admiral_ju00 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 personally' date=' i believe that "life" is defined by a chemical equation that we cannot see. everything in life is carried out and exists by means of a chemical equation, so "life" is just another chemical equation which humans have yet to understand.[/quote'] That is one perspective/opinion. Life has to be more than a simple chemical equation as that would mean that the equation is Non-Chaotic and is at Equilibrium. Life Is Chaotic and Equilibrium is achieved with death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senexa Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Would it not be more valuable to discuss what is 'being' rather than what is 'life'? In seeking a definition of life, the very use of the term crowds the mind into looking for stasis, when in fact there is only the constant chaos of change in that which is alive ... which is a being, or that which is being or becoming or transforming. In one sense, every thing is alive and exchanging portions of itself with the rest of existant others, be it star or rock or virus or water. In a stricter sense, being implies consciousness of self, an adaptive response to stimuli, reproductivity or replication, metabolization, and a sense of community. Personally, I believe the last is the most important criterion. Does the being recognize others of its kind and respond to them? Does it seek out optimal conditions for further growth, including joining a community or creating one? Can it communicate with others of its kind? Will it reach stasis without such a community? Finally, does the being recognize 'otherness', for in order to seek that which is different, one must have/become being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 That is one perspective/opinion. Life has to be more than a simple chemical equation as that would mean that the equation is Non-Chaotic and is at Equilibrium. Life Is Chaotic and Equilibrium is achieved with death. hence the part where i said, "personally." how is life "chaotic?" and how do you know equilibrium is achieved by death? the equation of "Life" could just be a beginning sequence followed by other sequences or it could be using elements that humans have never seen nor understand. just throwing the idea out there since everything in life is nothing more than a chemical equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 There's no point speculating about inherently unobservable effects, because if they are unobservable they may as well not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 there a lot of things in science that are not observable. that doesn't mean that they dont exist, it simply means that you have opened a new area of study. be a free thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 The non-observable parts of science are derived purely from first principles and are irreducable. They aren't just "things people came up with". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 there are a lot of theories in science. this is a silly argument. people make theories based on previous knoweledge. i know that everything occurs by a chemical equation, therefore my theory is "life is nothing more than a chemical equation that humans have yet to see and observe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Describe a ball dropping in terms of a chemical equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Hero, I was going to type a lenghty explanation of what I(or IS) meant by that, but I've just stumbled on this site, and at a quick visual scan, it should answer your questions: http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/c1/node60.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 A few things: 1. Science is (not?) subjective? Science is inherently subjective, since it is based on observation. Mathematics, on the other hand, isn't. It is based on logic and a set of axioms. 2. Biology is (not?) science? What do you mean by 'biology'? Most of today's is of the order of biochem, or the like; it's not looking at Red Deer and saying that their population wavers because they're engaged in a war with the Grey Squirrel, like it was 200 years ago. 3. Science is (not?) physics? Physics is what all sciences can be reduced to, because everything exists on the sufferance of natural laws. Chemistry, Biology, Metallurgy, Geology and whatever you would like to name, are sciences because they follow the scientific method, they don't have to be completely distinct from other areas to be counted as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Err. never mind. 3. Science is (not?) physics? Physics is what all sciences can be reduced to' date=' because everything exists on the sufferance of natural laws. Chemistry, Biology, Metallurgy, Geology and whatever you would like to name, are sciences because they follow the scientific method, they don't have to be completely distinct from other areas to be counted as such.[/quote'] Call me crazy, but I'm one of those who firmly believes that this is the OLD way of looking at things. One that does not exactly work as it is meant by the above quote. Call me even crazier, but I love how Physics did a crash and burn maneuver when it came to DNA and explaining how it works, what it looks like, etc. I could name lots of other things that Physics will once again fail miserably at explaining when it comes to a matter in say Biology, Ecology, Sociology, Economics, even perhaps Geology, just to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cells R Us Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 there is no simple definition of life. Life can be described in a list of nine processes. I forgot some of them but here are a few... something is considered living if it can... 1. reproduce 2. Break down organic matter for energy 3. maintain homeostasis 4. has a limited life span 5. evolve over time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted July 12, 2004 Author Share Posted July 12, 2004 thats an intresting definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 5. evolve over time Individuals can't evolve, so that would be a quality of "life" rather than of "something alive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Call me even crazier, but I love how Physics did a crash and burn maneuver when it came to DNA and explaining how it works, what it looks like, etc. I'm just making up the fact that the structure of DNA was discovered at the New Cavendish Physics Labs, University of Cambridge, then? Or don't you count X-Ray crystallography as 'physics'? Perhaps you're being a little over the top here, my lad. It is, at the moment, impossibly difficult to work things out from physical first principles (as it were), but that will not be the case forever. For instance, discovering chemicals (and the like) was, several hundred years ago, absolutely nothing to do with physical processes, because we didn't have the mathematics or the knowledge of the physics to link them. I could name lots of other things that Physics will once again fail miserably at explaining when it comes to a matter in say Biology, Ecology, Sociology, Economics, even perhaps Geology, just to name a few. Economics and Sociology? Don't make me laugh. With respect to Biology, it depends how far you take it. Once you get down to the cellular level, it's physics all the way baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I'm just making up the fact that the structure of DNA was discovered at the New Cavendish Physics Labs, University of Cambridge, then? Or don't you count X-Ray crystallography as 'physics'? Perhaps you're being a little over the top here, my lad. No, I do not discount the things that Physics did that helped along the way - and like you said, X-ray was the key. However, If my memory serves me right(and it is) a Chemist came a lot closer(didn't get the gold) to explaining what the dna was. The physicist with his theory did perform have a crash and burn at the exact same task. physical first principles (as it were) Let's keep any future thoughts and speculation on what a Physicist can do at say explaining at a great detail how an Ecosystem works to well, the future. With respect to Biology, it depends how far you take it. Once you get down to the cellular level, it's physics all the way baby. Yes because everything is made out of molecules and you will know about it better than I, however, your Quantum mechanics(or whatever) will not and does not explain any of the cellular functions, let alone an entire organism or worse yet, an entire biological system. Future what if's and what could be's are irrelevant. If there was no need for various branches within the science, then why and how were they created in the first place? Because Physics has it's limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 DNA was hardly the best example, what with sitting at the busiest junction between biology, physics and chemistry counties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Oh my god, if you're going to use my arguments pls do it properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Oh my god, if you're going to use my arguments pls do it properly Ok, me confused. Who and what are you talking about Sayo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Post #66, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 No doubt about post 66, however I didn't rip it from you. Although now that I think about it, you did say something similar(at least as far as the future is concerned) in your last debate. Since the field I'm studying for does involve a great deal of biology and genetics, that is where our thoughts were derived. As far as the DNA being not the best example of the Physics/Chemistry/Biology entanglement, it is rather one of the perhaps more famous and easiest to point out. By the way JaKiri, while I understand about say the Economics, what is so funny about Sociology(Social Psychology)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now