Are we Carbon based life, proton-proton based life, string based life, or

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of life forms, primarily debating whether humans are carbon-based or if other frameworks like proton-proton or string-based life could exist. Participants agree that while carbon is the foundation of life as we know it, the role of water and other elements in biological processes is significant. The introduction of fullerene raises questions about the specificity of "carbon-based" life, suggesting that different carbon allotropes might need to be considered. Some argue that understanding life through the lens of quantum or string theory complicates the concept unnecessarily. Ultimately, the consensus leans toward recognizing carbon as the primary basis for life while acknowledging the complexity of other contributing factors.
S = k log w
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Are we Carbon based life, proton-proton based life, space-time based life, string based life, or what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aren't we carbon based life forms? I guess you could say our minds somehow incorporate space-time into thinking process because how else could we have such a unique understanding of how it works. There is also the electricity that runs through our bodies that could suggest a deeper connection between us and the universe other than just some complex configuration of atoms,who knows. I'm not too sure what you exactly mean by that question.
 
Everything is spacetime based. All matter is particle (maybe string) based. But life is specifically based on carbon chemistry.
 
I would say that we are carbon based lifeforms, because that is the norm i suppose. What if there was another type of life-form that wasnt carbon-based (i dunno, for example, aliens that were silicon based), if they were classed as proton-proton based or string based then u are classifying just about everything known into one super-group. Also its easier to understand being carbon based then part of quantum theory or string theory ...well that's what i think anyway!
 
With the discovery of the Fullerene, do we need to qualify what we mean when we say "carbon" based life? Perhaps it may be Non-Buckey-carbon based life.
 
Originally posted by S = k log w
With the discovery of the Fullerene, do we need to qualify what we mean when we say "carbon" based life? Perhaps it may be Non-Buckey-carbon based life.

Just because fullerene is made of carbon doesn't mean carbon is fullerene. We never said non-diamond-carbon-based life, or non-pencil-lead-carbon based life.
 
So we are instead based upon graphite and/or diamond chemistry, then? Those are the only other known allotropes of carbon, last I checked. This of course sounds totally silly to me, but anyway.

You could probably make a significantly better case for us being water-based life, given that the main component in most organisms is water.

ETA: Must have started my reply after CSF replied. Blargh.
 
Last edited:
but water is a given, its what water is in combination with that renders the Earth life trademark.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
959
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top