5 ms·

Are you proposing that atoms are organisms and/or that astronomical objects may be organisms? I feel like you are just inflating the meaning of “life” without j

by dgfl 1y ago

Are you proposing that atoms are organisms and/or that astronomical objects may be organisms? I feel like you are just inflating the meaning of “life” without justifying why. Defining it properly is a very interesting problem, but I think this is an extremely active field of study. Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought.

iinnPP 1y ago
It seems they are stating that life elsewhere may be vastly different than life on Earth. How did you arrive at your understanding of the comment?
- mr_mitm 1y ago
  I arrived at the same understanding as GP due to this line: > What if there are already organisms that are so large or small that we just can't comprehend them?
lukan 1y ago
"Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought." Questions usually can be productive. To answer it, we have to look up and apply the (debated) definitions of life and atoms in our understanding clearly don't meet it. But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole. We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know.
- mr_mitm 1y ago
  We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that scale complex enough to yield something anyone would be comfortable calling "life". The defining property of dark matter is no or only weak interaction (which we also understand very well), so imagining life there becomes even harder. > We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know. That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. As is "just asking questions" which lack support by even a shred of plausibility.
  - lukan 1y ago
    "That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. " In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me. I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?
    - mr_mitm 1y ago
      > quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible. > And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine. QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.
      - sanderjd 1y ago
        Yep, nothing around us would work if quantum mechanics didn't work just the way people figured out that it works. It's just that most people, even those who understand it best, still find it to be pretty wild that things actually work this way.
      - lukan 1y ago
        "You can understand the math of it just fine." Can you explain it? That is usually the bar for understanding. Also, can you explain to me how gravity works?

by dgfl 1y ago

iinnPP 1y ago

It seems they are stating that life elsewhere may be vastly different than life on Earth. How did you arrive at your understanding of the comment?

mr_mitm 1y ago
I arrived at the same understanding as GP due to this line: > What if there are already organisms that are so large or small that we just can't comprehend them?

lukan 1y ago

"Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought." Questions usually can be productive. To answer it, we have to look up and apply the (debated) definitions of life and atoms in our understanding clearly don't meet it. But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole. We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know.

mr_mitm 1y ago
We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that scale complex enough to yield something anyone would be comfortable calling "life". The defining property of dark matter is no or only weak interaction (which we also understand very well), so imagining life there becomes even harder. > We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know. That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. As is "just asking questions" which lack support by even a shred of plausibility.
- lukan 1y ago
  "That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. " In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me. I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?
  - mr_mitm 1y ago
    > quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible. > And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine. QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      Yep, nothing around us would work if quantum mechanics didn't work just the way people figured out that it works. It's just that most people, even those who understand it best, still find it to be pretty wild that things actually work this way.
    - lukan 1y ago
      "You can understand the math of it just fine." Can you explain it? That is usually the bar for understanding. Also, can you explain to me how gravity works?