and then again, as life that is conscious of being alive, and capable of knowing all things far beyond self awarenss. That is, through man, life can be conscous of life as a whole, far beyond self consciousness. And with over 6000 years of history, the work of geologist, anthropologist, and related sciences, and the work of NASA and a world connected to the Internet, boy oh boy, is our mass consciousness huge! The evolution of our mass consciousness is awesome, and unfortunately we are not fully aware of that, and caught up in the awesomeness of our new reality of mass accumulative knowledge.

 

Deist believed, a study of God is a study of nature. These are the people who created our democracy. Science is to democracy, what the bible is to autocracy. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and because we can come to know the reason for things being as they are, we can govern ourselves with reason. Back to geometry and physics, please. How did life get separated from the rocks and minerals and what holds everything together while also constantly changing?