> There is a threshold that matter can cross, beyond which the laws of physics do not explain or predict what happens; on the other side of that threshold is li

> There is a threshold that matter can cross, beyond which the laws of physics do not explain or predict what happens; on the other side of that threshold is life. This made me think whether this is a type of computational limitation. That there is simply too much complexity and too many variables but theoretically it should still be possible. Perhaps this is a bit reductionist pov. > Life brings complexity into the universe, she says, in its own being and in its products, because it has memory: in DNA, in repeating molecular reactions, in the instructions for making a chair. Following this train of thought, if I assume that there is no fundamental difference between matter and life, life becomes a type of black hole of computational complexity. Like those parts of the unobservable universe which we could never peer into because of hard limits in physics. I can perhaps rationalize on a piece of paper that life is fundamentally deterministic but I can only think it, not behold it. DNA, memory is like some intense potential energy, a tightly wound spring that slowly lets off its energy in complex ways over potentially eons. Hence we are not fundamentally different than the light of the sun, warming the surface of rocks and evaporating water, but undergoing a far more intense process than simple evaporation.