6 ms·

Life force acts at the molecular level. There's a fifth fundamental force of nature, just like gravity/electromagnetic/strong/weak forces, which interacts with

Life force acts at the molecular level. There's a fifth fundamental force of nature, just like gravity/electromagnetic/strong/weak forces, which interacts with specially structured organic matter, like DNA or RNA, that act like antennas to that force. Anyways that's just my theory and a lot of the skeptics, like the people downvoting this right now, have already made the assumption against it without testing it for some reason. Science can and will eventually solve everything, including life itself, but we need people to believe in the scientific process.

daeken 8y ago
> without testing it What is the proposed test methodology to test your hypothesis?
- mozumder 8y ago
  Ask a scientist that. Any test of life should do. How do scientists tests for life right now? Also, it could be multiple additional forces..
  - simonh 8y ago
    There is no such thing as a test for life at the molecular level, we only describe it at the system level of a whole organism. Even then there is no hard and fast test because organisms exhibit such diverse ranges of behaviour. For example the chemicals in cell cytoplasm seem to function identically outside a cell as they do inside one. In the first case they are not part of a living organism but in the latter case they are, but this does not appear to make any difference to their properties or characteristics. What difference would you expect to see?
    - mozumder 8y ago
      How are nanobes & prions determined to have life? Are there microscopic Turing tests? And cytoplasm isn't DNA/RNA itself.
      - simonh 8y ago
        Whether or not those things are alive is a matter of debate, many scientists say that they exhibit some of the properties of living things but not all of them. There are many web sites that discuss the properties of living things, I’ve linked a decent one below. It might be useful to think of it in terms of a ‘running’ engine. If I switch a running engine off, or it runs out of fuel, or someone breaks it with a hammer it stops running. Being alive for an organism is analogous to being in a ‘running’ state for an engine. It’s not an attribute of any individual components, but rather a description of the behaviour of the whole system. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/the-science-of-biology/characteristics-of-living-things https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/the...
      - ben_w 8y ago
        > How are nanobes & prions determined to have life? They aren’t. To quote: “No conclusive evidence exists that [nanobes] are, or are not, living organisms, so their classification is controversial.” > Are there microscopic Turing tests? No. That’s what we’re telling you. “Life” is not well-defined. The textbook definition you might have seen in school would misclassify fire as alive. For a fun take on this, look up the comedy podcast (starring Professor Brian Cox) called “The Infinite Monkey Cage”, specifically all the episodes which ask if a (freshly picked) strawberry is alive and if not when exactly did it die.
        mozumder 8y ago
        They aren’t. To quote: “No conclusive evidence exists that [nanobes] are, or are not, living organisms, so their classification is controversial.” You say nanobes aren't life, but then you say you don't know? Pick one. “Life” is not well-defined. The textbook definition you might have seen in school would misclassify fire as alive. Sorta pretentious to just define life to fit existing narratives when you don't have an explanation. We have to figure out more instead of stopping at what we don't understand. Will check out the podcast. Love Brian Cox.
        klmr 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
klmr 8y ago
> There's a fifth fundamental force of nature, just like gravity/electromagnetic/strong/weak forces, which interacts with specially structured organic matter We can fairly confidently exclude this possibility. Dirac’s equation forbids it [1]. Or, in your specific language (which is good, don’t get me wrong): we have tested this hypothesis, countless times, and conclusively disproved it. [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-...
- mozumder 8y ago
  It's not a complete description; we haven't included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. The article literally states that Dirac's equation is incomplete at modeling the full situation. But that's okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain. And the article makes the mistake of assuming that life force is the physical driving energy, instead of electromagnetic energy itself being directed by a life force. There are lots of randomness in quantum physics. The life force would cause that to be more deterministic. Einstein himself was a proponent of the hidden-variable theory, famously stating that "God does not play dice". Who are we to argue against Einstein?
  - klmr 8y ago
    The article also states why that omission is irrelevant. > And the article makes the mistake of assuming that life force is the physical driving energy No, it’s simply a tautology: if it interacts with physical entities, it’s physical. EM radiation itself is a physical phenomenon, so it doesn’t provide a magical escape hatch. It doesn’t matter what you call this mystical force; by virtue of interacting with a physical system it must be subject to rules of physics, no special pleading can change that. > There are lots of randomness in quantum physics Yes, but that is provably a fundamental property of quantum systems, not something we can ignore or manipulate nilly-willy. Your Einstein quote predates relevant experiments that disprove this hypothesis. “Who are we to argue against Einstein?” is therefore a classical argument from authority: we are arguing based on evidence (and new theoretical underpinnings) that Einstein, at the time he uttered the phrase, didn’t possess (in particular, Bell’s theorem). Your objection is exactly like refusing to acknowledge relativity, saying “Who are we to argue against Newton?” Anyway, if you’re keen on an argument from authority then consider this: who are you to argue against the consensus of the smartest minds working in the field of neurobiology? I hope you can appreciate how this argument sounds less convincing if used against you.
mitchtbaum 8y ago
> Science can and will eventually solve everything Do you really hold this as true? Wouldn't this to some lesser degree seem more probable and therefore less dogmatic?

daeken 8y ago

> without testing it What is the proposed test methodology to test your hypothesis?

mozumder 8y ago
Ask a scientist that. Any test of life should do. How do scientists tests for life right now? Also, it could be multiple additional forces..
- simonh 8y ago
  There is no such thing as a test for life at the molecular level, we only describe it at the system level of a whole organism. Even then there is no hard and fast test because organisms exhibit such diverse ranges of behaviour. For example the chemicals in cell cytoplasm seem to function identically outside a cell as they do inside one. In the first case they are not part of a living organism but in the latter case they are, but this does not appear to make any difference to their properties or characteristics. What difference would you expect to see?
  - mozumder 8y ago
    How are nanobes & prions determined to have life? Are there microscopic Turing tests? And cytoplasm isn't DNA/RNA itself.
    - simonh 8y ago
      Whether or not those things are alive is a matter of debate, many scientists say that they exhibit some of the properties of living things but not all of them. There are many web sites that discuss the properties of living things, I’ve linked a decent one below. It might be useful to think of it in terms of a ‘running’ engine. If I switch a running engine off, or it runs out of fuel, or someone breaks it with a hammer it stops running. Being alive for an organism is analogous to being in a ‘running’ state for an engine. It’s not an attribute of any individual components, but rather a description of the behaviour of the whole system. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/the-science-of-biology/characteristics-of-living-things https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/the...
    - ben_w 8y ago
      > How are nanobes & prions determined to have life? They aren’t. To quote: “No conclusive evidence exists that [nanobes] are, or are not, living organisms, so their classification is controversial.” > Are there microscopic Turing tests? No. That’s what we’re telling you. “Life” is not well-defined. The textbook definition you might have seen in school would misclassify fire as alive. For a fun take on this, look up the comedy podcast (starring Professor Brian Cox) called “The Infinite Monkey Cage”, specifically all the episodes which ask if a (freshly picked) strawberry is alive and if not when exactly did it die.
      - mozumder 8y ago
        They aren’t. To quote: “No conclusive evidence exists that [nanobes] are, or are not, living organisms, so their classification is controversial.” You say nanobes aren't life, but then you say you don't know? Pick one. “Life” is not well-defined. The textbook definition you might have seen in school would misclassify fire as alive. Sorta pretentious to just define life to fit existing narratives when you don't have an explanation. We have to figure out more instead of stopping at what we don't understand. Will check out the podcast. Love Brian Cox.
        klmr 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

klmr 8y ago

> There's a fifth fundamental force of nature, just like gravity/electromagnetic/strong/weak forces, which interacts with specially structured organic matter We can fairly confidently exclude this possibility. Dirac’s equation forbids it [1]. Or, in your specific language (which is good, don’t get me wrong): we have tested this hypothesis, countless times, and conclusively disproved it. [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-...

mozumder 8y ago
It's not a complete description; we haven't included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. The article literally states that Dirac's equation is incomplete at modeling the full situation. But that's okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain. And the article makes the mistake of assuming that life force is the physical driving energy, instead of electromagnetic energy itself being directed by a life force. There are lots of randomness in quantum physics. The life force would cause that to be more deterministic. Einstein himself was a proponent of the hidden-variable theory, famously stating that "God does not play dice". Who are we to argue against Einstein?
- klmr 8y ago
  The article also states why that omission is irrelevant. > And the article makes the mistake of assuming that life force is the physical driving energy No, it’s simply a tautology: if it interacts with physical entities, it’s physical. EM radiation itself is a physical phenomenon, so it doesn’t provide a magical escape hatch. It doesn’t matter what you call this mystical force; by virtue of interacting with a physical system it must be subject to rules of physics, no special pleading can change that. > There are lots of randomness in quantum physics Yes, but that is provably a fundamental property of quantum systems, not something we can ignore or manipulate nilly-willy. Your Einstein quote predates relevant experiments that disprove this hypothesis. “Who are we to argue against Einstein?” is therefore a classical argument from authority: we are arguing based on evidence (and new theoretical underpinnings) that Einstein, at the time he uttered the phrase, didn’t possess (in particular, Bell’s theorem). Your objection is exactly like refusing to acknowledge relativity, saying “Who are we to argue against Newton?” Anyway, if you’re keen on an argument from authority then consider this: who are you to argue against the consensus of the smartest minds working in the field of neurobiology? I hope you can appreciate how this argument sounds less convincing if used against you.

mitchtbaum 8y ago

> Science can and will eventually solve everything Do you really hold this as true? Wouldn't this to some lesser degree seem more probable and therefore less dogmatic?