I want to push on the "alive" issue a bit more. You're absolutely correct in that it doesn't tell us anything more about the virus - but it does tell us more ab

I want to push on the "alive" issue a bit more. You're absolutely correct in that it doesn't tell us anything more about the virus - but it does tell us more about our definition of "life". This is in line with the "tree falls in a forest" example as well - the "paradox" is not in whether the tree falls, but whether we would consider it sound. The solution is to be more precise about defining "sound", as either "vibration of air molecules" or "vibration of someone's ear drum". Similarly, the "are viruses alive" question is pushing us for a more precise definition of "alive", which we can then apply to (for example) how we might classify self-sustaining chains of chemical reactions on alien planets.