Has life always existed?

Daniel wrote:
>Funnily enough, Peikoff seems to have forgotten the whole point here: which is that those very conditions, attributes, and functions of consciousness - and indeed its very exercise itself - will, from that "someday" forth, no longer be able to be considered even to the slightest extent as being "free".

>Michael replied:Why?

Do you understand the implications for what we (loosely) call "free will" of accepting a strong physical determinism?

- Daniel

Post 41

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 6:13pm

Bill,

Thank you for the nice comments. If my comments are of value to you, I have received my payment.

About the thing you questioned: I am not in accord with you on one point. You stated: >>If the material universe is to be knowable it must conform to some set of principles (laws) that are universal (apply to everything) and eternal (all the time), and those laws and principles must be discoverable and understandable.<<

Why should the material universe be (fully and perfectly) knowable to us? Why must its principles be discoverable and understandable (in their entirety)? After all lesser forms of life do quite well without any comprehension of these things. Likewise, it has not been necessary for human beings to have full understanding of the workings of the material universe to thrive. If such has not been necessary, can we assume we have the full means to know these things in their entirety?

First, I did not say the material universe must be knowable, but that if it is knowable, then it must conform to some set of principles, etc. Furthermore, I did not say or mean to imply, the material universe had to be knowable "fully and perfectly," because, in fact, it cannot be. I am not sure, "knowable fully and perfectly," is even capable of meaning. It certainly couldn't apply to a single individual's knowledge (no human being could know everything), nor could it apply to the accumulated knowledge of all individuals, because the knowledge of individuals cannot be, "added up" into a single collection of knowledge. However, it is not the nature of the universe that makes it unknowable "fully and perfectly," but the limits of human nature. We just do not have time to learn everything.

But we do have knowledge of the universe, and such knowledge as we have is only possible because the universe does conform to principles that are inviolable. To the extent the universe is knowable, this must be so, else whatever we thought we knew might only be a fluke in the behavior of an otherwise totally unpredictable and random universe.

Personally I am convinced there is nothing about material existence that cannot be known, even though I am certain everything never will be. The concept of the unknowable is akin to the concept of nothingness. For the same reason there cannot be just nothing, the unknowable is inconceivable. Here is a principle you might like to think about and attempt to refute: That which cannot be known in any way at all does not exist. (The principle is true as it stands, but I sometimes add, "but even if something existed that could not be known, it wouldn't matter.")

Just one comment about the other half of your question which pertains to human capability. While no human being is either infallible or omniscient, there is no limit to what any human can learn about that which a human being can be conscious of. The only limits are time, variations in intellectual ability, the desire to learn, and the fact, that about anything there is more to learn than ever can be. It is not possible to learn everything "fully and perfectly" about a single other person, much less the universe, but we can certainly learn all we need to about other persons and the universe to deal with both rationally, and we must, because we, unlike the, "lesser forms of life," are rational/volitional creatures--it is a requirement of our nature.

Thanks again for both the comments and interesting question.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/01, 4:11am)

Post 42

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 8:36pm

Regi,

I've been away for a few days, so I haven't had a chance to congratulate you on your essay on Ontology above. You've certainly convinced me of this definition of life! Since you first introduced it in this thread, I always found the key idea of treating the life process as primary as opposed to the physical process to be an intriguing assertion. Thanks for conveying it to me.

So now that I've gotten the definition out of the way, we should address the main question of the thread, which was the claim that life has always existed, in one form or another.

I suppose that, as you note in your essay, since we cannot directly observe the life process, and we do not know the many ways that an organism may arise from such a life process, it would be very difficult to point at a certain place and claim that there is no life in that vicinity. So I suppose your comment about Cosmology not refuting the conjecture that life has always existed is justified, so long as one rejects the Big Bang Theory (which I agree with you that one ought to reject it).

However, despite the fact that scientists are unjustified in positing the Big Bang as an explanation for observed phenomena, these phenomena are the basis of my first question.

Scientists have confirmed (via observing microwave radiation which is uniformly present in every direction one looks) that (1) distant matter in the universe was once in close contact at one point, and (2) when this occurred, the matter was extremely hot, on the order of billions of degrees Kelvin.

Under such conditions, atoms cannot even form, and at that time, particles would have so much kinetic energy that there could be no structure whatsoever-- any transient structrue or process would be immediately ripped apart or dissipated by the huge amounts of energy present in the environment at that time.

First, how, under such conditions, could there have been any life processes?

Next, if no life process could exist under these circumstances, how do you explain the formation of the "first" life process from (apparently) nonliving processes?

Sincerely,

Nate

Post 43

Saturday, May 1, 2004 - 6:12am

Daniel:

Do you understand the implications for what we (loosely) call "free will" of accepting a strong physical determinism?

Yes, but understanding the physics of consciousness doesn't make it determined.

Post 44

Saturday, May 1, 2004 - 6:19am

Nate,

Welcome back and thank you for the very nice comment.

... we should address the main question of the thread, which was the claim that life has always existed, in one form or another.

Yes, since we made such a fuss about the name of this thread, we probably ought to say something about the name it finally has.

Please let me preface my remarks by saying, I am considering the question from a philosophical point of view. Someone else has pointed out to me the question is not philosophically significant, and to philosophy itself, I think that is true. But one purpose of philosophy is to establish the essential principles of what true knowledge is and how it can be integrated into a non-contradictory hierarchy. It is philosophy's failure to do that which has allowed scientists to make many of the wild assertions they do, as alluded to in my Post 37.

My point is, it is a mistake to use the assertions and interpretations of science in an attempt to establish philosophical principles or answer philosophical questions. A correct philosophy will not contradict any valid scientific discoveries or interpretation but will establish the metaphysical and epistemological basis for those truths. It is wrong, however, to reverse the process.

Scientists have confirmed (via observing microwave radiation which is uniformly present in every direction one looks) that (1) distant matter in the universe was once in close contact at one point, and (2) when this occurred, the matter was extremely hot, on the order of billions of degrees Kelvin.

Under such conditions, atoms cannot even form, and at that time, particles would have so much kinetic energy that there could be no structure whatsoever-- any transient structure or process would be immediately ripped apart or dissipated by the huge amounts of energy present in the environment at that time.

Consider this, "matter was extremely hot, on the order of billions of degrees Kelvin," and "particles would have so much kinetic energy that there could be no structure whatsoever."

What is matter, particulate or any other kind, that has no structure whatsoever? (If there is no structure at all, there are no particles, or anything else.) This is an interpretation of the data, not an observed fact. This is a scientific mistake, which is not the fault of scientists, but the philosophers who have failed to provide the principles by which scientific data must be interpreted.

Now, your questions:<p>

First, how, under such conditions, could there have been any life processes?

Under such conditions, there couldn't; but, "such conditions," as described, describe nothing. Energy does not exist on its own. The concept of, "pure energy," as an ontological existent, is as mistaken as Platonic universals. The only energy ever observed (or possible) is the acceleration of matter, and matter consists of physical existents, the very thing the description excludes.

I do not doubt at all the data these descriptions are attempts to "picture" or "model" are correct, but I know the "picture" is wrong. It essentially says, "here is something that has no attributes, qualities, or characteristic (structure) except, it is hot." But something that has no attributes, qualities, or characteristics at all does not exist, and cannot be hot, or cold, or green, or anything else.

Next, if no life process could exist under these circumstances, how do you explain the formation of the "first" life process from (apparently) nonliving processes?

Of, course, in light of what I've already said, I think the question is moot; but since that data does legitimately imply conditions have not always been as they are now, and may have been very different, the question is worth considering.

One thing we know about life is it is extremely adaptable. Even hard-shell creationists admit that aspect of evolution. Different conditions, even extreme ones, do not exclude the possibility of life. To exclude the possibility that life, in some form, has always existed, it would have to be conclusively demonstrated that some conditions existed which made any form of life impossible. It seems unlikely to me such a demonstration is possible. (It is what you were attempting, I believe.)

But, even if that could be demonstrated, at the risk of being mistaken for introducing the mystical, life is "a process of self-sustained and self-generated action," but that is also a description of the universe itself. To attribute life to the universe would be a mistake, but we must admit the universe is self-sustained and generates its own action and that those two attributes, fundamental to life, already exist as essential aspects of the nature of reality.

(Sorry, this was a bit hurried.)

Regi

Post 45

Saturday, May 1, 2004 - 10:54pm

Daniel:
>>Do you understand the implications for what we (loosely) call "free will" of accepting a strong physical determinism?
Michael wrote:
>Yes, but understanding the physics of consciousness doesn't make it determined.

Ah. You've missed the point, which is not about whether one *understands* the physics of it or not. What Peikoff is saying is that one day we may discover that consciousness is entirely the "product" of physical conditions - that it is 100% determined by its physical conditions, as Hume or Laplace believed. This means that it is governed by the laws of physics, and not ourselves. This means that our free will is actually an illusion, and is the mere product of other interconnected physical movements of the universe.

Whether as humans, we have the intelligence to make predictions of this vast complexity is neither here nor there, as Hume pointed out, As I said earlier, just because we cannot read does not change what is written in a book. The idea of "free will" cannot survive such a discovery, should we ever make it. That is what the philosphical issue of determinism is all about.

- Daniel

Post 46

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 12:07pm

Greetings.

I am back, as promised. Mr. Firehammer wrote an interesting article on "Cause, Determinism, and Life," and I have a few issues to address with respect to it.

Mr. Firehammer termed life a "differentiation" just as acceleration is a differentiation upon motion and motion is a differentiation upon position. In mathematics, the notion of differentiation always implies a rate at which a given process is performed (i.e. the rate of change in position or velocity). Can life be considered a rate? And if so, how?

I tend to view life as the reverse process of differentiation, namely, one of integration, as, for example, the integral of a constant function (a number, say, 5), can produce a function that changes with respect to a variable (in this case, 5x). Let the constants be the material components of existence, and let their integration, their juxtaposition not only with respect to the nature of particles present, but also their relative spatial orientation be life. The material elements by themselves are inanimate, deterministic, and predictable. However, when they combine to form an autonomous entity of volitional consciousness, their integrated sum possesses characteristics that the raw elements would not (i.e. volition and consciousness).

Also, the analogy works in the sense that an integral can be differentiated (life can disintegrate into its raw components) and a derivative function can be integrated (life can arise from non-life, under certain conditions, say, when a certain "constant of integration" is given).

Nevertheless, I indeed agree with much that is stated in Mr. Firehammer's article, including his identification of the inherent contradictions and inviabilities of determinism.

Earlier, Citizen Rat wrote: "The fact remains that fifty years later we still do not have any clear idea of how life arose from non-life. We are having problems getting from amino acids to RNA and again making the leap from RNA to DNA."

True, there are questions yet to be answered, but we must recognize that science is indeed a process of gradual discovery of objective truth, and at times a hypothesis can be given consideration when there is overwhelming evidence in its favor, though more evidence is required to confirm it with full certainty. (I do, however, believe, that it is possible to achieve full certainty is asserting a given proposition. For example, the fact that smoking is greatly detrimental to one's health has been proved by medical science without any reasonable doubt.)

I have, by the way, spoken to a friend of mine today, who has read of a current experiment being conducted to create RNA molecules in an artificial reducing atmosfere. When I have more detailed information, I will post it here.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 47

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 5:53pm

Welcome back, Mr. Stolyarov,

And thank you for the, as always, interesting comments.

Mr. Firehammer termed life a "differentiation" just as acceleration is a differentiation upon motion and motion is a differentiation upon position. In mathematics, the notion of differentiation always implies a rate at which a given process is performed (i.e. the rate of change in position or velocity). Can life be considered a rate? And if so, how?

I did not have the Calculus in mind when I chose the word "differentiation." It would, of course be the first meaning you would think of, being a mathematician. My meaning is based on the plain dictionary definition of differentiate, such as the first three from the following:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Transitive Verb: 1. To constitute the distinction between: subspecies that are differentiated by the markings on their wings. 2. To perceive or show the difference in or between; discriminate. 3. To make different by alteration or modification. 4. Mathematics To calculate the derivative or differential of (a function).

I mean that just as "change" is what makes motion distinct (different in a fundamental way) from position, so "life" makes organisms distainct (different in a fundamental way) form mere non-living physical entities. I suppose differentiate as I am using it would mean, to be different in a fundamental way that cannot be produced from the nature of that which does not exhibit that difference. That is why I made the analogous comparison, just as no arrangement of positions can produce motion without the differentiating quality change, no arrangement of physical entities (or substances) can produce an organism without the differentiating quality life.

You said: "I tend to view life as the reverse process of differentiation, namely, one of integration ..."

Although I do not think the Calculus exactly fits the ontology, I agree with you. Differentiation, as I was using it, is the opposite of differentiation as used in the Calculus.

... let their integration, their juxtaposition not only with respect to the nature of particles present, but also their relative spatial orientation be life. The material elements by themselves are inanimate, deterministic, and predictable. However, when they combine to form an autonomous entity of volitional consciousness, their integrated sum possesses characteristics that the raw elements would not (i.e. volition and consciousness).

If I understand what you mean, as it stands, this could not be a description of life, I think, because it leaves out the most important aspect of life: the fact it is a process that is both self-sustained and self-generated action. Life is not the result of the arrangement (or integration) of physical components, no matter how complex it is, because it is the process itself that makes the components and their arrangement, "alive," not the other way around.

Thanks again for the comments. I trust you had a successful trip.

Regi

Post 48

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 12:09pm

Greetings.

Mr. Firehammer, thank you for your clarifications concerning your intended meaning of the word "differentiation." In this respect, change and life can be differentiating qualities, but they can still be viewed as purely material concepts.

As Ayn Rand pointed out in numerous works, there can be no change without that, which changes, and no life without that, which lives. With regard to forming the concepts of change and life, measurement omission is an epistemological, not a metafysical device. Measurement omission would result in the claim that "life can exist in a broad range of entities, but has to exist in some entity in order to be a valid concept for the external reality." If this is the case, then there cannot be life without that which lives, i.e. the fysical organism, whose earliest ancestors at one point arose abiotically. The concept "life," though we can conveniently discuss it using the epistemological method of concept formation does not thereby become an entity in its own right, distinct from fysical matter or existing in some otherworldly sfere. You, Mr. Firehammer, have mentioned similar concerns with regard to mathematical models being misinterpreted as the actual reality rather than methods to assist man in organizing and operating with the data of reality. I would claim that rendering life a separate epistemological concept through the valid mental function of differentiation, and then applying the conclusion to claim that life is somehow metafysically distinct from the fysical world in which it is observed is akin to stating that change exists in a non-fysical realm, sense, or dimension.

I will now give an example of a case where the existence of a quality that can be "differentiatiated" with respect to a set of existents does not imply the perpetual existence of this quality.

A hypothetical scientist has invented a boxlike object upon whose surface are elaborate arrangements of mirrors and lenses which produce intricate geometric designs from the concentration, reflection, and juxtaposition of light in an ordinary room. He creates several of these, each of which is capable of producing shapes of various magnitudes. Let us pretend that some of these boxes differ in the size of the star-shaped image that is created. The scientist decides to perform an act of conceptualization with regard to this fact and call the quality "starness." Just as change differentiates motion from position, so does "starness" differentiate the light-boxes from, say, crates and safes. All of the light boxes can be crafted to exhibit some starness, but could exhibit any starness.

Does this imply that starness has always existed, even before the scientist invented the light-boxes?

Mr. Firehammer then wrote: "...it is the process itself that makes the components and their arrangement, "alive," not the other way around."

So, then, does the process of change make objects move rather than the fysical objects that are doing the moving?

Does the quality of "starness" precede the light-boxes that exhibit it?

Can any process be antecedent, either existentially or conceptually, to the fysical components which enact it?

I hope I have implied my answer, but I am also interested in Mr. Firehammer's response to these questions.

Mr. Firehammer concluded: Thanks again for the comments. I trust you had a successful trip.

Indeed I did. I thank you for your response as well.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 49

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 1:32pm

Thank you Mr. Stolyarov for the comments.

Your statement, "Measurement omission would result in the claim that "life can exist in a broad range of entities, but has to exist in some entity in order to be a valid concept for the external reality." If this is the case, then there cannot be life without that which lives, i.e. the fysical organism ..." seems to indicate a misunderstanding about my position. Certainly life cannot exist independently of the physical organism. I said in post Post 28:

"An organism is not just a piece of complex matter with a process running on or in it. An organism is an integration of material substance and a process that maintains it as an organism. All that an organism does, as an organism, it does because it is living. The life process, as a process of the organism, is a purely physical process, obeying all the laws of physics, and requires the physical organism to function. One of the requirements of the life process (determined by its nature) is it must maintain the integrity of the physical organism it is the life of.

"It is this integrated nature of an organism that makes the behavior of an organism unique. As a physical entity, it is still subject to the laws of physics. A fish being pushed around by the currents and eddies in a stream is a purely physical reaction. That same fish swimming against the current exhibits living behavior. The behavior itself is a physical action, but it is not the physical nature of the organism that initiates or makes possible that behavior, but the life process. If it were not for that process the fish would not be a living organism capable of that unique behavior we call living behavior, such as swimming."

After your interesting "star-box image maker" illustration, you asked:

"Does the quality of "starness" precede the light-boxes that exhibit it?

Can any process be antecedent, either existentially or conceptually, to the fysical components which enact it?"

The life process does not precede logically nor exist independently of the physical aspects it is the process of. The life process is a physical process, but that process, as the life of an organism, does not itself have any physical qualities or characteristics. As I said in another post on this thread, "Life does not have mass, a pH factor, a temperature, an electromagnetic state, or any other physical property or characteristic." Life, itself, is not a physical existent, it is the process that distinguishes a living organism from dead physical matter. Life exists materially and metaphysically, because it exists independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, but it does not exist physically, because no aspect of merely physical (non-living) existence is dependent on life for its nature.

Suppose we weigh an organism immediately before it dies, and weigh it again immediately after it dies. So long as no material has escaped the organism, the weight will be the same for both cases. The life existed so long as the organism was alive, but ceased to exist when the organism died. It cannot be weighed, however, because life has no physical qualities, yet an organism cannot be an organism without it. Life is a real existent, but not a physical one.

This does not make life something supernatural or mystical, because it is a perfectly natural process of physical existence; it only means, a process, as a process, does not itself have physical qualities; just as consciousness, as consciousness, does not itself have physical qualities. Certainly, there must be a physical organism to be conscious, but the consciousness itself is not physical, it is psychological, and an aspect of the life process, without which, there could not be consciousness.

I will be pleased to entertain you comments and criticisms.

Regi

Post 50

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 11:56am

Greetings.

Mr. Firehammer stated: The life process does not precede logically nor exist independently of the physical aspects it is the process of. The life process is a physical process, but that process, as the life of an organism, does not itself have any physical qualities or characteristics.

Then he continued to write: Life, itself, is not a physical existent, it is the process that distinguishes a living organism from dead physical matter. Life exists materially and metaphysically, because it exists independently of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, but it does not exist physically, because no aspect of merely physical (non-living) existence is dependent on life for its nature.

I admit we are closer on this than I had initially thought. My primary quarrel with the above statements is with Mr. Firehammer's use of certain terminology. For this purpose, I will ask him several questions regarding the aforementioned.

* If it is granted that life is a process and that life exists, and moreover that it is a fysical process, how can it be maintained that life is not a fysical existent?

* If no fysical existent is dependent on life for its nature, how do we explain the following?
- The heart ceases to contract and pump blood after death.
- The neurons of the nervous system cease to transmit action potentials after death.
- The organism as a totality cannot exist for long after death. The processes of bodily decay set in almost immediately, as the maintenance of bodily tissues is no longer possible absent any brain-coordinated activity. This is why corpses decompose or require various techniques of embalming or mummification to be preserved. Is the organism not a single integrated entity (and very much a fysical one) that exhibits a certain nature, and whose nature, even in its basic fysical form, cannot be sustained after death?

Mr. Firehammer wrote about massing a given organism before and immediately after death and determining the absence of significant mass distinctions. But this does not hold long after death. After all, does the organic flesh not tend to decompose faster than the calcified bone, thus resulting in the fenomenon whereby corpses become reduced to skeletons (of significantly smaller mass) over time? And though mass may not change instantaneously, are there not other fysical aspects of the organism's nature (i.e. heart and brain function) that are dramatically altered and impeded over an extremely short time period?

I will claim that I can distinguish any living organism from any dead one just by looking at it. Evidently, the fysical nature of an organism and its constituent components is indeed different in the presence of life than it is in the absence of it.

Mr. Firehammer writes: This does not make life something supernatural or mystical, because it is a perfectly natural process of physical existence...

We agree here. I did not think that Mr. Firehammer was ever attributing life to a mystical realm. The word I had used to describe his view was "ethereal," which, though it sometimes has mystical connotations, once characterized some positions held by scientists who were filosofically committed to reason. They believed (during the early Renaissance) that all space was filled by ether, "an all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium formerly postulated as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves." (Dictionary.com) Ether, according to them, was an actual existent, but one that did not exhibit fysical dimensions. This seems to be what Mr. Firehammer claims with respect to life, though he certainly rejects the notion of ether in space, as it was originally conceived. Our positions seem to differ in our interpretations of what constitutes the existent, life, and whether, based on this nature, life need always have existed in some form, or whether it could have at one point arisen abiotically.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 51

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 6:02pm

Mr. Stolyarov,

I admit we are closer on this than I had initially thought.

Yes, I think so too. You had some questions:

* If it is granted that life is a process and that life exists, and moreover that it is a fysical process, how can it be maintained that life is not a fysical existent?

The identity of anything is its qualities. Physical existents have physical qualities like weight, size, temperature, chemical properties, etc. Life is defined as a self-sustained process (or, more precisely, a process of self-sustained and self-generated action). A process doe not weigh anything, have a size or temperature, and has no chemical or any other physical qualities. The physical aspects of the organism have physical qualities, but the process that uses the physical organism to sustain itself does not.

* If no fysical existent is dependent on life for its nature, how do we explain the following?
- The heart ceases to contract and pump blood after death.
- The neurons of the nervous system cease to transmit action potentials after death.
...etc.

I emphasized elsewhere that it is the life that distinguishes living organisms from dead physical entities, and that the life sustains itself by sustaining the organism as an organism. But the life does not sustain the physical aspects of the components of an organism. The chemicals the organism is constructed have exactly the same properties both before and after the the death of an organism. The actual physical structure of an organism does begin to change immediate upon death, because the life process that sustained it as an organism has ceased. It is no longer an organism, but is still a physical entity. Plain non-living entities cannot sustain themselves, and therefore disintegrate.

I will claim that I can distinguish any living organism from any dead one just by looking at it.

This, I think, is irrelevant, but interesting. I do not believe you really could. Some "dead" organism are obviously dead as soon as you see one. In cases of the comatose, the question has frequently been answered incorrectly even by experts. I have a package of seeds that are a couple of years old. I cannot tell by looking at them if they are still alive or not. Neither could you.

The word I had used to describe his view was "ethereal," which, though it sometimes has mystical connotations, once characterized some positions held by scientists who were filosofically committed to reason. They believed (during the early Renaissance) that all space was filled by ether, "an all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium formerly postulated as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves."

I see what you mean, but of course you know I was not implying that either. It is interesting that Ayn Rand believed science gave up the notion of the ether too quickly. There is a reason for it. Though both particulate and wave characteristics are attributed to light, depending on the phenomena being explained, electromagnetic waves, if they are truly waves, must be waves of something. What are they waves of? As Ayn Rand would say, "blank out!".

(By the way, if you think the notion of ether has been completely abandoned, it hasn't. Scientist have simply smuggled it back in under a new name, field, aka, the space time continuum.)

For my part I am satisfied with the extent of the resolution of our differences on these question. I completely understand your reservations about my way of expressing my views, which are not precisely the same as yours, but I do not believe we differ on the fundamentals.

We never have answered the original question of this thread, but it has been interesting. Your final statement, "Our positions seem to differ in our interpretations of what constitutes the existent, life, and whether, based on this nature, life need always have existed in some form, or whether it could have at one point arisen abiotically," is probably the closest we'll come to understanding each others position.

Thanks for the always interesting and reasonable discussion!

Regi

Post 52

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 2:57am

Hi,
Weren't you guys getting into the Weak and Strong Anthropic principles here?
Cass

Post 53

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 9:10am

Hi Cass,

Not sure who, "you guys," means, but if it includes me, I personally consider both the Weak and Strong Anthropic principles unscientific and unphilosophical. They can both be reduced to, "if things were different they would be different," which is certainly true, but irrelevant.

Regi

Post 54

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 6:07pm

I believe that life has always existed.

My thoughts on this -- and discussions with others -- go back to the mid-1980s when computer programs called "viruses" were first popularizied. I wrote several magazine articles tracing the history of self-replicating code and exploring the philosophical ramifications of programs that mimic life.

What we call "life" is a measure of existence, the quantity of "is-ness" intrinsic to every existent.

I have yet to find another definition of "life" that is internally consistent. For instance, mules cannot reproduce their own kind, but mules are very much alive. We admit that crystals are highly organized, though we do not consider them alive.

Post 55

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 5:53pm