Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[ReinyDays]

Why would I have to do that? Rocks aren't just made up of that. Rocks contain lots of chemicals. We rely on it, for these devices in our hands.

Are you simply saying a matrix of silicon dioxide alone is "not life"? OK. No argument here, I guess.

59% of the Earth's crust is pure silicon dioxide and 95% of all crust material contains silicon dioxide ...

Yes, you can say rock are reduced ... that doesn't mean it's true ... so what's your definition of life? ...

 

[ding]

Apparently... everything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

59% of the Earth's crust is pure silicon dioxide and 95% of all crust material contains silicon dioxide

Yes, you can say rock are reduced ... that doesn't mean it's true ... so what's your definition of life?

I have no idea! Depends on the context I guess.

I am wondering past just what we see today, on earth. As in, would we know other types of life, if we found them?

 

[ding]

No, it's a definition we chose. And it may not always hold true, everywhere and at all times. It works for convenience.

I would argue that life existed without one or more of those traits you listed right here on Earth, in the past. Because it had to be so, out of the necessity of the stepwise process.

Just as no species has ever birthed an individual of a different species, really. Species are also arbitrary definitions we use for convenience.

No, it's a description of the LOGICAL distinctions between living things and inanimate objects, dummy. Nothing arbitrary about it.

7 characteristics of living things | Channels for Pearson+

7 characteristics of living things

www.pearson.com

 

[ding]

I have no idea! Depends on the context I guess.

I am wondering past just what we see today, on earth. As in, would we know other types of life, if we found them?

Maybe try using google, dummy.

List and describe the characteristics of living things? | Socratic

living things: reproduce grow or metabolize respire feed move or locomotion are made of cells respond to stimuli

socratic.org

 

[ReinyDays]

I have no idea! Depends on the context I guess.

I am wondering past just what we see today, on earth. As in, would we know other types of life, if we found them?

Any life form from the first half of Earth's history could not survive the presence of oxygen ... except blue-green algae ... everything evolved from scum ...

Obviously, all life we examine today will resemble blue-green algae ... some would say the chloroplasts in plant cells ARE blue-green algae ...

 

[scruffy]

Because it is useful to do so ... if my dog is rolling in an inorganic pile of dirt, fine have fun ... but if my dog is rolling is something organic, I'm going to what to wash that off him before it festers and grows ... the only difference is reduced carbon ... why do you find the Gaia Hypothesis useful? ...

I ask again, how does a rock reduce itself? ... reduce it's entropy ... yeah ... chemistry ... you brought up enzymes, now you'll have to answer for that ...

I already showed you the mechanism. The rock must be in an external magnetic field (consider it... its "ecosystem" )

Nothing reduces "itself", it's always a reaction with something else.

An example of what would behave like an enzyme, for a magnetic rock, is a local region of criticality . The Ising model shows that magnetic substances have "phases" (like gas/liquid/solid). Here is a phase map for an Ising rock:

Interestingly enough, the phase structure depends on the number of dimensions. The above is for 2 dimensions. But if you refer back to the Wiki on Ising I posted earlier, they discuss 3 dimensions, and 4. (And they show you the math).

It is well known in chemistry, that reactions that occur readily in one phase may not occur at all in another, and vice versa. A criticality can behave like a local phase change, with results that mimic enzymatic activity.

Let's look at it another way. The Ising Wiki shows how the underlying math is formally equivalent to a graph. (And the section on history discussed its mapping to arbitrary Cayley trees).

Here, read it again:

Ising model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it's a description of the LOGICAL distinctions between living things and inanimate objects,

I didn't claim otherwise. I only claim it isn't perfect.

 

[ding]

I didn't claim otherwise. I only claim it isn't perfect.

Actually you claimed it was arbitrary. And you did so without providing any basis or reasoning for explaining how the seven characteristics of living things are arbitrary. So by definition, your argument is arbitrary.

arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

 

[scruffy]

No, it's a description of the LOGICAL distinctions between living things and inanimate objects, dummy. Nothing arbitrary about it.

7 characteristics of living things | Channels for Pearson+

7 characteristics of living things

www.pearson.com

lol

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for a heresy that is now considered self evident.

Miguel Servet was burned 3 times!

The earth is not the center of the universe.

And life is not "in" an organism.

Schopenhauer says: all truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is considered self evident.

 

[ding]

lol

Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for a heresy that is now considered self evident.

Miguel Servet was burned 3 times!

The earth is not the center of the universe.

And life is not "in" an organism.

Schopenhauer says: all truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is considered self evident.

The reason the seven characteristics of living things aren't arbitrary is that each characteristic has been observed in things that were alive whereas they have never been observed in inanimate objects.

 

[scruffy]

Your claim was everything is alive. My claim is that everything isn't alive. Only the things which meet the seven characteristics of living things can be considered to be alive.

Sounds like a bizarre form of orthodoxy.

I will make your head explode now.

I will claim that "empty" space is alive.

Why? Because it's logical.

"Empty" space constantly creates new entanglements, some of which become actual matter. The "amount" of this activity you can see, depends on how fast you're traveling. Suggesting that it's time dependent, just like a human lifespan.

Relativistic Effects in Quantum Entanglement

One of the most fundamental phenomena of quantum physics is entanglement. It describes an inseparable connection between quantum systems, and properties thereof. In a quantum mechanical description even systems far apart from each other can share a common state. This entanglement of the...

arxiv.org

 

[scruffy]

The reason the seven characteristics of living things aren't arbitrary is that each characteristic has been observed in things that were alive whereas they have never been observed in inanimate objects.

There are no inanimate objects. They're a figment of your imagination. Just because you can't see motion doesn't mean there isn't any. Every single atom in that "inanimate" rock is in motion. Every electron, every quark, every atomic bond.

 

[ding]

Sounds like a bizarre form of orthodoxy.

I will make your head explode now.

I will claim that "empty" space is alive.

Why? Because it's logical.

"Empty" space constantly creates new entanglements, some of which become actual matter. The "amount" of this activity you can see, depends on how fast you're traveling. Suggesting that it's time dependent, just like a human lifespan.

Relativistic Effects in Quantum Entanglement

One of the most fundamental phenomena of quantum physics is entanglement. It describes an inseparable connection between quantum systems, and properties thereof. In a quantum mechanical description even systems far apart from each other can share a common state. This entanglement of the...

arxiv.org

Which is why you believe everything is alive?

 

[ding]

There are no inanimate objects. They're a figment of your imagination. Just because you can't see motion doesn't mean there isn't any. Every single atom in that "inanimate" rock is in motion. Every electron, every quark, every atomic bond.

inanimate: lacking the qualities or features of living beings; not animate. inanimate objects. lacking any sign of life or consciousness; appearing dead.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually you claimed it was arbitrary.

Because it is. We chose it. We could even further refine it, for convenience. Or relax it.

 

[scruffy]

Which is why you believe everything is alive?

I believe "life" is a fundamental property of the universe. (So is "consciousness", but that's a different and considerably more difficult discussion).

I believe we can eventually quantify life in terms of information.

In the 40's, Shannon and Weaver showed that information and entropy are the same thing.

But to understand the linkage, one has to abstract even further. One can start by considering that both information and Gibbs entropy eventually adhere to Neumann's formulation, in terms of the number of available states. The key word being "number" as in counting. When we count, it's more than just assigning labels to things, we're actually assigning mathematical structure. "Number theory" is an important branch of mathematics. Quantum processes with only two assigned states behave very differently from those that can undergo full Wick rotations.

One of the more interesting results is the Cantor dust. To create it, you take a line segment from 0 to 1, and you chop out the middle third. Then you keep chopping out the middle third of every remaining segment, recursively. Remarkably, Cantor proved that the resulting dust has the same number of points as the original line segment. (We"re "counting points", right?)

Cantor set - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Because it is. We chose it. We could even further refine it, for convenience. Or relax it.

Explain how any of the characteristics of living things are arbitrary? You do not what arbitrary means, right? Each of the characteristics of living things were "chosen" for logical reasons. If they weren't "chosen" for logical reasons then they would be - by definition - arbitrary.

 

[ding]

I believe "life" is a fundamental property of the universe. (So is "consciousness", but that's a different and considerably more difficult discussion).

I believe we can eventually quantify life in terms of information.

In the 40's, Shannon and Weaver showed that information and entropy are the same thing.

But to understand the linkage, one has to abstract even further. One can start by considering that both information and Gibbs entropy eventually adhere to Neumann's formulation, in terms of the number of available states. The key word being "number" as in counting. When we count, it's more than just assigning labels to things, we're actually assigning mathematical structure. "Number theory" is an important branch of mathematics. Quantum processes with only two assigned states behave very differently from those that can undergo full Wick rotations.

One of the more interesting results is the Cantor dust. To create it, you take a line segment from 0 to 1, and you chop out the middle third. Then you keep chopping out the middle third of every remaining segment, recursively. Remarkably, Cantor proved that the resulting dust has the same number of points as the original line segment. (We"re "counting points", right?)

Cantor set - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you backing away from your claim that everything is alive?

 

[scruffy]

Are you backing away from your claim that everything is alive?

No.

Everything is made from the same stuff.

The "stuff" it's made of, is alive.