What is the anthropic principle and how does it relate to defining life?

[Max Faust]

argue that a pyramid is alive

Well, a pyramid seems to be a form. Something which is characterised by its stasis rather than its dynamic qualities - and just as living things (as we currently define them) it is known by its manifestation, which is definitely a consequence of intent and volition - but whether or not it's alive is a question of definition.

Currently, it seems that "life" is a property of certain complex systems - but I doubt you will find any criterion for "life" that cannot also be applied to said pyramid. So... what I'm missing is something very fundamental, like a standard model for particles and forces, a sort of spark which *ignites* life as a phenomenon; perhaps by emergence, at a certain level of complexity.

 

[Studiot]

So is my dehydrated seed alive or not?

 

[Max Faust]

Of course it is. The question is rather if it will "perform" or not.

 

[Studiot]

So you are suggesting a barren seed is alive?

 

[Max Faust]

That depends on how you define "life".

 

[Studiot]

I'm not the one trying to define it.

I'm trying to point out that the boundary between alive and not alive is broad and indeterminate, as my examples demonstrate.

Really this should all be in the Philosophy section.

 

[Max Faust]

Really this should all be in the Philosophy section.

I kind of think you have a point... except you don't.

My question is specifically about a simple definition of "life" which may be plotted into physics as a vector both on the small and the large scale.

 

[Galap]

You could argue that the material remains a daisy as long as it is DNA-coded to be (or become) a daisy.

At this point, we run into a corollary of the first problem: We don't have any good definition for death (or non-life) either. This is why I have chosen to think, for the time being and until somebody can present a better theory, that "life" is equal to "existence" - i.e. all things that exist are alive (which I suppose is a sort of animism) - but not all things are "active" all the time. Thus, "dead matter" isn't relly dead, it's simply in a resting state. At any given moment, it can be picked up and utilised by a dynamic system which happens to be "alive".

Does this even make any sense?

Or maybe a better way to look at this would be to say that life is not defined by the physical matter it is composed of but by the actions it performs. In other words, what is fundamental is its changes through time and relation to other things rather than which particles compose it at a given moment or their configuration.

 

[Max Faust]

I am probably trying to arrive at some kind of evidence - at least in theory - which shows that life is an inevitable consequence of quantum mechanics, so to speak, rather than a magical property which is created by fairies and hobgoblins.

 

[Studiot]

My question is specifically about a simple definition of "life" which may be plotted into physics as a vector both on the small and the large scale.

You've lost me there bro.

 

[DaveC426913]

Or maybe a better way to look at this would be to say that life is not defined by the physical matter it is composed of but by the actions it performs. In other words, what is fundamental is its changes through time and relation to other things rather than which particles compose it at a given moment or their configuration.

So by that definition, the seed is indeed not alive - until it is watered, at which point it becomes alive. Life from lifelessness?

 

[Galap]

So by that definition, the seed is indeed not alive - until it is watered, at which point it becomes alive. Life from lifelessness?

By that definition, the seed's germination and growth itself IS the life.

And definitely life from lifelessness. As far as we know (which we do with near certainty) life didn't exist when the universe was created. It had to come into existence at some point after that.

 

[DaveC426913]

And definitely life from lifelessness. As far as we know (which we do with near certainty) life didn't exist when the universe was created. It had to come into existence at some point after that.

Yes. Abiogenesis. It's just that it is normally assumed to be a phenomenon that has happened only a few times in Earth's history, not countless times at the base of every tree in the forest.

 

[Max Faust]

Abiogenesis.

OK, the magical word just popped up.
I think what I am searcing for is what kind of "force" which is likely to make abiogenesis happen. Clearly, there is *something* which is causing elementary particles to seek together into atoms, atoms into molecules, simple molecules into organic compounds, and so forth. I would like it to be something simple and elegant, like an equation for a "tendency" towards complex systems that show negative entropy.

 

[shungun]

Well, i think this is the point after which physics/all sciences "break" down?
they don't break down but can't just give any simple answer that "works" for one negative entropy is huge no-no even if net entropy is zero...the mere fact that such organisms are stable is fascinating...
we should come up with a definition...but how?

 

[Q_Goest]

OK, the magical word just popped up.
I think what I am searcing for is what kind of "force" which is likely to make abiogenesis happen. Clearly, there is *something* which is causing elementary particles to seek together into atoms, atoms into molecules, simple molecules into organic compounds, and so forth. I would like it to be something simple and elegant, like an equation for a "tendency" towards complex systems that show negative entropy.

Even very simple systems can decrease entropy locally. Fundamentalists try to use this concept as a proof of their supernatural diety, but systems (such as weather) that can reduce entropy locally are omnipresent.

 

[Phrak]

OH, COME ON!

Is there anyone who would hazard a reasonable guess?

Tear this one up: "A self-similar replicating system." But you don't get brownie points unless you try to fix it or hazard a definition of your own, subject to the same criticism.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think what I am searcing for is what kind of "force" which is likely to make abiogenesis happen. Clearly, there is *something* which is causing elementary particles to seek together into atoms, atoms into molecules, simple molecules into organic compounds, and so forth. I would like it to be something simple and elegant, like an equation for a "tendency" towards complex systems that show negative entropy.

Don't search for this. This is the road to junk science.

The various properties of subatomic and atomic particles that ultimately result in life are emergent; i.e. it is the sum total of the independent elements, not some unifying factor.

 

[Max Faust]

Don't search for this. This is the road to junk science.

Sorry, I have no choice. My nature commands me to do so.

However, that being said, I am interested in the somewhat mystical concept of *emergence*. I associate it with a sort of reverse synergy (where the synergetic effect is an attractor) and an overall property of *emergence* seems to be its mechanism of (temporally limited) negative entropy.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, I have no choice. My nature commands me to do so.

Your nature commands you to conjure junk science?

There's lots of books out there on 'The Power of Attraction' and other woo-wooism.

I'm not saying "don't search for something worthy"; I'm saying "this is a road to folly".

However, that being said, I am interested in the somewhat mystical concept of *emergence*. I associate it with a sort of reverse synergy (where the synergetic effect is an attractor) and an overall property of *emergence* seems to be its mechanism of (temporally limited) negative entropy.

There's nothing mystical about emergence. FaceBook is an example of emergent behaviour. Social networking structures have properties that are not detectable in the individual components. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Max Faust]

woo-wooism

Sir, I have positively no interest in "woo-wooism". You are twisting my words.

What I said is that my nature commands me to ask some specific questions - even if by doing so, in the eyes of some people, I am doing something "wrong" - because these are things I desire to know. I am not satisfied with what's already there (here).

I fail to see why there shouldn't exist a simple and basic reason for why there is "life" in this universe - and why, under favourable conditions, such as here on earth, said "life" explodes into a multitude of forms. I look for the mechanism behind it - but I discard as well "religion" as any other dogmatic quasi-verity as valid systems of thought.

As for *emergence* being mystical... well it is. It's a catch-all phrase which explains ****-all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sir, I have positively no interest in "woo-wooism". You are twisting my words.

What I said is that my nature commands me to ask some specific questions

No, what you said is:

"...what kind of "force" which is likely to make abiogenesis happen..."
"...Clearly, there is *something* which is causing elementary particles to seek together into atoms, etc."
"I would like it to be something simple and elegant..."

No word-twisting involved.

As for *emergence* being mystical... well it is. It's a catch-all phrase which explains ****-all.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's not even a phrase, it's just a word. And words do not explain anything. What you want to be doing is learning about the phenomenon. That's where the explaining happens.

 

[DaveC426913]

OH, COME ON!

Is there anyone who would hazard a reasonable guess?

Tear this one up: "A self-similar replicating system." But you don't get brownie points unless you try to fix it or hazard a definition of your own, subject to the same criticism.

Well, do computer simulations count? They fit that definition.

 

[Studiot]

The various properties of subatomic and atomic particles that ultimately result in life are emergent; i.e. it is the sum total of the independent elements, not some unifying factor.

So what is the difference between a living person and the corpse at the smallest possible time interval after death?

 

[mgb_phys]

Well, do computer simulations count? They fit that definition.

Why not? They are at least as alive as a slime-mold (no offense to any slime-mold readers)

With this defn there is an interesting gradation between self catalyzing chemical reactions and life - which is probably where 'life' first started.

 

[DaveC426913]

So what is the difference between a living person and the corpse at the smallest possible time interval after death?

That's circular; it depends on where you define "death" to occur.

No, let me make that more useful. The moment of death is derived. First, we define under what conditions an organism is alive, then we determine when those conditions cease, and that defines death.

Also, I'm not sure that 'dead' is the same as 'non-living'. A fresh corpse has all the potential still in it to keep life going, it's just the parts aren't working together to sustain it. That's different from a rock, which has no processes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why not? They are at least as alive as a slime-mold (no offense to any slime-mold readers)

With this defn there is an interesting gradation between self catalyzing chemical reactions and life - which is probably where 'life' first started.

I just don't think programs can so glibly be included.

 

[Studiot]

That's circular; it depends on where you define "death" to occur.

No, let me make that more useful. The moment of death is derived. First, we define under what conditions an organism is alive, then we determine when those conditions cease, and that defines death.

Also, I'm not sure that 'dead' is the same as 'non-living'. A fresh corpse has all the potential still in it to keep life going, it's just the parts aren't working together to sustain it. That's different from a rock, which has no processes.

Which again reinforces my point the the boundary is broad and ill defined.

I deliberately used an indeterminate time interval to avoid a circular argument, my argument is not at all circular.

I think it is easier to consider the transition live to dead than dead to live. Of course if you want also to define more than two states ie alive, dead and non living, you can.
Equally you have a problem with 'alive'. In a complex entity death of all its components does not occur simulataneously. The organism may die but many cells can and do go on living for some time after.

We even acknowledge in the English language that life and death are wide ranging concepts, when we attribute them to inanimate objects and even non material ones.

The life-cycle of a product. The death of communism. and so on.

 

[DaveC426913]

I deliberately used an indeterminate time interval to avoid a circular argument, my argument is not at all circular.

Well, I wasn't suggesting you were committing an error of circularity, merely that it is the problem we're running into. That's why I chose to define an organism's death in a way that eliminates the problem by making it a derived property.

 

[BANG!]

The current definition of life (at least the one given to me by a biologist prof. years ago)
is one based on the following critereion:

1) Ability to Reproduce
2) Has a metabolism
3) Grows
4) Dies
5) Respiration

However, the two problems with this are that fire meets all of the critereion, whereas a virus does not (no metabolism). Apperently, they are technically considered "harmful particles". You can read into this as much as you want, but I think I will go find out what's for dinner instead.

 

[BANG!]

OK, the magical word just popped up.
I think what I am searcing for is what kind of "force" which is likely to make abiogenesis happen. Clearly, there is *something* which is causing elementary particles to seek together into atoms, atoms into molecules, simple molecules into organic compounds, and so forth. I would like it to be something simple and elegant, like an equation for a "tendency" towards complex systems that show negative entropy.

You can always jump on the whole "Complexity Theory" bandwagon with Murray Gelman, the creator of Mathematica (I forget his name), et. al. There is a book by M. Mitchel Waldrop on the subject, actually there are a host of books now, but this was one of the first and provides a historical overview. Or you can check out the Sante Fe Institute which studies these things. It's a real place with real scientists and not just a haven of soft-science no-nothings. Though I should mention that they initially required funding via this arguement:
Them, "were on to something, something big"
Government, "really, what?"
Them, "we don't know, but golly look at our credintials."
Government, "sure thing, how does $X million sound?"

 

[DaveC426913]

...I think I will go find out what's for dinner instead.

Well, I hope you can tell the diff between life and non-life, or your dinner may be hard to digest...

And speaking of which: how many common foods can you name that were not once alive? (I'll disqualify seasonings such as salt.)

 

[BANG!]

And speaking of which: how many common foods can you name that were not once alive? (I'll disqualify seasonings such as salt.)

This stumped me until I thought to look on the back of a doritos bag:

Maltodextrin
Monosodium Glutamate
Disodium Phosphate
Sodium Caseinate
Disodium Inosinate
Disodium Guanylate
Lactic Acid
Artificial Color
Natural and Artificial Flavor

You could argue that these are not COMMON foods, but seriously, Doritos and its brethern are about the closest thing to Amercan cuisine that I can think of.

 

[DaveC426913]

This stumped me until I thought to look on the back of a doritos bag:

Maltodextrin
Monosodium Glutamate
Disodium Phosphate
Sodium Caseinate
Disodium Inosinate
Disodium Guanylate
Lactic Acid
Artificial Color
Natural and Artificial Flavor

You could argue that these are not COMMON foods, but seriously, Doritos and its brethern are about the closest thing to Amercan cuisine that I can think of.

Well, those are ingredients. You don't eat those as food.

The one I was thinking of is honey. But then again, I guess pollen is technically seeds.

 

[Dembadon]

Common for what age?

At one point, Play-Doh and Elmer's Glue would've been on my list!