On 9/12/2025 at 2:21 AM, Phi for All said:

What?!

Life is an emergent property of organic matter.

Spacetime is a mathematical model we use to show the effects of relativity on matter and energy.

Conception is a vague and meaningless attribution that ignores the fact that all the pieces that contribute to life were already alive themselves.

There's no evidence at all for this, and it's easily testable. If there is a soul, it's nothing physical, it has no mass or energy. Is it emergent, like the personality you developed growing up? Could your soul be your persona, the accumulation of your experiences, your wit and humor, is that possible? Because having anything like that use the geometry of relativity is just bizarre.

"all the pieces that contribute to life were already alive themselves"

Yes, this is right. Life is a "pass down" process. So all living things we see today are as a result of a "pass down" from previous "parents". If this is the case , where / when was the first "pass down"??

"If there is a soul, it's nothing physical, it has no mass or energy"

Yes, that it right.

My guess is that the "soul" develops as we grow. If we have a "soul" and it has never been measured, we can "observe" it's effect - eg through emotions etc. Kind of like observing light through the 2-slit experiment. Because of it's strange nature you need to observe indirectly.

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

"If there is a soul, it's nothing physical, it has no mass or energy"

Yes, that it right.

My guess is that the "soul" develops as we grow.

What grows, if it has no mass or energy

3 hours ago, julius2 said:

If we have a "soul" and it has never been measured, we can "observe" it's effect - eg through emotions etc. Kind of like observing light through the 2-slit experiment. Because of it's strange nature you need to observe indirectly

You can’t conclude “soul” until you eliminate all other possible causes for emotion, or etc.

On 9/27/2025 at 10:43 AM, swansont said:

What grows, if it has no mass or energy

You can’t conclude “soul” until you eliminate all other possible causes for emotion, or etc.

"all the pieces that contribute to life were already alive themselves"

Yes, this is right. Life is a "pass down" process. So all living things we see today are as a result of a "pass down" from previous "parents". If this is the case , where / when was the first "pass down"??

It is not possible for any living thing not to have a parent. Mosquitoes lay eggs, plants have seeds, elephants have parent elephants, whales have parent whales etc.

When was the first "pass down"?

8 minutes ago, julius2 said:

"all the pieces that contribute to life were already alive themselves"

Yes, this is right. Life is a "pass down" process. So all living things we see today are as a result of a "pass down" from previous "parents". If this is the case , where / when was the first "pass down"??

You replied to me, but I didn’t say the quoted bit you included here. How does this address my question about what grows/develops?

On 9/26/2025 at 9:58 PM, julius2 said:

If this is the case , where / when was the first "pass down"??

The definition of life is a little nebulous. Is a bacterium alive? They were about for billions of years before multicellular life.

There is no "pass down" either, this is not a thing in Biology, bacteria reproduce asexuality.

On 9/26/2025 at 9:58 PM, julius2 said:

My guess is that the "soul" develops as we grow.

The soul is also not a thing in Biology. You should not mix unsupported notions with scientific process.

17 hours ago, julius2 said:

"all the pieces that contribute to life were already alive themselves"

Yes, this is right. Life is a "pass down" process. So all living things we see today are as a result of a "pass down" from previous "parents". If this is the case , where / when was the first "pass down"??

As @pinball1970 indicates, It is in fact notoriously hard to come up with an exact definition of what is necessary for something to be considered "alive". So your idea of a passing down of "life" from one generation to the next is a bit simplistic.

At the start of life there would probably have been various biochemical systems with some of the properties we now associate with life, including, at some point, a highly imperfect ability to replicate in some way. But we don't know how it took place. That's why people are researching abiogenesis.

Edited October 4Oct 4 by exchemist

I don't understand why this thread has wandered around so far off topic, whilst introducing many huge topics, each of which should be in a separate thread of its own

Further I didn't get much traction when I offerd detailed insights into the original topic.

Nevertheless since the OP has now raised the topic of 'what is life' ,

here are a few thoughts.

So, amongst others, Life appears to have some or all of the following characteristics.

Ability to absorb 'food' material (including energy) and also to excrete 'waste' material.

Ability of cause replication of itself.

Ability to grow.

Ability to move in some way, in whole or in part.

Ability to respond to stimulus.

There are others but this will do.

It can be said that the dendritic growth of crystal structures exhibits all of these, plus some of the ones I haven't mentioned.

Does this make these crystals alive ?

It all depends on your view point and how you want to see things.

Everything is alive…. Is it exists, it is alive. It had a birth and at some point may be destroyed. The void of space is alive, energy, alive, matter, alive, things made of these, alive… all the way to bio chemical, alive, simple arrangements of bio chemicals, alive, self replicating arrangements of bio chemicals, alive, complex structured arrangements of replicating bio chemicals, alive, simple organisms, alive, complex organisms, alive, sentient organisms alive, the thoughts and imaginations of said sentient organisms, alive, the abstract rules and math used to describe their environment and experience alive.

Up to you where you draw the line, but the universe expands because of dark energy acting upon spacetime and the whole universe making the voids between the denser regions of the universe (the cosmic web, galaxy clusters ets) seem to expand more as this process is drowned out by the gravity. ie outbin the void dark energy can spread its big old arms, but they are weak arms. In denser regiouns matter acts like people all crouded in a room squashed togeather and little poor dark energy is squashed so small no one notices them and they are to weak to push back.

Maybe one day dark energy will grow strong enough to push everyone apart and declare I AM ALIVE

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Everything is alive…. Is it exists, it is alive

The Syndrome syndrome. When everyone is super, nobody is.

One of the reasons to categorize is to make distinctions, and this renders it pointless. So you just kick the can down the road, and have to come up with some new description that allows you to make distinctions.

 

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

the universe expands because of dark energy acting upon spacetime

No, dark energy is responsible for the acceleration of expansion, not the expansion itself

1 hour ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

It all depends on your view point and how you want to see things.

I prefer a definition of alive that retains meaningfulness. The distinction between organic and inorganic matter blurs under your POV. Claiming energy is a thing that could have life also doesn't fit within a scientific framework. Energy is a property of things, not a thing itself.

2 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

Everything is alive…. Is it exists, it is alive

No. If we're that simple NASA, ESA and the other scientific organisations, would not be spending billions of dollars every year looking for life signatures on Mars, meteors and the atmospheres of exoplanets.

What you described sounds like animism which is nothing to do with science.

The link below may be useful.

https://www.britannica.com/science/life

In terms of definitions things get a little tricky when you get to viruses and things like plasmids as discussed.

The first replicator whatever it was on earth that kick started Abiogenesis, would not have met the Britannia definition.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, dark energy is responsible for the acceleration of expansion, not the expansion itself

Good catch, woops 👍

7 hours ago, BuddhasDragon23 said:

It all depends on your view point and how you want to see things.

Isn't the method of science to get to models of an objective reality which are not dependent on my view point and how I might want to see things?

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

objective reality which are not dependent on my view point

Exactly !
Science is NOT observer dependent; it IS observation dependent.

On 10/4/2025 at 4:47 PM, pinball1970 said:

The definition of life is a little nebulous. Is a bacterium alive? They were about for billions of years before multicellular life.

There is no "pass down" either, this is not a thing in Biology, bacteria reproduce asexuality.

The soul is also not a thing in Biology. You should not mix unsupported notions with scientific process.

Bacteria has a parent of sorts. My understanding is that to replicate, the one cell grows and the bacterial chromosome is copied.

The cell then splits into two forming two daughter cells.

So there would be no replicated bacteria without the original cell?

On 10/4/2025 at 9:43 PM, exchemist said:

As @pinball1970 indicates, It is in fact notoriously hard to come up with an exact definition of what is necessary for something to be considered "alive". So your idea of a passing down of "life" from one generation to the next is a bit simplistic.

At the start of life there would probably have been various biochemical systems with some of the properties we now associate with life, including, at some point, a highly imperfect ability to replicate in some way. But we don't know how it took place. That's why people are researching abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis - the origin of life from non-living matter.

The thing is , is it possible to create life just by mixing molecules together? It seems that many pieces of the puzzle have been achieved, such as organic molecule formation, partial RNA copying etc. But is it likely scientists will ever be able to create life?

Invisible threads proposal

This is where early life sprung up from "invisible threads" interacting. Let's say in the early Earth billions of years ago in with matter were these "invisible threads". It may have taken a long time but the interaction of these threads eventually leads to life coming in to existence.

In the life we see today the proposal is that these threads still exist. For instance the invisible threads of a male dog and the invisible threads of a female dog combine. This then results in a "download" of more threads. This forms the life basis for the baby dog. In humans the "invisible threads" is the soul.

So if scientists or whoever are trying to create life from just molecules they might not be able to do so without taking into account the interaction of these "invisible threads"??

You replied to me, but I didn’t say the quoted bit you included here. How does this address my question about what grows/develops?

The invisible threads.

Why can't we observe them - because they are from a different dimension.

22 minutes ago, julius2 said:

Bacteria has a parent of sorts. My understanding is that to replicate, the one cell grows and the bacterial chromosome is copied.

The cell then splits into two forming two daughter cells.

So there would be no replicated bacteria without the original cell?

Abiogenesis - the origin of life from non-living matter.

The thing is , is it possible to create life just by mixing molecules together? It seems that many pieces of the puzzle have been achieved, such as organic molecule formation, partial RNA copying etc. But is it likely scientists will ever be able to create life?

Invisible threads proposal

This is where early life sprung up from "invisible threads" interacting. Let's say in the early Earth billions of years ago in with matter were these "invisible threads". It may have taken a long time but the interaction of these threads eventually leads to life coming in to existence.

In the life we see today the proposal is that these threads still exist. For instance the invisible threads of a male dog and the invisible threads of a female dog combine. This then results in a "download" of more threads. This forms the life basis for the baby dog. In humans the "invisible threads" is the soul.

So if scientists or whoever are trying to create life from just molecules they might not be able to do so without taking into account the interaction of these "invisible threads"??

The invisible threads.

Why can't we observe them - because they are from a different dimension.

You are descending into woo, by the look of it, with this "invisible threads" stuff. Where is the evidence for this idea and what does it explain? In science, you cannot just make shit up. Your theories have to be testable by observation of nature.

As to your question about creating life just by mixing molecules together, the answer is almost certainly not. Life requires a whole set of structures as well as biochemical reactions. There are a lot of sub-assemblies. The goal of research into the origin of life is to understand how it may have occurred, not to try to replicate it.

10 hours ago, julius2 said:

The cell then splits into two forming two daughter cells.

Asexual reproduction.

10 hours ago, julius2 said:

"invisible threads" interacting.

This is something you just made up. The biochemistry of life is real. The biochemistry of the the first replicating molecules is not known but there are proposed mechanisms.

That mechanism would have followed the rules of nature, no magic required.