A recent Nature article, Black hole jets on the scale of the cosmic web, makes you wonder if the Universe is “alive” (eg, Phys, Volkskrant). Actually, the question of what is life is a debate within science (eg, ASU, NYT-2024, Templeton).
The problem with our current definition of life (eg, eating, digestion, pooping) is that viruses are not included. How can a (major) cause of (eg, animal, human) death not be considered a living organism?
Once you would redefine life (eg, by using growth as a criterion), should it then include the (growing) Universe?
A definition including energy and matter would – probably – include nearly everything. At least growth would exclude a lot of matter (eg, rocks) but would include planets, stars, and the Universe.
A definition of life including consciousness would be useless because we have no idea what consciousness actually is. Even bacteria and viruses appear to be conscious.
The above makes me wonder if the definition of life has been designed for (basically) representing humans. Hence, an example of reverse psychology?
Might the use of communication (eg, gestures, language, sounds) be a criterion for a definition of life, or is it an example of increasing complexity of lifeforms?
The use of tools is another example of increasing complexity in lifeforms. However, even birds use pavements to crush wallnuts. The use of self-built tools (eg, airplanes, cars, computers, machinery, trains) would include (extraterrestrial) UFOs and human technology.
I feel that layers in complexity might describe “life” best. However, in such a definition, we would no longer be the best & brightest in class. Hence, redefining life will not happen for a long time. Our definition of life will remain simple: alive and kicking.
Alive and Kicking (1985) by Simple Minds
band, lyrics, video, Wiki-band, Wiki-song
Note: all markings (bold, italic, underlining) by LO unless in quotes or stated otherwise.
0 Comments