4 ms·
> most definitions of life require that it be made of cells Is there a deeper reason for that?
by jnxx 3y ago
> most definitions of life require that it be made of cells
Is there a deeper reason for that?
- lemaitre 3y agoMost definitions of life are very arbitrary. When it comes to astrobiology, we mostly look for things that look like us because if we didn't, the search space would be incomprehensibly large and frankly there's not a lot we could say.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoMy guess is that it had to do with avoiding a definition under which things like fire were alive. I'd rather exclude fire on the basis that it's "reproduction" involves nothing like heritability.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoShould it? Doesn't it inherit 'fireness'? I do know what you're saying but it's so easy to argue the other way too
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoYeah definitions are tricky. If you saw a house consumed with fire, you might look at the circumstances and conclude that it was likely the offspring of the fire that consumed the house across the street, but there wouldn't be anything about the fire's phenotype that would help you come to that conclusion. If the flames carried the characteristic shape of their parents fire, and they could be distinguished as not the offspring of some other fire by their features alone, then I'd be arguing that fire is alive. I feel like I'm at risk of classifying certain periodic crystals as alive here, but they wouldn't meet the thermodynamic requirements that I have in mind (which fire does meet).
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoNot to be a dick (oh, go on then!): > but there wouldn't be anything about the fire's phenotype that would help you come to that conclusion but... but... cloning! But yes, we could do this all day and still get nowhere. We, collectively, are missing something but I don't know what.
- jschrf 3y agoComplexity theory comes to mind. Self-similar encapsulates that combine to create emergent behaviors.