Present Evidence Here II

[TheCloser]

What if the description does not please you? Is it the description non-the-less, or do you require a description that agrees with your assumption? Common sense and reason tells us that if we do not have the answer we continue to look until we do or we expire. The reality is that many are unable to do this and are more comfortable making shit up that helps them cope. Which do you prefer?

"Pleasing"? that's an opinion or emotional response.  Plus you have offer one.

How do we judge "god" claims from theists invalid or invalid?  I would say we use something similar.  what do you think?

[TheCloser]

I still don't know what your point is.  The universe is alive or it is dead; or maybe, like a virus, neither.  What difference does it make?  An amoeba is alive; but does it have a purpose?  None that I can see, other than living.  That does not mean it does not have a purpose to an amoeba--but none that I can figure out.  But that does not make it any easier or harder to learn about amoebas.  Maybe the universe is like that.

yeah, this is kind of how I feel.  i really don't have a "main point", I guess, I just like figuring out how the universe is working and talking about it.   I don't care where it leads me.  god or no god, I don't care.

It is more valid to claim the amoeba is alive based on what you see going on around it and in it.  It is not valid to say it is not alive, or at least far less valid.  "tweener", doesn't seem to match observations, but in all honesty it seems valid.  More valid than not alive anyway.

I say, the region of space that we live in looks like it is alive.  In fact, based on what we do know, I feel that claim is more valid than any other claim I have heard.  "tweener" is definitely a valid claim.  I don't think it is an in-between because of the number of interactions for the volume we are in, but its valid.

Then we can talk about how observation interrelate to each other.  Like how volcanoes, earthquakes, and weather patters relate to each other.   We don't have to be emotional about it, although I understand there are people with more emotion than me.  Some people love volcanoes.  I think they are cool, but that's it.

[aitm]

"Pleasing"? that's an opinion or emotional response.  Plus you have offer one.

How do we judge "god" claims from theists invalid or invalid?  I would say we use something similar.  what do you think?

It is quite easy to see you did not try to answer any of my questions. How does one judge god claims? I find that rather easy. If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false until one or more shows a substantial and demonstrable  difference.......4 billion years and yet not one stands out......oh my.......what are the chances of that?  100% perhaps.

[aitm]

we are alive in a system that is not alive? 

we have emotion that the system we are in can't have more of?   

I have to go back to this. Are you suggesting that rocks are alive? Are you suggesting that atoms and molecules have emotions? Are you suggesting that an inanimate universe or parts of, have an identity? Does the universe deliver mail to different parts talking about birthdays etc? Is there a mailbox somewhere or are you suggesting a secret "language" among the planets that only they share and perhaps scream out to others who do nothing while they are devoured by a black hole or super nova? This seems a little more interesting than fancy dan gods prancing about the globe demanding the hands be cut off of women who dare grab the testicles of a man attacking her husband.

[Mike Cl]

yeah, this is kind of how I feel.  i really don't have a "main point", I guess, I just like figuring out how the universe is working and talking about it.   I don't care where it leads me.  god or no god, I don't care.

It is more valid to claim the amoeba is alive based on what you see going on around it and in it.  It is not valid to say it is not alive, or at least far less valid.  "tweener", doesn't seem to match observations, but in all honesty it seems valid.  More valid than not alive anyway.

I say, the region of space that we live in looks like it is alive.  In fact, based on what we do know, I feel that claim is more valid than any other claim I have heard.  "tweener" is definitely a valid claim.  I don't think it is an in-between because of the number of interactions for the volume we are in, but its valid.

Then we can talk about how observation interrelate to each other.  Like how volcanoes, earthquakes, and weather patters relate to each other.   We don't have to be emotional about it, although I understand there are people with more emotion than me.  Some people love volcanoes.  I think they are cool, but that's it.

In order to determine if the universe is alive or not, we have to have some sort of definition of what being alive looks like.  If I remember correctly, a virus is not alive--nor is it dead.  So, being 'alive' can become complicated.  I'll have to look up what the definition of what life is.  Fire satisfies most of what is need for an alive thing to demonstrate.  But I think we can agree that a fire is not alive in the sense you are talking about.  Personally, I don't see any reason for the universe to be alive; nor do I see much evidence that it is. 

[Mike Cl]

Here is one definition of life:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases, such as viruses. Throughout history, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" and many theories on the properties and emergence of living things, such as materialism, the belief that everything is made out of matter and that life is merely a complex form of it; hylomorphism, the belief that all things are a combination of matter and form, and the form of a living thing is its soul; spontaneous generation, the belief that life repeatedly emerges from non-life; and vitalism, a now largely discredited hypothesis that living organisms possess a "life force" or "vital spark". Modern definitions are more complex, with input from a diversity of scientific disciplines. Biophysicists have proposed many definitions based on chemical systems; there are also some living systems theories, such as the Gaia hypothesis, the idea that the Earth itself is alive. Another theory is that life is the property of ecological systems, and yet another is elaborated in complex systems biology, a branch or subfield of mathematical biology. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.

So, Closer, does the universe exhibit those things that would make it alive?  Or would it be more like a virus and something that is neither dead or alive?    But whatever side you fall on, what difference does it make to you?

[TheCloser]

It is quite easy to see you did not try to answer any of my questions. How does one judge god claims? I find that rather easy. If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false until one or more shows a substantial and demonstrable  difference.......4 billion years and yet not one stands out......oh my.......what are the chances of that?  100% perhaps.

what?  I did answer.  I said we use the same method that you use to judge god claims as invalid.  You say everybody is wrong.  that's a cop out.

I can add that we judge claims as best we can, with each other.  I think, offering a mechanism, linking observations to each other, and making correct predictions would at least help.

My hypothesis is that the system we are in resembles life more than it does non life.

You will have to offer me something more than "they are all wrong". 

Do you have a hypothesis for the events we see around us?

[TheCloser]

I have to go back to this. Are you suggesting that rocks are alive? Are you suggesting that atoms and molecules have emotions? Are you suggesting that an inanimate universe or parts of, have an identity? Does the universe deliver mail to different parts talking about birthdays etc? Is there a mailbox somewhere or are you suggesting a secret "language" among the planets that only they share and perhaps scream out to others who do nothing while they are devoured by a black hole or super nova? This seems a little more interesting than fancy dan gods prancing about the globe demanding the hands be cut off of women who dare grab the testicles of a man attacking her husband.

I am suggesting that rock is as alive as your teeth or hemoglobin is in you.  The rock is in part of the system that is alive as much as your hair is part of your "alive". Or your eye lid is alive. 

You want fancy? really?  I have no such needs, I only do what the universe is doing.  I do understand that some people have emotional stakes in the answers.  That's on them to be honest with themselves.  You want something more, I don't care if there is more or there is not more.

[aitm]

  You say everybody is wrong.  that's a cop out.

No, I said: If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false .
Show me the "cop out" or in other words, prove one of the "gods" exist.

[TheCloser]

In order to determine if the universe is alive or not, we have to have some sort of definition of what being alive looks like.  If I remember correctly, a virus is not alive--nor is it dead.  So, being 'alive' can become complicated.  I'll have to look up what the definition of what life is.  Fire satisfies most of what is need for an alive thing to demonstrate.  But I think we can agree that a fire is not alive in the sense you are talking about.  Personally, I don't see any reason for the universe to be alive; nor do I see much evidence that it is.

Very true.  The definition of alive, or life is very tricky.  I am ok with just looking at something and comparing it to what we think is non life and comparing to something we call life to decide.  We can do a more basic definition of  less energy out then energy in.  Thermodynamically speaking that is.  But I do not think we have to get crazy about it at this site.  its a baby site with baby ideas.  Frig, I am a simpleton myself.

I look at the old Gaia notions and a non living earth claim.  I won't go as far as gaia did.  We can only make comparisons of events to other events and do our best to describe the connection between them.  Thats how measurements work I think.

Does earth look like a cell in terms of interactions?  It does.

Does the earth look like a rock?  or any other thing we would describe as non life? I don't think so.

Is there any separation between "stuff" on planet earth?  Even the most understanding of atoms and subatomic particles says there is no clear separation.  The universe is a "net average" of events from our standpoint.

Then a simple commonsense check:

Can we be alive in a system that is not alive?

Lets just keep the volume earth size for now.  How can you show me that any part of us are distinctly separated from the surrounding earth systems? The claim "we can be alive and the biosphere not alive",   that's a pretty hefty claim to me.  Its far more extraordinary than my claim so we would need some examples, mechanisms and predictions.

[TheCloser]

Here is one definition of life:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. However, many other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases, such as viruses. Throughout history, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" and many theories on the properties and emergence of living things, such as materialism, the belief that everything is made out of matter and that life is merely a complex form of it; hylomorphism, the belief that all things are a combination of matter and form, and the form of a living thing is its soul; spontaneous generation, the belief that life repeatedly emerges from non-life; and vitalism, a now largely discredited hypothesis that living organisms possess a "life force" or "vital spark". Modern definitions are more complex, with input from a diversity of scientific disciplines. Biophysicists have proposed many definitions based on chemical systems; there are also some living systems theories, such as the Gaia hypothesis, the idea that the Earth itself is alive. Another theory is that life is the property of ecological systems, and yet another is elaborated in complex systems biology, a branch or subfield of mathematical biology. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.

So, Closer, does the universe exhibit those things that would make it alive?  Or would it be more like a virus and something that is neither dead or alive?    But whatever side you fall on, what difference does it make to you?

yes, the biosphere of earth, compared to other things that are both alive and not alive, looks alive.

yes, a virus is a tweener, but it does replicate its information using the system around it.  Does the earth's biosphere act like a virus when we compare it to viruses, life, and non life interaction?  I don't think so.  But its a possibility.  the only one of the three that is least likely is that the biosphere matches non life. IMO that is. 

[TheCloser]

No, I said: If a billion people have a billion different gods, none of which seem to have any more power than random chance, reason and common sense demands that they are all false .
Show me the "cop out" or in other words, prove one of the "gods" exist.

lets see,

" ... random chance, reason, and commonsense say they are all wrong." 

very clear to me that I am wrong.  my bad. 

[aitm]

I am suggesting that rock is as alive as your teeth or hemoglobin is in you.   

Oh I get you now. Good stuff...yessir.....brilliant thinking....nobel prize worthy I am sure...keep up the good work....say....this place is just too ignorant for you, what say you drift off to www.barneythetalkingtree.com where they appreciate your brilliance? Go on now...sorry to see you go...go ahead...it's okay....spread your brilliance to the world....

[aitm]

lets see,

" ... random chance, reason, and commonsense say they are all wrong."   

english is not your first language obviously, sentence structure is important. I accept your apology.

[TheCloser]

Oh I get you now. Good stuff...yessir.....brilliant thinking....nobel prize worthy I am sure...keep up the good work....say....this place is just too ignorant for you, what say you drift off to www.barneythetalkingtree.com where they appreciate your brilliance? Go on now...sorry to see you go...go ahead...it's okay....spread your brilliance to the world....

Yeah, I am ok with trying to diminish a claim.  But we will have to stay on topic for your stance to be more valid.

Compare the earth's biosphere to a non living set of events, like a rock, to a living set of events, like an amoeba, and to a tweener life thing, like a virus.

what does it look like it matches up better with?

you make the call.