Is the universe alive?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In common parlance, yes, the universe is alive. Rivers are alive. Forests are alive. My back yard is alive. The universe is just not alive like an organism is alive, so far as we know. But the universe may be part of a larger organism like molecules and atoms are part of our bodies. We just don't know the answer to that.

 

[ryan]

It does engender all living things.

Look into functionalism, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ . It is a legitimate and scientifically structured philosophy that supports different types of processes as being as much alive as any organism.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Perspicuo]

Wishful thinking dressed in poetic language.

Our inner child has a way of securing a sense of safety for itself/ourselves.

 

[OLDMAN]

I've always thought of life as self-replicating matter. The universe is simply the fuel from which life can spring. But it is not alive, till it reproduces itself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've always thought of life as self-replicating matter. The universe is simply the fuel from which life can spring. But it is not alive, till it reproduces itself.

An electron cannot reproduce itself but we are made up of electrons and other things. Life is just one definition of complex chemistry. Certainly the universe, whatever it is, qualifies.

 

[bilby]

I've always thought of life as self-replicating matter. The universe is simply the fuel from which life can spring. But it is not alive, till it reproduces itself.

Matter doesn't reproduce itself, and life is not a kind of matter.

Life is a dynamic configuration of matter, and it is patterns that are alive, and that reproduce themselves.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've always thought of life as self-replicating matter. The universe is simply the fuel from which life can spring. But it is not alive, till it reproduces itself.

Matter doesn't reproduce itself, and life is not a kind of matter.

Life is a dynamic configuration of matter, and it is patterns that are alive, and that reproduce themselves.

Patterns are not so powerful as to be able to actually reproduce themselves. Rather, we just apparently observe the fact that they are reproduced, in given environments and conditions, in our universe, i.e. under given laws of nature. Much like you could say that a computer virus is not really reproducing itself but that computers will replicate certain strings of codes.

So our usual notion of life is largely delusional. We are like children believing a magic trick is truly magic. There are some mitigating factors in our delusion but we are deluded nonetheless (althought we are not even so powerful as to actually delude ourselves).

Seems like that anyway! Hmph.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Matter doesn't reproduce itself, and life is not a kind of matter.

Life is a dynamic configuration of matter, and it is patterns that are alive, and that reproduce themselves.

Patterns are not so powerful as to be able to actually reproduce themselves. Rather, we just apparently observe the fact that they are reproduced, in given environments and conditions, in our universe, i.e. under given laws of nature. Much like you could say that a computer virus is not really reproducing itself but that computers will replicate certain strings of codes.

So our usual notion of life is largely delusional. We are like children believing a magic trick is truly magic. There are some mitigating factors in our delusion but we are deluded nonetheless (althought we are not even so powerful as to actually delude ourselves).

Seems like that anyway! Hmph.
EB

Apparently if the vacuum is large enough everyone will fit in somehow.

 

[Clivedurdle]

I thought this is a black hole producing universe, a bi-product of this type of universe is levels of complexity that leads to the evolution of living systems.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Actually, taking Smolin's bouncing universe idea further, why not have reproducing universes?

 

[fromderinside]

Actually, taking Smolin's bouncing universe idea further, why not have reproducing universes?

Hoping for symmetry, sex, here. Which universe spawns the new universe? Ideas?

 

[Saint_of_Me]

It does engender all living things.

No, the Universe is not alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

The planet Earth is host to, and engenders all known living things. It is also not alive.

Hmm..not so fast.

What about the Gaia Hypothesis? Of which a good case can be made. Even by some Environmental Scientists.

There is growing evidence that most aspects of our Global ecosystems and weather systems are indeed inter-connected and at times inter-dependent.

Even Chaos Theory, which one would think would embrace the opposing viewpoint--like yours--makes room for interconnected dynamics in our natural environment.

You know: the old metaphor of a butterfly flapping his wings in Texas and thus subtly creating a domino-effect of weather events which finally culminate in a massive sand storm in Saudi Arabia? (Or a dozen different variations on that same theme.)

I think an argument can be made for the Universe being alive. After all: it does have aspects of it that are born (stars, via nebulas); that live; that grow, change, and finally die. There are also biological components to it. Like you. And a ton of carbon and water and oxygen.

Of course I am also of the opinion that the Universe it teeming with Intelligent Life, as are many Cosmologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

 

[dystopian]

Hmm..not so fast.

What about the Gaia Hypothesis? Of which a good case can be made. Even by some Environmental Scientists.

There is growing evidence that most aspects of our Global ecosystems and weather systems are indeed inter-connected and at times inter-dependent.

And that doesn't mean the Earth is "alive".

The Gaia hypothesis is not taken particularly serious by science as anything more than a metaphor at best.

Even Chaos Theory, which one would think would embrace the opposing viewpoint--like yours--makes room for interconnected dynamics in our natural environment.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Why would anyone think that chaos theory embraces a viewpoint that doesn't allow for interconnected dynamics? And what the hell does that have to do with the universe being alive or not?

I think an argument can be made for the Universe being alive. After all: it does have aspects of it that are born (stars, via nebulas); that live; that grow, change, and finally die.

This is just playing with words. Just because some people like to poetically refer to stars as being 'born' doesn't mean they actually are. They just form as a result of physical process. Here on earth, when conditions are right rain is formed. We could say that a raindrop is 'born' (first moisture droplets forming in the clouds), grows (attracts more moisture and grows), changes (grows too heavy and falls to the ground), and then dies (is broken up through contact with a surface). But this is just poetic language. Anyone who suggests that because we can use these words to describe a drop of a rain that therefore the raindrop is alive, is an idiot.

There are also biological components to it. Like you. And a ton of carbon and water and oxygen.

Only one of the things you mentioned is biological. Carbon, water, and oxygen, are not biological.

Of course I am also of the opinion that the Universe it teeming with Intelligent Life, as are many Cosmologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

No, very few if any cosmologists are of that opinion. This is because cosmologists, like scientists in general, are not inclined to make such grand proclamations about something we have zero evidence to support. Pointing to the gaia hypothesis doesn't do anything to change this, since A) it is already not taken very seriously in scientific circles to begin with, and B) Lovelock isn't a cosmologist.

Now, there are surely cosmologists who believe that intelligent MAY be common in the universe. However, that is different from believing that it IS common; a belief that is ascientific at best. There is of course zero evidence that there is intelligent life beside our own in the universe; and we have reason to suspect it is rare (see: the Fermi Paradox).

 

[skepticalbip]

Is the universe alive?

This sounds like the typical problem that most philosophical arguments have. There is no agreed definition for the terms used so everyone is arguing completely different subjects even though they use the same terms. Before there can be a meaningful discussion everyone needs to agree on the definitions of the terms being used. Of course, trying to agree on the meaning of each term could result in philosophical arguments themselves. But, until those agreements on the definition of the terms are reached, the discussion of if the universe is alive amounts to little more than mental masturbation. The first term that needs defining is, of course, "alive". However, from watching that video, there are a few more terms that need to be defined such: reproduction, thinking, processing, storing, computation, intelligence, behavior, comprehension, conscience, organism, mind, and there are likely more.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think an argument can be made for the Universe being alive. After all: it does have aspects of it that are born (stars, via nebulas); that live; that grow, change, and finally die.

This is just playing with words. Just because some people like to poetically refer to stars as being 'born' doesn't mean they actually are. They just form as a result of physical process.

Or ice cream is 'born' if you do certain things to milk and eggs.
Or sound is 'born' if you pick a guitar string.

 

[ryan]

Is the universe alive?

This sounds like the typical problem that most philosophical arguments have. There is no agreed definition for the terms used so everyone is arguing completely different subjects even though they use the same terms. Before there can be a meaningful discussion everyone needs to agree on the definitions of the terms being used. Of course, trying to agree on the meaning of each term could result in philosophical arguments themselves. But, until those agreements on the definition of the terms are reached, the discussion of if the universe is alive amounts to little more than mental masturbation. The first term that needs defining is, of course, "alive". However, from watching that video, there are a few more terms that need to be defined such: reproduction, thinking, processing, storing, computation, intelligence, behavior, comprehension, conscience, organism, mind, and there are likely more.

That's a much needed point.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

And that doesn't mean the Earth is "alive".

The Gaia hypothesis is not taken particularly serious by science as anything more than a metaphor at best.

Even Chaos Theory, which one would think would embrace the opposing viewpoint--like yours--makes room for interconnected dynamics in our natural environment.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Why would anyone think that chaos theory embraces a viewpoint that doesn't allow for interconnected dynamics? And what the hell does that have to do with the universe being alive or not?

I think an argument can be made for the Universe being alive. After all: it does have aspects of it that are born (stars, via nebulas); that live; that grow, change, and finally die.

This is just playing with words. Just because some people like to poetically refer to stars as being 'born' doesn't mean they actually are. They just form as a result of physical process. Here on earth, when conditions are right rain is formed. We could say that a raindrop is 'born' (first moisture droplets forming in the clouds), grows (attracts more moisture and grows), changes (grows too heavy and falls to the ground), and then dies (is broken up through contact with a surface). But this is just poetic language. Anyone who suggests that because we can use these words to describe a drop of a rain that therefore the raindrop is alive, is an idiot.

There are also biological components to it. Like you. And a ton of carbon and water and oxygen.

Only one of the things you mentioned is biological. Carbon, water, and oxygen, are not biological.

Of course I am also of the opinion that the Universe it teeming with Intelligent Life, as are many Cosmologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

No, very few if any cosmologists are of that opinion. This is because cosmologists, like scientists in general, are not inclined to make such grand proclamations about something we have zero evidence to support. Pointing to the gaia hypothesis doesn't do anything to change this, since A) it is already not taken very seriously in scientific circles to begin with, and B) Lovelock isn't a cosmologist.

Now, there are surely cosmologists who believe that intelligent MAY be common in the universe. However, that is different from believing that it IS common; a belief that is ascientific at best. There is of course zero evidence that there is intelligent life beside our own in the universe; and we have reason to suspect it is rare (see: the Fermi Paradox).

You need a lesson in Biology.

LOL.

I mentioned Chaos so as to show an example of interdependence and connectedness.

Water found in nature is certainly biological.

All things alive posses carbon.

Oxygen comprises 22% of the air you breathe. it is a gas in the living atmosphere. All living things need it--with the exeption of anaerobic bacteria. ErgoL: biological.

Gaia is taken seriously by many Earth Scientists..it is far more than a metaphor.

"Mother Nature" would be a more accurate example of a metaphor.

And lastly..you are truly of the mind that for all practical intents and purposes it is not accurate to classify the Earth as "being alive?"

Wow.


http://www.environment.gen.tr/gaia/70-gaia-hypothesis.html

 

[bilby]

Water found in nature is certainly biological.

All things alive posses carbon.

I do love a self refuting argument. Saves everyone a lot of time.

So out of interest, do you think that water contains carbon; or do you think that the word 'biological' encompasses things that are not alive?

Perhaps you imagine that there are different kinds of water - the stuff found in nature and ... er, some other kind.

Or perhaps you didn't really think about what you wrote at all?

 

[dystopian]

You need a lesson in Biology.

We could always learn more. However, seeing as you think water and carbon are biological materials, you clearly need the lesson more than I do.

Water found in nature is certainly biological.

No, it's not. A biological substance would be an organic substance that is specifically part of a living organism or the product thereof and can not be found to exist outside of biological processes. Despite being found within many biological organisms, water is not a biological compound. Water is just two molecules of hydrogen bonded to one molecule of oxygen. It is biologically inert matter.

All things alive posses carbon.

All living things we know of. However, the carbon in living organisms represents only a tiny fraction of the total carbon on earth, to say nothing of the carbon in the rest of the universe. Carbon MAY be a biological substance, it is not however, *by definition* a biological substance. It is not even always an *organic* compound (a term which likely is the source of your confusion as lots of people make the mistake of thinking that 'organic compound' = biological).

It doesn't matter if all living things (that we know or otherwise) contain carbon, that says nothing about the vast abundance of carbon in the universe. Does the fact that all people with red hair are human mean that all humans have red hair?

Oxygen comprises 22% of the air you breathe. it is a gas in the living atmosphere. All living things need it--with the exeption of anaerobic bacteria. ErgoL: biological.

Again, that is not what the word 'biological' means. And again, even if it did, the same argument as above applies: the vast majority of oxygen in the universe is not being breathed by living organisms, so whether or not organisms on a few tiny rocks breathe it in says absolutely nothing about oxygen as a whole.

Also, and this really is a nitpick: but oxygen does NOT comprise 22% of the air either of us breathes. First of all, the *effective* percentage of oxygen in the air that you breathe varies based on the altitude you're at. Due to lower air pressures, you effectively get a lower percentage of oxygen at higher altitudes, which even at regions where lots of people live can be well below the 22% you cite. However, while the actual percentage of oxygen remains the same throughout the atmosphere... this percentage is NOT 22%. It's 20.9%.

Gaia is taken seriously by many Earth Scientists..it is far more than a metaphor.

No, it really isn't. Seriously, try looking up some objective material on it instead of just posting links to sites/people who already buy into it because of personal ideology.

And lastly..you are truly of the mind that for all practical intents and purposes it is not accurate to classify the Earth as "being alive?"

Correct. The earth *itself* is just a planet. It is essentially just a rock large enough to be a planet. Rocks are not alive. A rock that has moss growing on it is not alive even if it hosts a lifeform. A planet that has lifeforms on it is not itself alive. It is just a planet. A rock. A thing.

http://www.environment.gen.tr/gaia/70-gaia-hypothesis.html

Why do you keep hammering on the gaia hypothesis? I've already stated that it isn't taken seriously within the scientific community. Even if you don't want to do the research to verify the fact that it is considered something of a joke, you have ample evidence of the fact that *I* consider it something of a joke. Why would you keep trying to use something as 'evidence' when I've already rejected said 'evidence'? At least try something new to exonerate the 'evidence'.