Is the universe a living thing?

[Loki]

Is the universe a living thing?

No.

Short and sweet.

[AngryAtheist]

Originally Posted by Loki

Is the universe a living thing?

No.

Short and sweet.

Is that from a Fish's perspective?

[GodwinGrey]

Originally Posted by stewiegriffin81

Let me put it this way, can you fit your definition of life and living into any of the accepted definitions of life and living in science?

For example, if we look at the wikipedia articles on life, and on organisms (both of which are pretty good), you'll see that you couldn't possibly fit your definition of life into the scientifically accepted definition of life. Planets and soil don't replicate, they don't actively seek out energy sources to reduce their entropy etc etc.

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

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

If you would like a more academic citation:


Ruiz-Mirazo et al (2004). "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 34, 3.


The definition from the above citation would also invalidate any attempt to claim soil or planets are alive.

So neither of your examples are alive in a scientific sense. In a literary and colloquial sense it is common to hear people saying "living soil" and "living planets", but they don't mean that soil and planets are alive.

From Ruiz-Mizaro - Abstract Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and weclaim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records).The latter is required to articulate a `phenotype-genotype' decoupling that leads to a scenario where the global network ofautonomous systems allows for an open-ended increase in the complexity of the individual agents. Thus, the basic-individual organization of biological systems depends critically on being instructed by patterns (informational records) whose generationand reliable transmission cannot be explained but take into account the complete historical network of relationships amongthose systems. We conclude that a proper definition of life should consider both levels, individual and collective: livingsystems cannot be fully constituted without being part of theevolutionary process of a whole ecosystem. Finally, we alsodiscuss a few practical implications of the definition fordifferent programs of research.

Theirs is A definition, I see no reason for it to be taken as THE definition.
that notwithstanding i see no reason to interpret what's said as precluding the consideration of a planet as 'living'.

Any living body must be viewed as a whole unseperated into its constituent parts.

Can a planet reproduce? Well we have a few billion years up our sleeves yet. I think it probable ( even ) that we will, by towing asteroids and/or nudging Mars into new orbits create new planets suitable for Earth style habitation.

I think that the microorganisms present in soil are inseperable from the term 'soil'. I think a pile of soil without life is called a pile of dirt.

I don't think that scale changes the way we should consider a body.

I do NOT hold that Universe is another name for God. I think we can agree to disagree. I see no point in this argument, we are both in basic agreement on the reality. But I think to be right you have to demonstrate that the Universe is devoid of life. A rather ridiculous proposition.

[stewiegriffin81]

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

Theirs is A definition, I see no reason for it to be taken as THE definition.

You are correct, but then, your definition doesn't fit with any of the other currently competing scientific definitions.

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

Can a planet reproduce? Well we have a few billion years up our sleeves yet. I think it probable ( even ) that we will, by towing asteroids and/or nudging Mars into new orbits create new planets suitable for Earth style habitation.

Even if that happened, at best that would simply show that planets are part of the extended phenotype of humans, not that they are alive.

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

I think that the microorganisms present in soil are inseperable from the term 'soil'. I think a pile of soil without life is called a pile of dirt.

My understanding is that the definition of soil often (but not always) includes a requirement for organic matter, but that organic matter doesn't necessarily need to be alive. However, I must admit that this argument on semantics is not particularly relevant to our discussion on the definition of life.

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

I don't think that scale changes the way we should consider a body.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

I do NOT hold that Universe is another name for God. I think we can agree to disagree. I see no point in this argument, we are both in basic agreement on the reality. But I think to be right you have to demonstrate that the Universe is devoid of life. A rather ridiculous proposition.

No, proving that the universe is devoid of life proves nothing. After all, every living organism currently alive is made up of non-living components, and so the universe could still be alive even if everything within was dead. The issue I have is that your original definition that something is living if it has living components doesn't mesh at all with any of the scientific definitions. I probably should have used different examples: Given that buildings have living components (often humans) are buildings also alive? Cars? Planes? Is a dead and decaying body that is filled with microorganisms alive? The mere fact that something has living components does not mean that it is in fact alive.

[GodwinGrey]

No, proving that the universe is devoid of life proves nothing. After all, every living organism currently alive is made up of non-living components, and so the universe could still be alive even if everything within was dead.

Not in my book

The issue I have is that your original definition that something is living if it has living components doesn't mesh at all with any of the scientific definitions. I probably should have used different examples: Given that buildings have living components (often humans) are buildings also alive? Cars? Planes? Is a dead and decaying body that is filled with microorganisms alive? The mere fact that something has living components does not mean that it is in fact alive.

Now this is interesting but I'd already considered it. When you say house, plane, car, you are not ever suggesting that the people inhabiting are a part of that thing are you? Neither are the microorganisms inhabiting a dead body a part of it, There's a dead body and there's microorganisms feeding on it. When we say Universe are we talking about a place we inhabit or a place we are part of.

If we consider aboriginal Australia in this discussion perhaps it comes down to the way we, as individuals, see and feel.

[AngryAtheist]

AA
Could it be that the universe itself is controlling our destiny and that ultimately it is the universe that will punish our evils here on earth

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

@Angry:

That's plain bizarre. Can you tell us how you might arrive at such a hypothesis?

AA
actually I just pulled that out my ass


Black
Would you kindly place it back

Me now..

Well if you insist making me do the thinking for you, here it is..

What I mean is really the anology of religious thinking

We are all part of something greater than ourselves - ie the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe.

We as individuals within the planet are subject to it's laws.

The universe exists in a state of flux, a state of change and of what we atheists would call it - evolution..

We exist within the boundaries of the universe.. therefore we are controlled by it's function, it's laws and as an anology it's will..

As a planet within the universe, earth is subject to the universes laws.

Such laws that state that there is a requirement of a certain level of greenhouse gases, that are required to exist within the framework of a living planet (take whatever meaning of living you wish, but I doubt few would agree that the earth is dead, devoid of life either as a whole or in parts)

Therefore if we continue to strip the earth of it's natural resources and continue to "Ethanise" (hehe, couldn't help myself) the planet - the universe may ultimately punish our behaviour with death.


Now you must notice I intentionally did not use the word 'God' in here, but could you see how it may be used as an analogy?


Like I said, perhaps our ancestors aren't too far from the truth..

[stewiegriffin81]

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

Not in my book

Well, it still could be. If the universe was devoid of life, but that universe itself lived as an organism within a meta-universe, and produced baby universes etc. it could be a living organism anyway. Of course, it's very unlikely that this is the case, but my point is that the universe could fulfil the actual scientific definition of life even if everything inside was dead.

Originally Posted by GodwinGrey

Now this is interesting but I'd already considered it. When you say house, plane, car, you are not ever suggesting that the people inhabiting are a part of that thing are you? Neither are the microorganisms inhabiting a dead body a part of it, There's a dead body and there's microorganisms feeding on it. When we say Universe are we talking about a place we inhabit or a place we are part of.

If we consider aboriginal Australia in this discussion perhaps it comes down to the way we, as individuals, see and feel.

Exactly. And neither are microrganisms living in soil necessarily a part of it, and neither are organisms living in a planet, or organisms in a cave, or a stream, or a tree. There are organisms, and there is the substrate that they live in. They are two separately defined categories.

However, I take your point that inhabitants of this universe are necessarily a part of the universe. I'm still not convinced that the universe is living as such, as I subscribe to the definition of life that defines organisms, and I doubt that the universe is an organism, but I guess it's really just semantic banter between us over what constitutes the definition of living.

[atheist_angel]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist

Me now..

Well if you insist making me do the thinking for you, here it is..

What I mean is really the anology of religious thinking

We are all part of something greater than ourselves - ie the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe.

We as individuals within the planet are subject to it's laws.

The universe exists in a state of flux, a state of change and of what we atheists would call it - evolution..

We exist within the boundaries of the universe.. therefore we are controlled by it's function, it's laws and as an anology it's will..

As a planet within the universe, earth is subject to the universes laws.

Such laws that state that there is a requirement of a certain level of greenhouse gases, that are required to exist within the framework of a living planet (take whatever meaning of living you wish, but I doubt few would agree that the earth is dead, devoid of life either as a whole or in parts)

Therefore if we continue to strip the earth of it's natural resources and continue to "Ethanise" (hehe, couldn't help myself) the planet - the universe may ultimately punish our behaviour with death.


Now you must notice I intentionally did not use the word 'God' in here, but could you see how it may be used as an analogy?


Like I said, perhaps our ancestors aren't too far from the truth..

To say that the universe will "punish us with death" is to say that the universe has an intent and a decision-making process.

If we die because we make the planet uninhabitable to us, before we have somewhere else to go, that's just 'cause and effect'.

If we do the above, but have somewhere to go... Where's the punishment?

[atheist_angel]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

@Ms AA: I'd swear that there's a deist inside Angry, wondering what the heck it did to be thus situated.

This "pulled it out of my ass" thing is the second time, by the way (the infamous... "ha ha fooled ya I is gay" was the first) that Angry has admitted to posting utter rubbish to get a reaction.

That is the definition of "troll", and he would be well advised not to attempt a third time.

@Mr Black: Indeed.

However, I would hope he understand that struggles with deist issues should be voluntarily sorted out on the Island. We have other members that have created threads on the Island to ask for help with lingering issues left over from their days of woo.

Trolling, on the other hand, there's just no place here for that.

[AngryAtheist]

Originally Posted by atheist_angel

To say that the universe will "punish us with death" is to say that the universe has an intent and a decision-making process.

If we die because we make the planet uninhabitable to us, before we have somewhere else to go, that's just 'cause and effect'.

If we do the above, but have somewhere to go... Where's the punishment?

It was an analogy !! The cause is us (ie the crime) the effect is destruction of our planet (ie the punishment)