The Scientific Definition of LIFE

To living entities, Gravity is just an irrelevant Theory.
To living entities, Gravity is just an irrelevant Theory.
You can take your Law and shove it, Newton! Life VIOLATES your petty laws!
You can take your Law and shove it, Newton! Life VIOLATES your petty laws!

INTRODUCTION: The Scientific Definition of Life


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?


Even though Cosmologists are searching for life and Biologists are handling it, none of them can define this seemingly elusive term. They complain that it’s very challenging to define it, their brains hurt from thinking about it and it’s unfair to make such unreasonable demands of them. Why don’t we just give these poor fellas a break then? Nonetheless, Biologists have concluded that life is one of those terms that cannot be defined or understood. That’s why they can’t tell you whether DNA or viruses are alive; or whether DNA is the building block of life. When you can’t define, you have no clue.

This article will rationally define life in no ambiguous or contradictory terms so it can be used consistently in Science. 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.

Furthermore, this article will outright expose and embarrass Mathematicians, Cosmologists, Biologists and Theologians alike. So it’s probably best they ignore it and continue pretending that life cannot be defined. Science couldn’t care less. For those opposed to the rigors of the Scientific Method, ignorance is indeed bliss. Of course, it will upset many because it’ll destroy their long-held belief that only an all-knowing God can understand what life is. Regardless, this article can withstand the backlash unleashed by those who divorce themselves from Science and delve into mysticism.




WHAT IS BIOLOGY?


Science is the study of reality using the Scientific Method. Scientists use the Scientific Method to propose Hypotheses that will be used as a basis to rationally explain their Theories. All categories of Science are exclusively studied with the rigors of the Scientific Method.


Science: the study of reality (i.e. existence) for the purposes of accumulating a collection of rational explanations (i.e. Theories) for natural phenomena using the Scientific Method.


Science is categorized into several branches. For example, Physics is the general discipline that studies the bounty of the Universe: objects that exist.

Q: What is Biology?

A: Biology is a specific branch of Physics which exclusively studies objects we categorize as LIVING (alive, etc.).


Biology: the study of living objects.




MAINSTREAM ACADEMIA WHINES THAT LIFE IS TOO DIFFICULT TO DEFINE


Here is the challenge that mainstream Academics have been faced with:

“It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance. Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.” -- Wikipedia


Poor babies! I mean, violinists should play some somber tunes while we cry rivers for our dear tormented Mathematicians, Biologists, Philosophers and Theologians. Tears aside, the taxpayers demand of them to define exactly what they are studying before they hand out their hard-earned income for irrelevant studies. It’s inconceivable that Academics with their fancy titles, Nobels, authority, Hollywood personas, arrogant attitudes et all, are whining like little spoiled brats when asked to provide a simple definition pertaining to their profession.

Since Mathematicians and Theologians alike believe in Creation and God, they’ve discarded the definition of ‘life’ as mysticism. Only God can possibly know what His Creation is, they argue. A convenient proclamation for the purposes of injecting mysticism into the discussion and dismissing the definition altogether. Some people think that only Theologians believe in Creation and God, but that’s clearly not the case. Many Mathematicians and Biologists in mainstream Academia believe in a Deistic God who hasn’t bestowed them with a Bible. The most notable celebrities being Biologist Richard Dawkins and Mathematician Lawrence Krauss:


"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." -- Richard Dawkins


“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. -- Lawrence Krauss


“There may be no evidence for purpose in the Universe, but that doesn’t imply that there is no purpose in the Universe. If tonight the stars spelled out ‘I AM HERE!’, then I think most scientists will say: you know, there’s something there.” -- Lawrence Krauss


“We take seriously the notion that there may be many different Universes….and the purpose of a Universe could be very blasé. Some Mathematician showed that you could build a Turing Machine with the Universe. So maybe such a Universe was created to calculate pi to 100 decimal places, and maybe that’s the purpose of the Universe.” -- Lawrence Krauss


“Maybe we are all in somebody’s computer simulation, maybe the entire Universe that we’re in is the product of a purposeful design of an alien intelligence that has put us into a simulation…that’s equivalent to saying that it’s a grand God of some sort, and I don’t have an objection to that.” -- Richard Dawkins


When the High Priests of mainstream quack-Academia believe in Creation, Design, Purpose and God, it’s no wonder they can’t define what life is. Now the reader understands why these crackpots whine and bellyache when cornered to provide the Scientific definition of life.




WHAT SINGLE CRITERION CAN DEFINE LIFE?


If we can critically reason how a living entity differs from a non-living one, we will be rewarded with the criterion that defines life.

The mainstream Academics already advanced the notion that living entities out there could be radically different than those on Earth. Let’s concede this just to make them happy, as it’s unnecessary to contemplate scenarios our definition can handle anyway.

So here’s what we’re tasked with: a sufficiently general definition for ‘life’ has to be transparent to all unknown compositions, characteristics and behaviors of any living entity, whether on Earth or anywhere in the Universe. Also, our definition must be unambiguous and satisfy their requirement with flying colors. Fair enough - we can handle this.


The term ‘life’ alludes to a process, not to any specific entity or composition. So we need to understand its core context before we can even begin to entertain a definition. The term ‘life’ is a linguistic noun in syntactical grammar for the purposes of formulating syntactically correct sentences. That’s fine and dandy, but reality couldn’t care less about mere syntax. Reality is all about the core meaning; i.e. context! Only the meaning of a term will elucidate its application to reality.

In its proper context, the term ‘life’ alludes to an abstract concept even though it’s a syntactical noun. But in order to prevent confusion over petty syntactical issues, we will define the Scientific category LIVING for these figurative “life” entities. This keeps us consistent with the definition of Biology. So instead of saying that an entity has ‘life’, for the sake of Scientific precision we will use the phrase: an entity is ‘living’ or ‘alive’. Remember, the term ‘life’ is an abstract concept we only use in ordinary speech. Biology studies first and foremost, entities – specifically, those categorized as LIVING. Biology does not study concepts, like ‘life’, or entities like rocks, rockets, stars and robots.

In their proper context, the terms living/alive are dynamic concepts. They allude to a process, an activity, etc. Of course, all entities, whether living or non-living undergo various dynamic processes because they are perpetually moving. Not a single object in the Universe is motionless as all objects are subjected to the perpetual influence of gravitational attraction. That seemingly motionless rock on the ground is actually moving due to Universal gravitation.


To make our definition as robust and to-the-point as possible, we will reason a single dynamic criterion that can be universally ascribed to living entities and yet simultaneously exclude inert ones.

We begin by understanding what a living entity does in and of itself; i.e. without other entities assisting it. Living entities undergo their own dynamics irrespective of the perpetual influence of gravitational pull from all the other entities in the Universe. Inert entities cannot accomplish such a feat. Inert entities are pulled by other entities without offering any resistance to them. Living entities necessarily resist the gravitational attraction from all other entities in the Universe.

A living entity moves on its own against gravity. Before a living entity can breathe, eat or reproduce, it must move against gravity to do so. Before a living entity can be analyzed to prove it’s made of cells, DNA, organic matter (CHNO) or whatever, it must move against gravity, otherwise nobody would study it as a living entity. Even for a cell, before it can nourish itself or reproduce, it must move against gravity. It is impossible for any natural entity to be alive unless it is resisting gravity.


Q: What is gravity?

A: Gravity is not a thing. Gravity is an action that things do; i.e. action-at-a-distance (AAAD) – they attract each other. Since gravity is a concept, the term must be defined.


Gravity: a phenomenon where objects pull each other in direct proportion to their matter and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance that separates them.


NOTE: For ease of readability, this article makes use of shorthand phrases such as “against gravity”, “resistance to gravity”, etc. to signify an object’s motion against the gravitational pull of all other objects in the Universe.




WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF LIFE?


A living entity does what no other entity can do by itself: move in a way that violates Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: GMm/d². That’s funny, I remember my university Physics professors teaching us that Newton’s Universal Law cannot be violated. My Physics colleague even wrote his Doctoral Thesis on the immutability of Newton’s Laws. The Physics department was impressed and handed him a PhD degree. Could they have missed something? Could they be wrong? Was Newton wrong?

It turns out they were dead wrong! All living entities violate Newton’s Law because they move against the pull of gravity. A violation of gravitational attraction is termed: anti-gravitation. Living/alive are synonymous with the process of ‘natural anti-gravitation’. All entities, including living ones are gravitationally pulled by all the other entities in the Universe as described by Newton’s Law. Only living entities can, on their own, challenge/fight/resist the gravitational pull of all these entities. Living entities snub their noses at Universal Laws. Humans invent laws for the sole purpose of having them broken by violators.

What unequivocal definition can be rationally applied to all the living entities in the Universe and yet simultaneously distinguish them from all others?



Living: a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself against the gravitational pull from all the other objects.


Resistance to gravity is the only dynamic criterion which unambiguously and parsimoniously elucidates the context of the term ‘living’. It has eluded Mathematicians and Biologists for over 5000 years. And yet it’s sufficiently general enough to include living entities that may be fundamentally different from those on Earth. Our definition is crisp, clear and doesn’t delve into subjective irrelevancies or human opinion. I mean, what are we left with in the alternative?


“Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive.” -- Wikipedia


Really? Let’s test their current understanding then: Can a Biologist unequivocally describe for us any unknown living entity on the other side of the Universe?

Not! You see, even their current proposal fails. They have no definition whatsoever. Just petty guesses, subjective descriptions and human-enforced rules. Their proposal is unscientific and can only belong in Religion.

Our definition, on the other hand, truly solves and answers the painful challenges faced by Academics as outlined in the Wikipedia page on ‘life’. How embarrassing is that for our proud and spoiled Academics?




THE EMBARRASSED ARE LAUNCHING A WAR AGAINST SCIENCE!


Those whom I’ve embarrassed will venomously strike back by irrationally claiming that an entity is ‘living’ only if it:

a) has the ability to perform some innate activity W (i.e. think, sense, experience, self-replicate, etc.), and/or

b) performs an assisted activity X (i.e. pushed/pulled by another object), and/or

c) has characteristic Y, and/or

d) is comprised of a substance or component Z (i.e. DNA, amino acids, organic, inorganic, etc.)


But this necessarily leads to circularities and contradictions. You cannot place the cart before the horse. Merely satisfying the aforementioned conditions, does NOT constitute a definition for a ‘living’ entity.


Consider the following half-witted attempts to fight our Scientific definition:


1) Some claim that life is a self-sustaining process. Well, so are atmospheric phenomena, self-sustained within the atmosphere. Let’s hope Hurricane Katrina isn’t alive! One can attempt to argue that the Sun influences the atmosphere, but they shot their own foot since the same holds for any living entity on our planet. Without the Sun, life cannot be sustained here. POOF goes any attempt at a “self-sustained” argument!

2) Some claim that life is a chemical process that self-replicates. Before an entity can even begin to perform this activity (a), it had better move against gravity. Cells can self-replicate. People cannot self-replicate, otherwise they would make copies of themselves. Even if you argue that a woman gives birth (not self-replication), a sterile woman is alive but cannot give birth. POOF goes any attempt at a “self-replicate” argument!

3) Some claim that life is that which can evolve. Mountains and glaciers evolve but aren’t alive….for most of us anyway. How about that new cell replicated just a few second ago, but which died seconds later without evolving? Wasn’t it living? POOF goes any attempt at an “evolution” argument!

4) Are robots alive? A robotic machine with sensors easily satisfies conditions (a, b, c, d), but is not alive. Robots are not natural entities.

5) Thinking. Before an ant has the ability to think and pick up a bread crumb and satisfy condition (a), it had better be alive and move against gravity. A dead ant satisfies conditions (b, c, d) with flying colors. Whereas a living ant is necessarily resisting gravity AND satisfying all the after-the-fact conditions (a, b, c, d).


Painful lesson for those who insist on arguing with the mirror:

Loose terms, contradictions and Begging the Question won’t save your lost cause. Dogmatically forcing an entity (especially an unknown one on the other side of the Universe) to satisfy human-imposed conditions cannot form a basis for defining what a ‘living’ entity is! Human opinion and dogma always defeat any rational attempt at a definition. This is why Academia hasn’t offered a definition after 5000 years of ad-hoc opinions. Scientific definitions are objective and do not partake in any subjective human-imposed nonsense. Those embarrassed and angry folks need to acquire critical thinking skills to spot their contradictions. At the present time, Science is the least of their worries.




WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF LIFE?


The fundamental unit of a living entity is the cell. Cells are the smallest natural entities that can move on their own against gravity. Hence, they are the building blocks of all living entities. DNA is neither the smallest life form nor the building block of life, as some irrationally assert without justification. DNA, amino acids and viruses are not living entities. They are inert molecules.

That AIDS virus on the toilet seat of a public bathroom is not waiting to crawl into your skin and swim inside your bloodstream. Neither can it die by pouring gasoline on it or setting it on fire. It’s not even alive to begin with. These entities can be transported by the bloodstream into your cells and replicated within the cellular environment. But they don’t move by themselves against gravity. DNA, viruses and aminos are not alive.




THOSE WITH AGENDAS DO NOT WANT YOU TO DEFINE LIFE


Believe it or not, there are people out there who will fight any rational definition of life because it destroys their personal or political agenda, whatever it may be. They go to extreme lengths to “convince” the unsuspecting public that it is impossible to unambiguously define the term.

They usually attempt to throw Philosophy and Religion into the equation by appealing to knowledge and mystery. Their goal is to obfuscate the issue and confuse the audience into thinking that only a God can possibly KNOW what a living entity really is. They take the discussion out of context by using the trickery of appealing to “characteristics” of living things. They argue that since we aren’t gods, we cannot possibly know all the yet “unknown”, “undiscovered” and perhaps “mysterious” characteristics of all living things. Once they’ve captivated the audience with this breathtaking argument, they continue to reel them in by proposing that perhaps all living things in the Universe don’t have a common characteristic. They whet your appetite for their argument by presenting you with a basic list of characteristics for living things:

· Breathing

· Organization

· Protoplasm

· Assimilation

· Irritability

· Reproduction

· Growth

· Adaptation

· Metabolism

· Excretion

· etc., etc….


They plant the seed in your mind that perhaps in a far-away galaxy, a living entity may not require nourishment or may not reproduce or grow. Maybe it assembles, lives for a day and dies. Perhaps in another galaxy a living entity may not be comprised of cells, DNA or organic compounds (CHNO). Its composition may be radically different than what we are familiar with here on Earth. They essentially argue that the Universe is MYSTERIOUS: everything is unknowable and anything is possible! Now that the audience is 100% convinced, they fell into the trap that it is impossible to define the term ‘living’ unambiguously. They claim that any definition will only be an opinion since it cannot account for a single common characteristic between all living things.


Wow! That’s quite the bulletproof argument, right? That mysterious Universe mumbo jumbo gets us every single time, right? I mean, we’ve just had our butts handed to us, right?

Hey….not so fast!

Let’s please them by taking their argument at face value. Let’s assume that there could be living things out there having no commonality with the living things we are familiar with here on Earth.

Regardless, their argument (more of an excuse) or any other argument they can conceive of is totally irrelevant!

Before a living entity (whatever it may look like) eats, reproduces or dies…..before it can be comprised of cells, DNA or whatever else…..before it can have any unknown or mysterious characteristics X, Y or Z,….before a human can invent excuse after excuse to make living entities forever MYSTERIOUS and out of our reach….. a living entity MUST be able to move on its own against gravity!


The only unambiguous and consistent characteristic that ALL living entities have in common is that they can move on their own against gravity. All inert entities lack this ability. Every single entity that can be categorized as ‘living’ is necessarily fighting gravity. Whether it nourishes itself, breathes, reproduces, or whatever; it must fight gravity to do so. Before we capture a mysterious living entity in a far-away galaxy and test it to determine whether it’s made up of cells, has DNA, has X, Y, Z, etc.; it must necessarily fight gravity. Otherwise we would not recognize it as a living entity for “study”. Basic reasoning 101.There are no exceptions. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of any exception!




THEIR LAST RESORT IS TO APPEAL TO FALLACIES


Those who’ve had their Religion destroyed by the Scientific definition of life have a few more persuasion tricks up their sleeve. They attempt to accuse you of not being a Biologist, of not having a PhD, of not having a following and being popular within a voted community or sect.

These are classic fallacies of Authority, Popularity and Absolutism. They are also circular because they cannot answer the question of who was the first super-duper Authority who baptized all other individuals as alleged authorities. And who baptized the very first Authority? Was it God or a petty non-authority? Simple reasoning easily exposes these contradictions.

Think about it: if no so-called Biologist has ever been able to define the term life in the history of the human race, then how can anyone be so conceited as to authoritatively usurp the title of “Biologist”? I mean, how can a Biologist be tasked with studying living entities when he hasn’t the slightest clue what life is? Just what exactly is he “studying”? Does he even know? Today, a Biologist is nothing more than a lab technician – a corporate sponsored robot.

Scientific definitions are objective and stand on their own, regardless of human-invented trickery to oppose them. They are not subject to popular vote (consensus of opinion). Science is predicated on the objectivity of the Scientific Method. What is purported to be “authoritative” or “popular” has nothing to do with Science. In Science we don’t put a gun to your head and force you believe in and kneel down to High Priests like they do in Religion. Science recognizes no authorities, no dogma and no popularity! Science is about having unambiguous definitions in your Hypotheses and rational explanations in your Theories. Opinion, human emotion and Nobel beauty pageants are divorced from Science.

This was their last feeble attempt to chip away at the Scientific definition of life they so despise. These folks aren’t interested in Science or the Scientific Method. No, they are fighting a personal or political war.

In Science, objectivity always kills subjectivity without anyone having to open their mouth in protest. It would behoove these folks to take an introductory course in Science before chasing their tails in circular arguments, fallacies and other contradictions.




CONCLUSION


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.

Despite what Mathematicians, Biologists, Philosophers and Religionists alike prefer to teach their students, the definition of ‘life’ is no mystery!

More by this Author


Comments 60 comments

Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I just went way up with this across the board. It is informative and dynamic. But I will contemplate this notion of total Independence from gravity being a pivotal axiom. Or you can say it your way. But I think parasites are living creatures, like my beautiful rectal bacteria.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Indeed, your beautiful (I'll take your word for it) rectal bacteria violate Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

"I think parasites are living creatures"

They all are....even humans.


Jake Archer 3 years ago

WoW..I learnt something today..? Newtons alchemical research..must have it's "rational" applications, after all???..The concept-LIFE(noun), has the same meaning as living and alive??? I thought, only DYNAMIC concepts(verbs) could be EXPLAINED using two objects(static), and at least two frames of a movie presentation. Congrats upon your mating of a dynamic concept(The force...of gravity- F=ma), with an object, a cell(static object)..Oh yeh..and I'd like your advice on how many asses I can sew onto a certain Monke Mind...?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake,

“Newtons alchemical research..must have it's "rational" applications, after all”

Sure, but living entities ignore laws. Did you read the article?

“The concept-LIFE(noun)”

Oxymoron! Perhaps you’ve had one too many pints in that pub. When you sober up….make up your mind…..does the term ‘life’ resolve to a noun of reality (i.e. object) or is it a concept.

It’s quite obvious that you failed Grammar School. Ask your parents to enroll you back in grade 4 and this time…..please finish up to grade 12, ok, old boy?

“I thought, only DYNAMIC concepts(verbs) could be EXPLAINED using two objects(static)”

Only in your Church does your Priest explain verbs like ‘motion’ by invoking God to move the first atomic billiard ball on the universal pool table. Scientists, otoh, define all concepts. Begin with a Grade 4 Science class and you’ll be ok by the time you finish Grade 12.

“The force...of gravity- F=ma”

Jake old boy…..after 2 years of riding the shoulders of the Fist….after 2 years of living a cushy life under the Fist’s muscle….after 2 years of being protected of all Evil by the Fist’s embrace….after 2 years of being a fancy FANBOY of the Fist…..after 2 years of educating you on the difference between objects and concepts….you still have rocks for brains!

Here is one of your Priest’s, Jake, ….the very authoritative and quite famous, Mazikeen Morningstar:

“Gravity is a force, F=ma” -- Mazikeen Morningstar, Mathematician Extraordinaire...you can't argue with her....she is always right…and Jake believes her!

Force is what a single object does to another. Force is a one-way mechanism. Gravity is what two or more objects do simultaneously to EACH OTHER. Gravity is a N-way mechanism, where N is greater than 1. Hence, gravity is NOT a force. Physics 101.

“I'd like your advice on how many **ses I can sew onto a certain Monke Mind”

You have bigger fish to fry, old boy. The Fist already sowed your **s to yer face!

“I learnt something today”

Actually, you haven’t learned a single thing since grade school…..and definitely not today…..and you certainly won’t ever learn anything in your pathetic life. You are a brain-dead FANBOY who cannot learn anything nor justify someone else’s ALREADY-EXPLAINED argument. You are useless.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

This will be fun!

Fanboy Jake has been posting my CONCEPTS article left right and center all over the Internet for the past year. He stood behind its MUSCLE because it had the name “Fist” on it, even though he had no clue what the article was about…..he didn’t understand anything. That's why he was getting beat up by atheists, religionists and rednecks.....and came crying to the Fist to help him put these bullies in their place. When others give you a CUSHY 'life' and treat you like a PRINCESS....you acquire the brains of a doorknob because you don't use your God-given brain.

This is why he is currently moping the floor with his own face.

For the 7563rd time…..Jake, try to understand what a concept is:

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Awesome sauce Fatfist!

'A living object is that which moves by itself against gravity.'

I can't think of a better definition... for the life of me!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

So, when Frankenstein created the monster and made it live, he gave it the power to move independently against gravity. That actually explains a lot!

Actually, my definition of life is that nothing is ever dead. While it's true that rocks do not move independently, they contain substances that eventually morph into living cells and vice versa. A buried body can become a rock (petrified) after a gazillion years, so why can't a rock become a living body?

Your definition of life and living is only true if you discount the time effect. Given enough time (which is also indefinable), everything is alive at one time or another, so nothing is ever really dead.

So go ahead and define death for us, FatFist! I love it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Austinstar,

“my definition of life is that nothing is ever dead”

Wow! Different strokes for different folks, I guess….

Cat Stevens believed this nonsense too. That explains why he kept his dead wife, Lady D'arbanville, in his bed until her corpse rotted and got infested with maggots. And he was indifferent to the situation to boot. Even then, he swore she was alive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjfI3uSN8DQ

“rocks …. contain substances that eventually morph into living cells and vice versa”

Sure, but that’s not life. What you are doing here is called Mereology: treating an object and its parts as though they are equivalent. Mereology is not part of Science. Mereology is actually a branch of Religion, where The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are Mereological components of God…and yet each is EQUIVALENT to God. Science will have none of this poetry.

The only question you need to answer is why isn’t that rock on the ground living in the same way that a dog is living. And to do so, you need to define ‘living’.

“why can't a rock become a living body?”

Such questions have nothing to do with what is the definition of ‘life’.

1) First you need to define ‘living’ in no ambiguous terms.

2) Then you need to use the Scientific Method to explain your Theory of Abiogenesis to the audience: how the rock in your Hypothesis transformed into a ‘living’ object as you previously defined as LIVING.

This is how we do things in science as to avoid metaphors, poetry, ambiguities….i.e. Religion.

“Your definition of life and living is only true if you discount the time effect. “

Time has nothing to do with a living entity. Time is a concept that necessarily requires an ALREADY living sentient being to conceive it and keep track of it via their memory. You see….a living entity necessarily precedes time!

That’s why there’s no provision for time in the Scientific definition of ‘living’. Check it out again.

“ time (which is also indefinable)”

Not so fast, my dear….just because the bonehead Mathematicians haven’t been able to define time in the past 10,000 years of time-keeping history, doesn’t mean that a human with a brain can’t define it…..check it out:

Time is a man-invented concept that necessarily requires an observer to “account” for it. Is God the Universal Accountant? Is He “certified” to keep track of time? By whom….His wife?

time = relative motion of objects + memory of locations

Time: A scalar quantity established by an observer to relate the relative motion between two objects, where one object’s motion is referenced as a pre-established agreed-upon standard (i.e seconds, days, years).

For example, when the hand (object 1) on your watch moves a second, the Earth (object 2) moved approximately 30 km on its orbit, and a cesium atom waved (i.e. oscillated) 9 billion times. You are comparing the distance traveled by the hand on your watch (or the oscillation of an atom) against a distance traveled by another object.

Time is artificial. We invented time like we invented virtue and beauty. Without humans, lonely brainless bacteria moving on a planet are not dependent on any such human-invented nonsense as ‘time’.

“So go ahead and define death for us”

Dead is a concept that is in reference to its opposite concept, living. Dead entities were once living….but now do not resist gravity on their own. A rock is not dead…neither is your parked car….nor your crushed/recycled car.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Oh carp! Not my beautiful Chrysler 300C (with Hemi)! Crushed and recycled? That's rude.

I agree Living, Dead, Time - all concepts.

Still, I think if you define life from the perspective of movement, then all atoms (and bosons, etc...) are constantly in motion, no matter what shape they are assuming at any given time or place, so therefore they are all alive. Gravity is merely an energy state that exists in relation to the movement. It is either affecting an independent object or not based on the atomic structure and cohesion at any given point or thing.

If you go down infinitely into the "God" particle, or whatever you want to call it, life may be definable, but not from our current level of intelligence.

Perhaps we can define living as "infinite motion". The structure of that motion/energy/existence is what is not understood.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“I think if you define life from the perspective of movement, then all atoms (and bosons, etc...) are constantly in motion, no matter what shape they are assuming at any given time or place, so therefore they are all alive.”

You are correct that every single object in the universe is moving….after all, motion is perpetual….impossible to stop any object from moving. But, you missed the point of the definition. Here it is again….

Living: a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself against the gravitational pull from all the other objects.

The difference between living objects and regular vanilla objects, is that living objects move “against” the gravitational pull of every single object in the universe. Life is synonymous with “anti-gravity”. Only living entities can accomplish this magic trick. Nothing else.

Living entities have refuted Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. No other entity can do that.

“Gravity is merely an energy state that exists in relation to the movement.”

People need to realize that even to this day, mainstream Academia has absolutely NO clue what ‘energy’ is. Hear it from the mouth of babes:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." – Richard Feynman, www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-V¬ols-III/dp/B000P1PWCK (p. 4-1)

So, anybody using terms like ‘energy’ in a sentence, doesn’t really know what they are talking about….especially those who write it in text books and teach it in schools. Lots of people parrot such terms without understanding what they mean, so I’m not just putting you on the spot…..I’m putting all the so-called Academics on notice.

Gravity is the tension attracting all the objects in the universe. Gravity is mediated by a physical medium that interconnects all atoms. We are talking Physics here, not spirits and souls like ‘energy’. Energy is a word that belongs in Religion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

@Jake, if you have any comments pertaining to this article, please post them. Trolling will not be tolerated. Take it to another forum where someone gives a rat's behind, ok?

Proverbs 13:24: Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Ephesians 6:4: Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

"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."

But are not all things affected by gravity? Even things that can move on their own as opposed to having gravity do it for them.

Could living things be USING gravity in order to move?

What if gravity controlled ALL movement. Perhaps living things are just hitching a ride on a gravity 'wave'.

Of course living things would have to be 'aware' somehow of how to use gravity to their benefit. Even if they do it subconsciously.

Are things dead just because they no longer use gravity in order to move?

And what exactly is 'zero point energy'?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Austinstar,

“But are not all things affected by gravity?”

No object can avoid being interconnected in this Universal web we call “matter”. There are no discrete entities in the Universe, as it is impossible for any 2 disconnected atoms to attract and pull each other together gravitationally.

So of course all objects are pulling on each other as described by Universal Gravitation: GMm/d^2. But there are natural (as opposed to man-made) objects that can defy and resist this gravitational pull. Drop a rock and a bird from a 20 storey building. The rock is a slave to gravity but the bird isn’t. The bird will land on the ground when it sees fit, thus exhibiting anti-gravitational behavior.

“Could living things be USING gravity in order to move?”

Gravity is a concept (a verb)….a relation between 2 or more objects. I cannot use gravity as a paddle to row my canoe. Gravity is what objects DO to each other (i.e. pull). Gravity is not an ‘it’….but what 2 or more ‘it’s do.

“What if gravity controlled ALL movement.”

The movement of all objects is necessarily affected by all the atoms in the Universe pulling at them. Move your finger and you are pulling on the Moon, whether you realize it or not. So the gravitational pull of the Earth dictates that all objects must get pulled to the ground like a puppeteer pulls on his puppets. But a living object can fight and resist this pull, thus defying gravity.

“Perhaps living things are just hitching a ride on a gravity 'wave'.”

There is no such thing as a wave. Wave is a verb, referring to what an object does. Waves require a medium: water, rope, landmass, air, etc. You can wave your arm. But there is no standalone entity that exists and can be called ‘a’ wave.

Wave primer:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/t...

“Of course living things would have to be 'aware' somehow “

Before they are aware….they must move against gravity. Life precedes awareness.

“And what exactly is 'zero point energy'?”

Energy does not exist. Energy is nothing. This term represents a verb, not a noun of reality.

The word energy in Math is like the word God in traditional religions. It is ubiquitous. It solves all problems and cures all ills. You can explain any phenomenon of nature as long as you say “Energy did it” or “God did it”. You could just as well have said 'X' and your half-witted audience wouldn't know the difference.

Energy is a verb (origin: Greek “energia”, which means ACTIVITY and nothing else). Energy is what an object DOES, not what an object IS. For example....an object A weighing ‘w’ kilograms moves ‘d’ meters with respect to object B, in a time of ‘t’ seconds, as measured by an observer. This is the relational ACTIVITY (i.e. energy) object A performed with respect to object B. We give a unit of measure, Joules (J = kg x m^2/s^2), to this “activity”. Without a minimum of 2 objects and an observer to establish this abstract relation between objects A and B, it is not possible to conceive of energy!

Energy is already defined by virtue of the units it relates. Hence a description of activity. All concepts are relations.

The litmus test for this energy nonsense is to imagine the universe consisting of a single lone object. This single object has NO energy because it cannot even move from one location to another. It cannot move a distance of ‘d’ meters. It doesn’t even have any weight ‘w’ kilograms because there is no gravitational pull to it. Also, in this scenario, there is no time ‘t’ seconds because time is a concept that requires a minimum of 3 objects to be realized. For example, 2 objects could be the Earth and the Sun, where one moves relative to the other. The third object must be an observer with MEMORY to keep all the accounting of the ticks and seconds.

As you can see, energy is not something that can exist. Energy is an abstract concept (a silly human idea), more succinctly, a verb! Energy is a concept that necessarily requires at least 2 objects to be defined. Mathematicians have reified the verb energy into a noun (Fallacy of Reification). These clowns claim to transfer it from one location to another, or even conserve it. They even tell us that we need to eat more energy for fuel. Now their sidekicks, the Swamis and Levitating Gurus, jumped onto the bandwagon as well, selling this mysticism unto the gullible masses who pay these charlatans to obtain ‘energy’; i.e. a concept…in other words, NOTHING!

And the education system forces us to parrot this nonsense like a mantra….no different than parroting the Creation of space and matter. Welcome to the Planet of the Apes.


Jake Archer 3 years ago

Is "life" an object or a concept? And can you re- iterate what you mean by either?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Give it a rest bonehead. You need to conserve your energy after your surgery from foot-in-mouth disease!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake,

“Is "life" an object or a concept?”

Object: that which has shape

Does the term ‘life’ resolve to an object?

If you say ‘yes’, then please point to an object that is called 'life'. You can't. Sure, you can assert that all objects in the Universe are living. But even if there are people who have this mental illness, …. subjectivities aside,… what we objectively have is objects that are living and objects that are not.

Obviously the term ‘life’ alludes to a concept.

Regardless, Biology is the study of living objects. In Biology, we don’t study concepts, like ‘life’. In Biology we study LIVING objects! LIVING refers to a unique process that distinguishes living from non-living entities. Grade 2 stuff…

Terms like ‘life’ are used in ordinary speech and casual language to feed the press that: “we’ve discovered life on Mars”. Scientists never use such loose language…..so you’re chasing your tail, Jake. But it is enjoyable to see you suffer like this.

Object primer:

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object

Concept primer:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ontology-of-La


Jake Archer 3 years ago

Fatfist Fattie, in his ontology of concepts article:"Concept: A relation between two or more objects. (Synonym: idea, thought, notion, cogitation, conception, conceit)" So "life" is a "dynamic concept"...between what two objects does life, come to life..?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"You need to conserve your energy after your surgery from foot-in-mouth disease!"

Well, this is normal behavior on the Planet of the Apes. Trolls like Mr. Jake will come here bellyaching about one irrelevant minutia after another. When the Fist crushes each one, they never defend it and move on to the next straw in the haystack. But since the Fist has a PhD in Mathematics, he already PREDICTED this behavior with precision:

“Furthermore, this article will outright expose and embarrass Mathematicians, Cosmologists, Biologists and Theologians alike. So it’s probably best they ignore it and continue pretending that life cannot be defined. Science couldn’t care less. For those opposed to the rigors of the Scientific Method, ignorance is indeed bliss. Of course, it will upset many because it’ll destroy their long-held belief that only an all-knowing God can understand what life is. Regardless, this article can withstand the backlash unleashed by those who divorce themselves from Science and delve into mysticism.” - fatfist


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

So, you are saying that electric or nuclear (fission,fusion,etc) is not 'energy'? That E=MC(squared) is a non-valid equation? Well, actually I do feel that it is wrong, but don't have the eloquence to say so.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake,

“Concept: A relation between two or more objects.”

Bingo! You got something right.

“So "life" is a "dynamic concept"...between what two objects does life, come to life..?”

This is a question you should post to your Priest, Jake old boy. Totally irrelevant to the rigors of the Scientific Method.

It is your Religion which studies concepts, like ‘life’ and ‘love’. Physics and Biology are branches of Science which study objects. Biology doesn’t study concepts like LIFE. You cannot point to 'a' life. 'A' life doesn't exist. Ergo, the term 'life' is only used in irrelevant ordinary speech.

Biology studies objects categorized as LIVING.

Did you even read the article, old boy? Did you understand it? Please read it again, ok?

“So "life" is a "dynamic concept"... does life, come to life..?”

Do concepts COME TO BE LIVING in your little world, Jake? If so, you need to visit a shrink ASAP!

Please take an introductory course on What is a Concept:

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

You have made all of my Mathematical predictions come into fruition.

Knock yourself out, Jake. It's fun watching a fanboy and a hack chase his tail in irrelevant circles.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Austinstar,

“you are saying that electric or nuclear (fission,fusion,etc) is not 'energy'? “

Did you see the Scientific definition of ‘energy’ I posted previously? How does that definition apply to the alleged fission or fusion of an atom?

But before you can even begin to answer that question, you must tell the audience which is the REAL true blue version of the atom. You do know that humans have proposed hundreds of models of the atom in the past 2500 years, right? The mainstream have been going back and forth between 8 irreconcilable versions in the past 100 years.

Which of these main models of the atom will you invoke to explain fusion and fission?

1. Thomson Plum Pudding (berries)

2. Rutherford Planetary Bead

3. Bohr Planetary Bead

4. Sommerfield’s Wavon which incorporates Einstein’s Relativity

5. DeBroglie's Ribbon

6. Schrödinger Wave

7. Born's Electron Cloud

8. Lewis Shell

Will the real atom please stand up? Umm…..yeah….YOU, the one we just cut in half in the nuclear reactor just a second ago!

Perhaps you aren’t aware what Niels Bohr told the whole world ….that atoms are just poetry!

“When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images… It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.” -- Niels Bohr, On Quantum Physics

As it turns out…..the boneheads of Mathematics have absolutely NO clue what they are doing in a nuclear reactor because they have NO clue what an atom looks like.

What does this say about their God of Energy?

“Well, actually I do feel that it is wrong, but don't have the eloquence to say so”

It is all rotten to the core. And you’re not alone….none of them have the knowledge or the courage to tell it like it really is. Their jobs are at stake.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Ok so if we cannot see an atom, we cannot point to it or even describe it. How do we know it is even an object?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Austinstar,

Not a single atom has been seen. In fact, it is impossible to see an atom because the atom is what initiates light signals. You cannot use light to see an atom.

We propose that matter is comprised of atoms. This proposal is what allows us to explain natural phenomena, like light, gravity, magnetism, etc. Since these effects (i.e. verbs) can only mediated by objects, it goes without saying that atoms are objects. Atoms have shape irrespective of whether you can see them or not. i.e. air has shape and surface…. I mean, it can knock down a house for God’s sake. So air atoms had better be objects.

All models of the atom have been PROPOSED by humans. They are HYPOTHESIZED….never ever ever ever proven. In fact, they are impossible to prove. The atom falls squarely in the Hypothesis stage of the Sci Method. All hypotheses are ASSUMED for the purposes of rationally explaining a corresponding Theory….for example, the Theory of Fission/Fusion, theory of Light/Gravity/Magnetism/Electricity.

Atoms are not concepts of metaphorical poetry, like the Bimbo Mathematician would “prefer” you believe so he can protect his Religion from the painful collateral damage inflicted by The Fist. Belief is divorced from Science. Science is predicated on Hypotheses and rational Theories (i.e. explanations of phenomena).

So…Austinstar….during your travels of this fine planet of ours….if you can find a Mathematician who can use ANY of the above 8 models of the atom to explain Fission or Fusion, or any of: light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, energy…..please bring this Priest here because The Fist has a $10,000 cash to reward his intelligence.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Would your $10,000 beat a Nobel prize?

Ok, my little B.A. is in Journalism (of all things), but I have been basically a biochemist for 34 years (of human blood only). I've worked with electron microscopes and light scopes and you are right, I've never seen an atom.

But I thought I heard recently that the Higgs-Boson particle was detected. Is that true?

Also, don't we regularly detect neutrinos?

I'm way over my head trying to discuss physics or math with masters of those subjects, but I do wonder about them.


Jake Archer 3 years ago

How does my definition..in your opinion..square up to yours..?? Life: Sets of objects which move giro-gravitationally in relation to all the other objects in the Physical Universe. The atoms in your body spin, and in concert, they resist the simple gravitational attraction to the Earth. Or as the clever Greeks would say.."As above, so below."


Jake Archer 3 years ago

Ten grand please...only to preserve "honour", of course.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Austinstar,

“Would your $10,000 beat a Nobel prize?”

Science has nothing to do with subjective Nobel beauty pageants, fancy titles, and Christmas tree decorations. I already explained this in the article. Science is objective in that it offers rational explanations to natural phenomena. Human subjectivity and consensus of opinion belong in a Church setting…not in Science. But just in case any bonehead Mathematician disagrees, the Fist has been offering his $10,000 challenge for over 5 years now. There is no bet….if you cannot explain….you don’t have to pay me anything. Your actions speak for themselves. But there are no takers. In fact, they all run and hide to their Church and parrot irrelevant nonsense like:

“Ummmm…oh well, you know Mr. Fist, money doesn’t buy happiness….so I’m not interested in your money….boo hoo…blah blah”.

Money may not buy happiness…..buy money will instantly shut the mouth of a Charlatan!

“you are right, I've never seen an atom”

That you cannot see an atom has nothing to do with whether I’m right or wrong….it has to do with reality. You cannot see that which makes provision for sight.

“But I thought I heard recently that the Higgs-Boson particle was detected”

If you cannot see it….did you detect it? Or did you perhaps detect some phenomenon which you cannot yet explain? If you cannot see an atom….then how can you possibly have proven to detect an entity smaller than an atom. Reasoning 101.

“I'm way over my head trying to discuss physics or math with masters of those subjects”

There are no masters….just humans….some can explain nature’s phenomena rationally…while others can’t. Just like some mechanics can fix that extremely elusive problem your car has….while other mechanics just haven’t a clue. This is how our species is. Merely decorating yourself with prestige and Nobel authority is irrelevant to whether you can fix the car or explain how light and gravity work.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake,

“ Life: Sets of objects which move giro-gravitationally in relation to all the other objects in the Physical Universe.”

Life is a concept because ‘a’ set is a concept. Concepts do not exist, much less for sets. You cannot point to ‘a’ set just as you cannot point to ‘a’ life. Go back to the drawing board. Before you do, please try to understand the difference between objects and concepts:

Object primer:

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object

Concept primer:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ontology-of-La

“The atoms in your body spin”

So do the atoms in a rock! Go back to the drawing board. Before you do, please try to understand the difference between objects and concepts.

“atoms …. resist the simple gravitational attraction to the Earth”

Impossible! Atoms cannot possibly resist or fight gravity because atoms MEDIATE gravity. You are committing the Fallacy of Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning…..a contradiction. i.e. You cannot use truth to validate truth….sound familiar….Mr. Molyneux?

Jake….face it….your ad-hoc rhetorical/fallacious/contradictory postings elucidate that you’re not cut out for Science. Find another hobby, ok?


Jake Archer 3 years ago

Continued... "They(certain sets of objects, named" life forms, or bio-mechas) resist the simple gravitation" of any PLANET that's G attraction is not too high, using Giro-gravitational attraction between itself and the remaining objects in the rest of the Physical Universe.This is The DYNAMIC explanation for LIFE FORMS, as opposed to basic rocks, for instance..whose architectures..GIRO-SPINNING ELECTRON SHELLS, do not align in the configuration ..of a cell, for instance. Get drunk, chill out, think about it, and please, 10 grand, to preserve "honour"..if you really have a shred left..


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“certain sets of objects, named" life forms, or bio-mechas”

A set or a collection is a concept. Linguistics 101. Here, educate yourself before babbling more nonsense:

Object primer:

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object

Concept primer:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ontology-of-La

There is no such thing as ‘a’ set. ‘A’ set does not exist. You cannot point to or illustrate any entity that is ‘a’ set. An object has shape…period. Your whole post is refuted right there!

Your psycho-babble garbage has to do with Religion, where God is the Set of (the father, the son, and holy spirit). This venue is for people to discuss Science.

Jake, please go see a psychiatrist, you are incoherent and in really bad shape dude, ok? I don’t wanna feel guilty for anything happening to you in this precarious state you’re in…..I am serious now, all joking aside, ok?

If there’s anything I did to cause your mental state to be like this, then I apologize. Please get some help and try to stay off the Internet, ok?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake....can you please PM me the phone number of any family member you have, preferably your brother or parents? I just wanna talk to them out of concern. I won't cause any problem for you, I promise. Please and thank you.


Jake Archer 3 years ago

A cell and a rock..are objects, cells whose spinning electron shells align in the configuration of a functioning cell, can resist the gravity of another object(the earth for instance) giro-gravitationally..A rocks spinning e shells are in a different configuration, they cannot resist...You have no honour, you are just an idiotic muscle man slave to authority after all..Fatfistfattie....how very sad...But it's great news for This I term The DYNAMIC explanation for life. I know how Bill felt a little..when he was scorned by those he once respected, but then realized, did not respect him, at all.


Jake Archer 3 years ago

Jeezus Fatt..!!!"Jake....can you please PM me the phone number of any family member.." Hand waving won't save your "lost honour"..I'm sober and happy..you are dissembling and corrupted.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Giro: a check given by the British government to someone who is unemployed; it can be cashed either at a bank or at the post office.

Jakey boy didn't get his check this month. I guess he'll be gravitating towards the soup kitchen.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake,

“ cells whose spinning electron shells”

All electron shells of all atoms spin…be it rocks or living dogs or dead ants. So what?

“…align in the configuration of a functioning cell”

A non-living cell has its electron shells of its atoms aligned to be a FUNCTIONING cell too…..whose FUNCTION is to gravitationally attract all other objects in the Universe.....no different than what a living cell, rock, dead horse, and living rabbit do!

You’ve said nothing! It is impossible for you differentiate between living and non-living objects.

Maybe by functioning you meant LIVING, was that it? If so, then your definition is also CIRCULAR to boot. You can’t define living by invoking living! You need get away from Ayn Rand and Molyneux….they are known to define their terms circularly.

Like I said, $10,000 USD if you can defeat the wrath of The Fist! Then you’ll be able to afford a shrink.


Jake Archer 3 years ago

A lone object cannot be said to MOVE at all..except in relation to other objects FF..You have broken your previous definition for a dynamic concept(as life is)..Now all you have is a LONE object with a concept called "antigravity"..and you call that "life"...you call that rational..? Get AKA Winston in here..some of those that actually understand your previous articles, I think will be disappointed...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jake,

“A lone object cannot be said to MOVE at all..except in relation to other objects“

Exactly!

“You have broken your previous definition for a dynamic concept”

Nope. Impossible for you to justify this claim

“Now all you have is a LONE object with a concept called "antigravity"”

Nope again….neither. I have no object nor any concept called anti-gravity in my definition. Before you read it again to see that I’m right, please go visit a shrink and stay off the Internet, ok? Your brain is really messed up. I am known all over the Internet to have this effect on people. The FIST has destroyed many Religions....including yours!

“you call that "life"

Nope, not me. The term “life” is not part of the Scientific Method. Biology only studies living objects, not life, as explained to you 3 times already. And now Jake old boy…..your trolling is OVER!


Jonas James profile image

Jonas James 3 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

I've said it before and I will saying it again...

Because 'the universe' hasn't got what it takes to qualify as an object (lacks shape), there is no place for the word 'universe' in science. So to, there is no place for the word 'life' in science. Life is a word we use casually in ordinary speech to refer to the entirety of those things that live. The word relevant to science is LIVING or alive. Biology is the study of objects just as physics is, but biology studies those objects that are living, and palaeontology studies those objects that are DEAD. There is no scientific discipline that studies an object called life.

If you wish to study the concept known as 'life' you would be best consulting a theologian, philosopher, or the great and wise Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Swamis and Levitating Gurus also study concepts like life. You can't get more authoritative than that.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 3 years ago

I am somewhat confused... What is Jake A. talking about? And what is his contention with the definition for "life"? It's objective, concise, consistent, unambiguous, mutually exclusive and completely exhaustive... Where's the problem?

I must admit, Fattie, your definitions are impeccable! I have always thought the key to many philosophical debates rest with clear and objective definitions. When weasel-wording occurs, obfuscation results.

Keep fightin' the good fight! And don't forget to toss back a few, just to keep things in perspective!!!

XOXO,

FatFist Fanboy II


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Confuscience,

“I am somewhat confused... What is Jake A. talking about? And what is his contention with the definition for "life"?”

Actually, this individual had a mental breakdown over the past few weeks. He realized that all he learned in school as “proven” by the priests of academia….is nothing more than contradictory authoritative dogma shoved down his throat. He’s been trying for weeks to find a single flaw and contradict reason & rationality, but he fell on his face. That’s what happens when you fight reality so you can protect your Religion. He became mentally obsessed with me and my Science articles. …to the point where he hasn’t been sleeping. He needs psychiatric help. Unfortunately he can’t obtain it here. He needs to stay off the Internet, but he lives alone so nobody is there for him. He used to belong to Stefan Molyneux’s Freedomain Cult,…..and since that charlatan did a number on his brain, brainwashing, torment, etc..his behavior here is of no surprise. He won’t be posting here again.

This is normal. I usually get an individual like that on a weekly basis. Just had another a few days ago. When folks with mental problems discover my articles, it drives them to psychopathic rage and beyond. I am not popular with folks who have a personal, Religious or Political agenda to protect. Con artists and charlatans just hate me and want me to go away. I knew that with the very first article I posted here on absolute truth. That one enraged thousands all over the world and even drove some to insanity. In fact, absolute truth drove Godel, Cantor, Turing, Boltzmann and Bertrand Russell to INSANITY. Russell was the only one who didn't commit suicide. Read up on it. Anyway....I get a lot of hate mail for that article.

“It's objective, concise, consistent, unambiguous, mutually exclusive and completely exhaustive... Where's the problem?”

The problem is that it’s Scientific! The con artists want to push forward their Religion of living rocks, living atoms, human machines, computer simulated reality, abstract concepts, energy, 0D Quantum spirits, Big Bang, black holes, warped space, time dilation and other pseudo-junk. Very few are interested in Science.


osaeoppongde profile image

osaeoppongde 3 years ago from Chicago, IL

I thoroughly enjoyed the humor in this post! Thanks for deriving such a concise, accurate definition of Life!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Glad you enjoyed it, osaeoppongde.

Some people take "life" way too seriously.... when they should be concentrating on LIVING!


mythness @ Free Domain Radio 3 years ago

And would you be okay if I said that a two year old can conceptualize the concept "truth" by correctly pointing to which glass container holds a marble when asked to do so? You see! He is able to point to the container with the marble when asked to do so. And guess what? Someone else tested if he understood the concept of "false" by observing him consistently point to the empty container when asked to point to the container with the marble!

No need to go further than that, just like there's no need to go further with "shape", "space", and "nothing" after the simple statement of "object: that which has shape".

Oh, and I do have a consistent definition for truth. I'll just pull one out of a bag...

Truth (concept): a statement which reflects reality

Look, it's consistent too! You see, if a statement does not reflect reality, it is not truth. If a statement does reflect reality, it is truth. Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair! My definition for truth is consistent!

If it does not have shape, it is not an object. If it does have shape, it is an object. Consistent, as well!

What's this? Don't like the fact that I'm not further defining the terms "statement" and "reality"? I don't have to. Any two year old understands the concept of truth. Just ask him which glass container holds the marble. He conceptualizes "truth" and can make a distinction between "truth" and "not truth", just as with "object" and "not object". Oh, he's blind? Well, he's allowed to use his hands to feel inside the containers.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

mythness,

“And would you be okay if I said that a two year old can conceptualize the concept "truth" by correctly pointing to which glass container holds a marble when asked to do so?”

It has nothing to do with whether “I” am ok with it. Who the hell am “I”, anyway? I ain’t no God! Nobody gives a rat’s behind about my opinions. Hopefully truth is not predicated on ‘opinion’, right??

You confuse yourself with irrelevancies and miss the critical issues. The issue at hand is that BEFORE we conceptualize any concept (i.e. truth), we must first define this God-like term OBJECTIVELY in no ambiguous terms. Otherwise, just what the hell are you conceptualizing? The audience has no clue and neither do you. You don’t expect the audience to swallow a charlatan’s undefined KEY term, do you? Reasoning 101.

And you can point to whatever jar you think holds a marble. That’s your OPINION and nothing else. Any proposition predicated on the extremely limited sensory system ….resolves to an opinion. The Christians already pointed to Jesus….millions of times. I guess that must be ‘truth’ in your little Mickey Mouse world too, huh?

In the context of your example or ANY example you can possibly conceive, TRUTH = OPINION! Any questions?

“Oh, and I do have a consistent definition for truth. I'll just pull one out of a bag...

Truth (concept): a statement which reflects reality”

Oh, and what do you mean by our KEY term, ‘reality’? Do you even know? Here, let me help you out.

What is real is what exists. Reality is a synonym of existence.

Real: an object with location (i.e. something somewhere)

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

Now please explain to the audience how you intend to PROVE (i.e. VALIDATE) your statement as ‘truth’. Oh, did you miss that part of the Philosophy 101 class? Were you chewing gum and throwing paper airplanes, perhaps? No problem….I will educate you in less than 10 seconds. Don’t fret, it’s easy:

The word “truth” is a concept that has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements.

But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labelled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such.

Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?

A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!

Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. OPINIONS!

Therefore, what you have is a definition which necessarily resolves to an OPINION….and yes, it’s consistent to boot. Sweet!

“Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair!”

No need to define non-key terms like ‘statement’. Truth is about propositional statements so no mystery there; the ordinary meaning will suffice. But you must define the KEY term of your dissertation: reality. See above. The audience wants to make sure that you don’t force down their throats your own Mickey Mouse reality, got it?

“If it does not have shape, it is not an object. If it does have shape, it is an object.”

Exactly! Any questions?

“Any two year old understands the concept of truth”

Obviously not! Not a single Philosopher in the past 10,000 years understood what truth means because they have NO objective definition,…. since all truth is VALIDATED by an observer’s subjective sensory system. Where have you been all these years….living in a cave? Have you taken a Philosophy 101 course?

Ergo…all truth resolves to OPINION. If you disagree, please be my guest and post any statement you allege is ‘truth’, and I will instantly show you why it’s an opinion. This is the litmus test which makes or breaks your argument.

Give me any alleged TRUTH and I will crush it before your very eyes. It won’t be a pretty sight, but it will be a lesson well learned.

Wanna try??


confuscience profile image

confuscience 3 years ago

Mythness,

Is your post better suited for one of Fattie's other hubs, like VERITY?

Are you attempting to say that particular terms, that happen to be extremely important to your definition, needn't be defined?

"Please don't ask me to define "statement" and "reality". That's just not fair!"

What do you mean, 'not fair'. Like, "you can't triple-stamp, a double-stamp, Lloyd!!" Fair has nothing to do with defining key terms in your claims. It has everything to do with communicating meaning about your claims, to an audience!!!

If we don't require you to define "exist", but allow an 'assumed' definition of 'existence', we end up with differing and conflicting truth-bearing propositions. Each person would end up claiming 'truths' based on THEIR connotation of what qualifies as 'existence'.

See, atheists would claim 'God doesn't exist because of X, Y & Z evidence' and his definition of what 'exists' does NOT include God. At the same time, the theist would claim, 'God does exist because of the same evidence' and his definition of what 'exists' INCLUDES God. This only re-enforces Fattie's point. Truth is nothing more than opinion as to what qualifies for someone's private definition of 'existence'!

Truth is just a function of language. That's all! It only applies to statements and propositions, and is verified, by observation, as to its resolve to the world. Your child-marble example re-enforces that SUBJECT-IVE sensory is indeed used to verify truth-value. And keep in mind, the child is pointing at the object, and its LOCATION.

Also, keep in mind, truth is NOT in the world, or is part of an object. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to claim "The marble is true!" Here you would be confusing 'truth' with 'existence'. Existence is objective (observer-independent), truth is subjective (observer-dependent). They are two completely different concepts.

Bottom line, when making a claim or attempting to employ rational explanation, definitions are imperative! It is the ONLY way to convey clear, consistent meaning and provide rational explanation to an audience.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Pawned! ^^^


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

mythness,

Just be honest with yourself; that's all I ask. Definitions give meaning to terms. This is where the dictionary comes into play. The dictionary is probably more popular than the Bible (hopefully it is in America!)....and rightfully so.

But that's not to say that the dictionary hasn't its flaws. Of course it does...it was written by English grad students after all. When it comes to issues of Science,....if a peer is questioning one of our key terms, we address his concerns. If he showcases a contradiction, then obviously the dictionary wasn't as bullet-proof as we believed it to be. Back to the drawing board. This means that we must reason a Scientific definition which cannot be contradicted. The dictionary is great for common terms. But it may not be for certain critical terms.

What problem are you having with this?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Sorry Myth, I was referring to FF's post, but confuscience did a great job as well. Don't feel bad, I get pawned all the time! It's good for the soul. Everybody learns from it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Looks like mythness decided to take the oath of silence....or maybe he stopped resisting gravity altogether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI


A.Villarasa profile image

A.Villarasa 3 years ago from Palm Springs

@fatfist:

Your definition of life and what it is to be alive fits nicely with faunal existence. But what about floral (trees, plants, shrubs, vegetation etc) predisposition? It seems to me, from casual observation, that their existence are neither instructed nor informed by the gravitational pull of "all other entitities in the universe." Biologic artifice notwithstanding, I would insist that the floral component of nature are as alive as the faunal one.... until they die, of course, and by death I mean strictly, that their cellular structures are not using energy to power their metabolic functions and needs.

Stephen Hawking once opined that if there is a God, IT (He) is an impersonal one. He proposed the idea that Gravity is that impersonal God. Let us suppose, for argument's sake, that Hawking is correct. Gravity creating life, and then life (based on your definition) resisting Gravity..... the same force that created life to begin with (as per Hawking's concept). Philosophically, how does the above formulation compare with the Theistic formulation that the Creator of life is a very personal one, and the life that He created will not resist Him in any way, manner or form. Except for atheists of course.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Villarasa,

“(trees, plants, shrubs, vegetation etc) predisposition? It seems to me, from casual observation, that their existence are neither instructed nor informed by the gravitational pull of "all other entitities in the universe."

Since they can grow or even move on their own (check out time lapse photo), they are fighting the Earth’s pull to do so, just as we do. Furthermore, all the atoms in the Universe are under gravitational attraction. All the atoms in your body are being pulled from every single atom in a galaxy 10 billion light years away. But to say that you and plants are living, you must be resisting this pull from every single object in the universe.

“Stephen Hawking once opined that if there is a God, IT (He) is an impersonal one.”

He’s not the only one. All Atheist Mathematicians believe in such a “Deistic” God. In fact, Atheism necessarily makes provision for the POSSIBLE existence of a creator God. Atheists cannot prove God doesn’t exist, but they believe that He possibly may exist in order to facilitate the creation of space & matter. Here’s good examples from some authoritative figures:

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Richard Dawkins

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. But the relation between that and the specific God that some people believe in here, and the specific God that other people believe in here, is obviously a problem, because not everyone can be right. And everyone believes this fervently, most people who are fundamentalists in their religion, believe this fervently, that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. And they can’t all be right. And the point is that they’re probably all wrong. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Lawrence Krauss

"I don’t think you can disprove the existence of God. That’s the problem. I think it’s absolutely impossible to disprove the existence of God." -Krauss Agnostic Cosmologist

“He proposed the idea that Gravity is that impersonal God. Let us suppose, for argument's sake, that Hawking is correct. “

Hawking has no clue what he is talking about. He should just stick to equations. Gravity is the concept of attraction; i.e. the attraction between entities. Gravity is not an entity that can create. Only entities can perform actions, like create. God is an entity; a being who is proposed by Theologians as the creator of space & matter. It is irrelevant whether God is invisible or unnoticeable to humans. Physics studies invisible entities, such as those that mediate light, gravity, magnetism. But in Science, we propose entities that perform such phenomena, including the alleged phenomenon of Creation. A 0D singularity or nothing cannot perform any action/event…..irrespective of what Hawking so conveniently claims. Reasoning 101.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

“my definition of life is that nothing is ever dead”

when you are dead you can no longer resist gravity.

Lol!

This is becoming unfair. I feel like a baby being spoon fed.


Jaci Shea 2 years ago

Interesting, but even if you can explain life what are you going to do with the knowledge you possess? Because honestly, most people are stupid... but don't know they are. And if you try to enlighten them by telling them they are stupid and explaining why they are, they will shut down.

So the real question is not how one should define life literally (scientifically, synthetically... blah, blah, blah).. but how one should define it in the way that the entire world sees it.

Don't forget, the most ignorant, selfish, oblivious part of humans is also in you sir, because otherwise how could you see it in the first place? Once you realize that, then the journey really begins.


Serge Kim profile image

Serge Kim 2 years ago from London, United Kingdom

How do you mean a living object, or what I call a death-dodging machine, must move of its own before it could think, sense, experience, etc.? Impossible, sorry. What planet are you from, Fats? Where exactly and how would it move unthinkingly? Be ''free-willing'' just any old where by any ole' means of locomotion?

Here on Earth the terrain is deadly so any such machine must needs constantly mind the way it is going. To remain in one piece capable of autonomous motion it must carefully mind every single step of the way. If not, it is dead on the spot. A single mistake is fatal. That unsensing object of your definition can't possibly make more than one move. Its first move will be its last. Therefore your definition is rubbish. Living motion is a corrolary to thinking, sensing, experiencing, etc. The two properties - that of motion and that of reflection - go together and cannot precede or follow one another.

Thus a scientific definition of a living object could not be ''that which moves on its own against gravity''.

''That which can experience itself as a whole sharply distinct from all other objects'' is more like it. ''That which can both act and be acted upon'' would also be preferable to your blabber. Strictly speaking inanimate objects and machine extensions cannot act at all. They can only be acted upon. When we are talking about their interactions we use ordinary or poetic speech. Understand? Good.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“a living object, or what I call a death-dodging machine”

Machines are NOT living because they are not natural entities. They are artificial in that they are created by a living entity….and for a purpose. Your definition is contradicted, so throw it in the trash. Basic stuff that even toddlers understand.

“we use ordinary or poetic speech”

Then stop using poetry in a Scientific context and spewing contradictions about machines being living entities when it’s clear that machines are invented and created by living entities. Trolling has nothing to do with Science and is not tolerated by anyone. I can’t imagine why you thought it’s tolerated here. This is your LAST warning!


Kane 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist,

This is very informative hub! Would you mind me using this in a speech?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Sure, if you can handle the questions from the audience. If you record it and put it on youtube, post the link here. You can't duplicate and repost the article on the internet though. Thanks for the interest and I hope your speech goes well ;-)


Kane 2 years ago

Hi Fatfist!

Surprisingly, nobody questioned it, I was really hoping they would because I was prepared to answer them! I had to ask people after the speech what they thought of it to get any questions. Nowadays, people are to frightened and shy to speak their minds it seems. The only question I got was, "What was the relevance of the definition to the rest of the speech" which kind of caught me off guard because my speech was about wilderness survival, and I would think defining life should be completely relevant to how to live! Thanks!

P.S. Sorry I don't have a link, a camera man recorded my speech but he never got back to me to send me the video! I should have got someone else to record it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Kane, this is typical. People talk of life, spacetime, black holes, time travel, warped space, etc., but they don't want you to understand what any of these terms mean. Why? So they can use them in multiple contexts to advance their arguments while hoping that nobody notices their fallacy of equivocation.

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working