Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

whatislife.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#11

Post by Koshkin »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

Conflating life with the ability to communicate is like conflating computing with browsing the web.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#12

Post by jhallenworld »

atschantz wrote: post #7

It's remarkable how much this still rings true today. The idea that we should try and understand life as a battle against the second law of thermodynamics has had a significant influence on many of today's great thinkers - such as Friston [1] and Dennett [2], as well as countless others. [1] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.201... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ1YxR8qNpY

I've heard this called the "every refrigerator is a miracle" theory.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#13

Post by vokep »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

This is so true, and key. So many people think about themselves and systems in general as being separate when logically there isn't even such a thing, at least not in the relevant context. You're looking at a a system and how it interacts with a larger system its a part of, how does that interaction take place? Well, either both systems are actually one, or there is absolutely no interaction, and looking at both systems at once is only interesting maybe to see what is similar or different between them. Basically, its always all or nothing, part of the whole, or not.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#15

Post by wlib »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

Exactly. The definition of life that is taught in school and widely cited is very limited to simply what we traditionally consider alive. But where are fr he lines drawn? Must life be conscious, or at least experience qualia? Does conciousness get more "real" in more complex organisms? (Is a fly just as alive as a horse is?) Why do we consider viruses to be not alive? Are our own bodies' cells alive? In what way? The system is very complicated and we answer is with a hand-waving simple definition.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#16

Post by segfaultbuserr »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

I think you may be familiar with the Global Brain hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain): what if the Earth is a large network system? And you know, the network is the computer...

Given the current empirical evidences we have, it's not particularity persuasive, but an extremely interesting imagination and proposal indeed.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#17

Post by ValleyOfTheMtns »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

You're changing the meaning of the word to suit your philosophy.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#18

Post by goatlover »

wlib wrote: post #15
ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

Exactly. The definition of life that is taught in school and widely cited is very limited to simply what we traditionally consider alive. But where are fr he lines drawn? Must life be conscious, or at least experience qualia? Does conciousness get more "real" in more complex organisms? (Is a fly just as alive as a horse is?) Why do we consider viruses to be not alive? Are our own bodies' cells alive? In what way? The…

The lines are drawn based on what biology we have available to us. If we ever discover alien biology, the lines might be drawn more broadly. But we don't know until then.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#19

Post by defnotarobot »

I remember finding a first edition of this in my university library during undergrad after reading the likes of Watson/Crick describe it as fundamental in their path. What bowled me over was that each paragraph in that edition - and so very likely the ones they read as well - was marked with a section symbol (§), itself closely resembling a double helix. At the time it felt profound that their conclusion was likely implied by the circumstances of their beginning.

Re: What is Life? by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) [pdf]

#20

Post by zorga »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #8

Our definition of life is very narrow, mostly self-referential. Life is everything. Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive. Why wouldn't Earth be alive? How about the sun, the stars and the universe? We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it. If a…

> Life is everything.

No it isn't, a rock is not alive.

> Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive.

Strawman, no one thinks life requires communication.

> Why wouldn't Earth be alive?

Because it's not, it's a big rock, it has life on the surface, but is not itself alive.

> We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it.

More strawmen.

> If anything, the only life that exists is the entire universe and we are just tiny tiny pieces of it with a very limited view and awareness of the whole.

The universe is not alive.

What's clear is that you just don't know what you're saying, you're just pontificating woo woo.

Life self replicates, metabolizes something for energy, and grows through cellular division. None of the things you just called alive do that, so they're not alive; you don't get to change the meaning of the word life to suit your narrative.

Post reply on HN