Comments on: Mars Methane

By: DanS

DanS — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 04:13:12 +0000

Without energy, matter would, theoretically, cease to exist (I doubt anyone will be able to prove this in the next few decades). On the other hand, matter is not a requirement of energy.

Still, E=MC^2, where the two appear to be interchangeable — as though the essence of life may well permeate the Universe.

…from my iPhone…

By: hank

hank — Thu, 25 Dec 2014 03:43:49 +0000

I just explained to you (in the previous comment)that everything has energy, that even the vacuum itself has a temperature. No matter is totally inert and cold. By your definition, everything is alive, nothing is dead, nothing can possibly be dead, dead does not exist. And if there is no death, then its opposite, life. cannot exist either.

You are confusing “energy” with “entropy”. Entropy is the amount of disorder. To decrease entropy you must use energy, which is just another way of saying that if you want to build something from nothing you have to work.

Living things manipulate and use energy, use it to transform themselves and their surroundings. They reverse entropy on the local scale, by increasing it on the larger scale. Living things use the energy available in their environment to make themselves more complicated. This is life, metabolic activity, growth, reproduction. When living things die, they stop doing this, they rot, decay, and become less complicated.

When hydrogen atoms in the sun fuse into helium, they become simpler. The radiation released travels to earth where a tiny piece of it is intercepted by plants, which use it to assemble nutrients into tissue, which is more complex than soil and water. The total amount of complexity is much less, but in the tiny piece of space and length of time that is the plant, its tissues are more complex.

Total overall complexity decreases (which is another way of saying entropy increases. Entropy is the amount of disorder.). But the universal flow of increasing entropy is temporarily reversed by the plant. It uses energy to do this. So as the universe winds down, becomes simpler, (entropy increases) here and there little pockets of life briefly reverse entropy and become more complex.

Its like water flowing downhill. The net flow is in one direction, but here and there you may find little temporary eddies and whirlpools where the flow is reversed, that burst forth briefly, and are then whisked away. That is life.

A living thing is a machine that consumes energy and decreases entropy. All machines do this, although we don’t necessarily think of them as alive. All living things are machines, but not all machines are alive.

By: johannes

johannes — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:14:33 +0000

I was looking for the absolute definitions for the words. Would you not agree that if all energy was to be removed from any entity, then that entity would be considered to be dead?

By: johannes

johannes — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:12:04 +0000

I agree with you that living organisms differ only in complexity and organization of elementary particles from those that are not considered to be living.
But from the fundamental view point; would you not agree that if all energy was to be removed from any entity, then that entity would be considered to be dead?

By: DanS

DanS — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:31:14 +0000

The opposite of life is not “death.” The opposite is “lack of life.” There is no physical proof that death holds no life at all, and in legal terms, life ends when a victim is brain-dead, not when the body actually dies. There’s a lot of trivial gray area in this.

Life and death are conceptual realities, but not necessarily absolutes.

If life exists on other planets, other realms of dimensional existence, even certain interstellar nebulae, stars, random pulses of energy — and there is no real reason to assume they do or do not — do they ever die? Do they know of death? …And if not, is this enough to say that another life-form even knows of the existence of life itself?

You have difficult topics against which to argue, johannes, but then there are no true absolutes for any philosophy … so far. Perhaps there will come a time in which we would know better … or even worse…

By: hank

hank — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:58:24 +0000

That is a non sequitur. Just because something contains energy does not mean it is alive.

“Our bodies are mostly water, does that mean that we are not alive?”

Another non sequitur.

Life is not a magical property that adheres to things, making them wonderful and holy. That is the concept of vitalism*, which was discredited as a scientific definition centuries ago. We define life as matter with certain properties, properties we subjectively define, such as the ability to move, metabolize, reproduce, evolve
etc. As far as we can tell, any matter of sufficient chemical complexity that meets that definition can be considered alive.

I suspect you feel “life” is a special force field that clings to living things, like puppies and kittens, but not dead things, like tire irons and rock salt. It is not a magical aura, that can be detected by the Enterprise’s sensors on a distant planetary surface, like a compass needle picks up an electromagnetic field.

“Vitalism is the doctrine that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things”.–Wikipedia

If living things can exist as ordinary matter without divine intervention, then maybe we need not invoke divine intervention after all. I don’t find that depressing, I find it liberating.

By: johannes

johannes — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:17:33 +0000

Then water can not be considered to “be alive” but since water contains energy, it could be considered to contain life. Our bodies are mostly water, does that mean that we are not alive?

By: johannes

johannes — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:05:06 +0000

I agree with you in the sense that; it depends on how you interpret the word “life”.
For instance, “being alive” would indicate that the biological entity, has/consumes/produces enrgy and reproduces itself, where as; “it has/contains life,” would indicate that the entity moves by itself even though it can not be considered to be “alive” in the former sense; sperm, and even flame in zero gravity, could fit in this catecory. (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE13FREpFVo&feature=youtu.be )
The opposite of life is death and death is usually considered as non-motion or totally lacking in energy; energy or motion then is the fundamental ingredient of life.
Since everything in the universe has energy or moves in some way or another, then everything contains life by that definition

Viking lander biological experiments
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/viking/vl1_vl2-m-lr-2-edr-v1/vl_9010/extras/overview.htm

By: DanS

DanS — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:15:34 +0000

By that definition, rocks are alive. They all contain some natural level of energy, heating a stone forces it to absorb more energy, and using the heated stone to warm hands or to boil water releases that energy.

By: hank

hank — Fri, 19 Dec 2014 13:04:19 +0000

Whether or not there is life on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter, has to do with local conditions and blind chance. In nature, nothing HAS to happen, and nothing is forbidden, as long as the bookkeeping works out OK. There are no profound philosophical principles driving everything to a preordained and majestic conclusion. I suspect life CAN arise in the universe wherever conditions exist that will allow it. That does not mean it HAS to arise. Like I said, the distinction is subtle, and not everyone seems to want to get it.

There is no Force, Luke. The only reason we have a Grand Canyon is because water flows down hill.