Life's redundancy - Page 2

On October 28 2010 14:55 cz wrote:
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.

On October 28 2010 14:55 Kwidowmaker wrote:
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 14:37 cz wrote:
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.

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.

On October 28 2010 15:53 Redunzl wrote:
You should read Soren Kierkegaard's

Concept of Anxiety The first part deals with your same problem but applied to Man and History.

On October 28 2010 17:54 TheAmazombie wrote:
I am a big Kurt Vonnegut fan and he stated on many occasions that the meaning of life is "to help each other through this thing, whatever it is".

Now that may seem silly in some ways and in some ways recursive as well, but to a humanist, it actually makes perfect sense. These questions of meaning, a priori ideas, and theology/God mean nothing. They are just fodder for conversation and work well in songs, poems, and plays. I see it as we are asking the wrong questions sometimes. William of Ockham once stated not to multiply needlessly. The more complications you add that do not really matter, the further and further away from the truth you will get. Reality works, science and other epistemological philosophies work in conjunction with fact and evidence and therefore we have been able to deduce a model of the universe that does not need meaning, just causality.

I am not saying that there is not meaning or God or any other abstract human idea. Just to me, until reality requires the question, then it is the realm of myth and legend. Fun to think about and play with, but far from any truth. Meaning may be out there, but until it manifests itself in a real and measurable way, it may as well not exist.

I know this is a little off topic, but it is always my point of view when talking about the meaning of life.

On October 28 2010 18:43 Tossup wrote:
"what is the meaning of life?"

define this sentence.

Okay, well here, aren't we limited to our own definitions of each word? Therefore, it is impossible to truly define life. It exists outside of language. By asking me to define this sentence, you're asking me to define language with language which as cz pointed out, is useless.

The best I can do is tell you examples of my own experiences and allow you to interpret as you will.

@ kineSiS

When I said life started itself, it's more like it was a the result of the universe. We both agree there is a starting point of what we 'commonly' call life. How it started is still a mystery but it started nonetheless. Then, it could have only started out of what was already there, the universe. What I'm trying to get at is that, this result of 'life' works in the same mechanisms as the whole of the universe. So, by understanding how life works, we can understand how our universe works as well.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with the second part after also..

So, I'm getting that you're saying math is too discrete to be in this analogy? Because 2 and 2 are pieces of 4, then the two of them combined is equal to 4. But you said that we discover our world to be in infinitesimally small pieces which does not apply to math. Basically, you're saying 4 is made up of 4 units which cannot be broken down and therefore, life cannot be like math.

Well, that's easy, 4 is just a convention that people use to tell how many measurable units, which ever they choose (apples to nanometers). In actuality, the number 4 is made up of infinitely smaller pieces, exactly how life is.

On October 28 2010 23:31 Scorcher2k wrote:
You know I had a nice long response typed but the total denial or absence of some things and not having clear meanings for seemingly anything that is being talked about is making my head hurt. Please just define the the word life as you are using it.

Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
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.

Something like this please.

Life is an agglomeration of "lives" interacting with each other