A response to Fat-fist, "The Scientific definition For LIFE"..Towards: The OBJECTIVE definition for LIFE, LIVING/DYING
A response to FatFist's article, "the scientific definition for LIFE."
I'm so sorry to all of those expecting me in this, the first of a series of essays, to pull any punches, to give ANY concessions "defining" the term LIFE, in order to pander to precious- "elan-vital", functional- operational descriptions/explanations. They only masquerade as definitions..and can never be scientific in the rational sense of the word.
Key terms; in classical physics, in rational scientific discourse, fundamental terms are presented by the means of ONE unambiguous definition. This way, we can can eliminate the opinions of the reader, and leave him in no doubt, what we mean. Whether or not he disputes/accepts/believes, your definition, or your theory, after you have presented it, is not the business of science..That's more the business of cults. I hope this essay will be useful..and entertaining to all..well, one can hope!
Is Bruce the Shark "alive"?...Fat-fist needs a bigger boat..
"A natural entity is categorized as ‘living’ if it moves on its own against the
gravitational pull of all other objects in the Universe. Inert entities cannot move in
this specific manner." This was writ by "FAT-FIST"- in his article "The scientific definition of LIFE."
I hope Fat-fist will excuse me taking apart some of his contextually "hamfisted", syntactically "sophisticated" sentences,( and some other chunks of his his article), and allow me to help him to correct it's contents.
"A natural entity"
ENTITY is a term which one could make an essay on in the defining of, before you even get to "LIFE"..And Fat-fist did. It was called "what is an object?"
"Entity",you see, is SYNONYMOUS with "object." Entity is used, by F.F, I imagine, to suggest in the brain of the reader, some difference between, object and entity...like a ghost is termed an "entity" perhaps...(deus ex machina?)
Wiki; "The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities".
"Natural"..Which F.F. terms as "not made by man" This is irrelivant to the defining of the term "LIFE"(see wiki ref above) An atom is an natural object by definition- however it is fabricated, however it is combined with other atoms- to make a rock or a butterfly, and is subject to the gravitational/inertial phenomena(possess the essential qualities) of every other atom that exists. But more on that a little later.
"Is categorized as living"
This part is what Rutherford, the 19th century physicist, would have termed "Stamp Collecting." F.F. has restricted the context concerning the term LIVING which in Fat-Fists brain is synonymous to LIFE and incorporated it into his "oxymoronic", "natural entities"... The terms natural and artificial...only apply when a sentient object, "a BIG OVER MUSCLED APE", for instance, SUBJECTIVELY judges the values for objects he observes, UN-scientifically. I.e, "A tree is natural, a pylon is not."
Stamp collecting is the aesthetic judging of objects. Subjective categorizing is nothing in itself to do with science or rational explanations..."Living" and "Life", as I will clarify in the next essay. Living, in fact, is a concept that is SYNONYMOUS, with dying, moving, driving, flying, any term which specifically invokes the motion of objects.
"If it moves on it's own against gravity"
"IF" it moves on it's own?..What is F.F. really saying here? Is their some DOUBT to whether an object moves on ITS own...? An object is conceptualized, defined as an object, STATICALLY(according to FF in his article- "what is an object"), if it has shape, distinguishing it from NOTHING. "Alone"- OBJECTIVELY, means an object is actually discrete..unconnected..unrelated.
Does FF mean that we IMAGINE an object to be discrete, in order to draw a picture of it in a presentation,(The shape of the Great White SHARK for instance, or a chair)??? Or does F.F. mean an object could ever be imagined- concieved SCIENTIFICALLY, to move without interacting with objects intrinsic or extrinsic to it..? Does the object to object causality of consummated phenomena that we theorize upon in classical physics, not apply to you or me..or that "deadly" predator, whose fin tip gives away little of its bulk beneath the surf...?
The objects which make up the PHYSICAL universe are not discrete. They are only conceptualized as discrete,(a picture is drawn).. for illustrative, purposes. Anyone who thinks that a shark, for instance, REALLY "moves on it's own"..should see a shark after it has been out of the water for half an hour...A shark moves In physical RELATION to other objects, and NOT independent of- or "ALONE" as regards other objects..and he's coming for you F.F...!
If we assume that all atoms exhibit gravitational phenomena, in relation to each other, then this "living object" actually moving against gravity, would "move AGAINST" a concept-as is gravity, which no object has ever done or could ever do. It might as well move against LOVE, or HATE...
In Physics objects move against other objects, not concepts. To be "charitable" to F.F, lets suppose gravity(concept-phenomena of attraction) is a place-holder for the actual object which mediates attraction. To say that that any "living object" moves against this G object in other words.... ANTI-GRAVITATES- repels..opposes every other atom that exists in relation to every other atom. This "living" Object would be STATIC in the REAL WORLD of objects, which exist in relation to others, an IMPOSSIBLE, real world object.
Perhaps F.F. has a hankering for imitating "The absent-minded professor" and his "anti-grav" "Flubber"...? Has Fatfist flubberised his brain..?
"Inert entities cannot move in that way."
"Inert" is an OPERATIONAL- technical term, in Chemistry, It refers to a substance which is considered an "nonreactive" part of a chemical re-action. In Rational PHYSICS nothing that is, is conceivably "inert" and only quite literally NOTHING. Space, void, zip can be conceptualized at least objectively, i.e..rationally, as "INERT" because it isn't any-thing, and so is entirely "None-reactive".
But lets be even more "charitable" to poor brain-less F.F...Liquid helium is traditionally thought as being an INERT element in chemistry...yet If we open a tub of it into a room at 20c without a breeze to disturb it even, we notice that the clouds the container emits, float into the atmosphere, the atoms of He, while they are achieving equilibrium with the temp of the surrounding air, dance and defy the gravity of the Earth while they do it.
"Entities"- or OBJECTS, may be photographed, or a static sculpture may be rendered of them..yet, when we reason the nature of reality, we understand that there are NO inert or none reactive entities that exist.There are only static presentations, still pictures and dynamic explanations, movies.... thought up in the brains of humans for showing phenomena.(That which we try to explain in science.) .....
Purely for "comic value", I would really, really, like F.F. to exhibit this "inert entity" whatever he believes that might be(?) "Cannot move in that way"- Which "way" dear brain-stroked Fattie..? Left-right, up-down..???Don't worry, the nurse will come soon to administer your medicine..Perhaps this "inert" yet still gravitating(attracting)object, that he writes of, is really his brain..?
"The reader will understand
that the term ‘life’ is a concept
alluding to what is inherently
dynamic. So whatever definition we
can critically reason, it must
necessarily describe the dynamic
criterion that is common to all living
entities in the Universe; whether we
know about them or not." Fat-fist.
The "dynamic CRITERION", for "LIFE" is a principle, or quality. What I think Fat-fist is TRYING to wrap his brain around, is the DYNAMIC concept of MOTION. This is the continuous movement of a entity, that only a sentient- self aware being, can conceptualize, as a principle.
The "quality" is what statically conceived shape the object termed life is, or could be, and is different from the principle in so far as THAT is-its DYNAMIC quality, or it is LIVING=MOVING
This reader understands-at least, that Fat-fist is hopelessly muddled upon the subject of LIFE and LIVING, but he is but a young lad, so he has time to catch up... Before you get into a scientific EXPLANATION, for the behavior of an object- such is life, you need an OBJECTIVE definition for the term.
P.M. me on Hub-pages Fat-fist, and you can pay me (via PayPal) the $10,000 you promise for anyone who can show any one of your articles as irrational, it would be bad form, if you didn't!...This essay is nearly over, and you have been served.
Anyway, onwards with the real deal, the real point of the next article I will publish upon Hubpages, is to actually answer the questions that Fat-Fist reasonably made, yet flubbed in his essay..
"What is life? What could this term possibly refer to?
a) An entity? If so, which one? Should we go on an expedition to compile a list?
b) A process? If so, what specific process distinguishes life from all other processes?"....(Could not have said it better myself, Fat-Fist! ;-)
Life in the ordinary dictionary definition sense of the term, refers to both an object and a concept. A unit of life, and the DYNAMIC-process of living. In science, if we are going to make sense of the term LIFE, we need to define in no uncertain terms, what is the unit of life, the OBJECT..and discern the principle phenomena, the criterion, for the conceptual definition for "LIVING" ... This is the aim of my next essay: The Objective Definition For LIFE and LIVING/DYING..
In science, I propose, that If us Homo Saps, conceptualize CONSISTENTLY... If we critically reason and utilize the same basic, common sense, OBJECTIVE(observer independent) definition for objects, and concepts, we can at the least maintain our intellectual integrity, and linguistic rigor. In rational scientific discourse.
We should encourage debate, in the brainstorming the explaining, and understanding of existence. None of us does this alone(unlike F.F's mythical "natural entity!" At the very least we should do it with our sense of honor, intact.
Unlike Fat-fist and others, I will not censor any DEBATE...comments, proposed corrections, or additions to this Essay and other on-topic replies. As long as comments comply with Hub-pages policy, may we all learn something.