|
I was strolling back from my class one night and realized something completely universally true.
The world of math, numbers and symbols represent things that are already there, only broken into pieces. For example, 2+2=4 is the idea of 4, broken into halves. So in that sense, two sets of 2 is the same thing as a single set of 4.
So, moving to more tangible matters, a single atom within a block of metal has equal properties to all the block of metal that make up the block. Therefore, it is equally valid to represent that block with either the atom or the block of the material.
But wait, what about the complex interactions between each of the atoms and so forth? Each interaction between itself as well as with other atoms is an inherent property of that specific atom. Therefore, the properties in a macro scale can be deduced from the properties in a micro scale.
More applicable examples are found in starcraft 2. Let's suppose a zerg and protoss are playing each other on lost temple. We have defined our universe, starcraft 2 in lost temple, as well as our variables, protoss and zerg. We start the game and our protoss friend goes to scout the zerg. From timings we inherently know to be true, the overlord from the zerg will come to the protoss base at exactly the time our 9 pylon scout will almost get to the closest positions. If we see the overlord, the zerg must be at close positions with ramps away from each other. If not, then either the zerg is stupid(must give credit to day9: underestimate the stupidity of players), or the zerg is in the far position or the closest positions. If he is not in the closest position, he must be in the farthest position. From our knowledge of the game and that we know specifics of our situations, we could deduce something that we have not seen, that the zerg must be at the far position.
Now we get into the question, "what is the meaning of life?". The answer to this cliche is pretty obvious of we consider "life" as a sum of its components. "Life" itself cannot be well visualized by simply stating what is. Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other. Visualized this way, life is as simple as math in that their sums are equal to the final product.
If we know for certain, parts of life, deduction of the entirety is simply realizing how to put those pieces together. Therefore, the 'meaning' of the sun rising tomorrow, IS tomorrow's day which is your getting up in the morning which is you eating breakfast etc.
Then to ask, what is the meaning of life, is questioning is life = life which of course, is true in all cases. Life is the cause of itself, which isn't hard to see if you consider the mechanisms of reproduction. What do you have when you have life? You have more life. We can even see this with our expeditions into space. The limit for life on this planet is boarding on the plateau. Life is finding its way out of its limits for further propagate itself.
However, if these properties of life are true, then it should be true as well for the universe. With the mathematical evidence that the universe is in fact expanding which furthers this conclusion that deductions can be made with micro or macro level observations.
Where do we look for these observations? As with the sun rising example, signs can be found everywhere. From the movement of the smallest particle to the evidence of the ever expanding universe, our world in its entirety can be understood by putting these pieces together.
On October 28 2010 14:28 cz wrote:
So what is the meaning of life? You said the answer was obvious...
As in why does it exist? But cause it started itself. 
-Part II-
Edit- 10-28-2010 1:34pm
So, I've reviewed the third page of this thread and apparently the above text is utter chaos. I admit, I probably wasn't in the best state to be writing sentences at the time...I just came back from a two-hour midterm @_@.
Okay, so....
Life
wiki:
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]
I tend to look at life as a giant machine. A self-propagating one at that. This machine called "Life" operates with the fuel that comes from the universe, which is not alive, but has all the essentials for life.
People are quoting the above "Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other". "Life" cannot exist without its functioning parts. At least in my view, you need multiple organisms to have a working ecosystem(Life). A "life" cannot exist in its individual parts. You might say that, well stick a person on a space ship+food and that's life that's independent of other lives. True, for a short period of time, where the organism has food, it will survive. But it is impossible to sustain that state forever. Reproduction and sustenance must occur which, IMO, is an essential property of life. Both take interactions with other pieces of "life".
So a machine that reproduces itself and is sustained by other mechanisms within itself. These properties are not unique to life. The sun for example has sustained itself for billions of years. Black holes constantly grow because of their properties. The water supply on earth is constantly refreshing itself. Rocks in the earth are constantly being remade and destroyed by their own material.
Then what makes life unique to any other universal process out there? Because it happens within a time frame that we consider "fast enough"? Or perhaps "life" is solely defined as organic?
Time is no significance if you consider the vastness of the universe. It takes 9 months for a baby to be born from conception to delivery. It takes a few million years for a planet to form out of stardust. The universe was created 14 billion years ago. And before that, did time exist? It is entirely possible that time is independent from the creation of the universe, and that our universe is within another container as we are in our universe's container. So the total "time" that has ever existed maybe be infinite. Therefore, any time interval is seemingly insignificant to the total time. To the scale of the universe, the time it takes for a baby to be born on earth and a planet to be born takes relatively the same time.
Organic or not, it's not a necessity for life to have carbon or oxygen. We see the processes of life happening everywhere, but not with these elements. For example, the properties of your blood vessels are are found in electrical wiring. E = voltage * current. The simple mechanics of a body, the simple machines, are found all around inorganic nature. Every organic organism is basically a bag of chemicals that follow the processes of the universe and are not unique to life.
I'm getting tired for the time being and will continue describing my shit in a bit.
 
|
|
|
So what is the meaning of life? You said the answer was obvious...
|
|
|
Meaning of life != Why life began.
Also, life did not start itself.
|
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?
|
On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself?
Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
|
On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself? Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself.
It's the universe reacting to itself that propagated life. So in that sense, it did make itself; it was just in a parts. X already existed. Life is just a byproduct of the universe.
|
On October 28 2010 14:39 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:37 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:35 Tossup wrote:
Well how do you know that life didn't start itself? Because whatever starts something must exist: if X doesn't exist, X can't start Y. If X=Y, then X can't start X (by the first premise). Therefore something can't start itself; therefore life can't start itself. It's the universe reacting to itself that propagated life. So in that sense, it did make itself; it was just in a parts. X already existed. Life is just a byproduct of the universe.
I gave an argument that was valid. If you want to counter the argument you have to a) demonstrate that it is invalid (ie if all the premises are true the conclusion is not necessarily true) or b) demonstrate that one of the premises is false (or just question one of the premises).
I'm not sure how your response fits into it.
|
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?
|
On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"?
By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.
|
On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend.
How do you define life?
|
On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life?
As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.
|
On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life? As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other.
That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.
Actually, by using your definition of life you've reduced your argument to something that is true by definition. Which is worthless. It's like me saying "God exists," then defining God as "the apple on my desk." By that definition, God does indeed exist, but my argument is misleading.
|
On October 28 2010 14:48 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life? As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other. That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.
That's not how Newton commonly use the term "gravity." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true.
e.g. Einstein
|
On October 28 2010 14:50 Tossup wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 14:48 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:48 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:46 cz wrote:On October 28 2010 14:44 Tossup wrote:On October 28 2010 14:40 cz wrote:
What do you mean by saying that life was "in parts"? By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life. What I think you mean is what is 'meaning' of the universe. By my logic, then the universe must have always existed as a form that we can observe or as a form that we cannot comprehend. How do you define life? As components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other. That's not how others commonly use the term "life." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true. That's not how Newton commonly use the term "gravity." You are using a separate definition. And if you use your own custom definitions then you can make any argument true. e.g. Einstein
You are missing the point. I'm not trying to insult you but explain that by using separate definitions you are not coming to the conclusion you think you are.
You are arguing that life started itself: then you are defining life as something that starts itself, along with a few other properties. Don't you see how you haven't actually done anything? It's also extremely misleading when others read your use of the word "life" and apply their definition of it (the common one) while you are using your own custom definition.
|
How is defining life by components of the universe a useless definition? How the formation of DNA => something alive wrong?
btw, you're editting faster than I can respond X_X.
|
Here, let me explain your argument via quoting you and substituting your definitions in for the words they define (that shouldn't affect anything as the word is a placeholder for the definition):
"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as Life."
Now let's take your definition of "life" and replace the word life with the definition:
"By parts I mean the combination of atoms together to create what we refer to as components of the universe, which is the bases for what is living, interacting with each other."
That sentence, if I can understand it, is basically obviously true. Which is good except that it hasn't added any new information.
|
atoms have very different properties than blocks of metal. At the atomic level there are all sorts of things that you have to consider that aren't applicable at the block level. For example, the force of gravity on the atom is insignificant compared to the coulomb (electric) forces between other atoms, whereas gravity plays a very important role with a block of metal.
Also, you could see every rational number as every other rational number in your view, kind of redundant, no?
|
On October 28 2010 14:53 Tossup wrote:
How is defining life by components of the universe a useless definition? How the formation of DNA => something alive wrong?
btw, you're editting faster than I can respond X_X.
Because it's your conclusion. Instead of demonstrating how life (as commonly defined) is something that has always existed and a component of the universe you are redefining the term to become your conclusion.
It's like arguing that "god exists" by defining God as "something that exists." It makes the conclusion ("God exists") true but it hasn't added new information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
