| Hello, we here at Speculative Evolution have noticed a recent increase in the number of guests visiting our community. While being a guest does allow you to browse the forum at a basic level, it does not give you access to everything. There are many things that guests cannot see, and therefore we urge you to join our us so that you may contribute to our community and the projects we are undertaking. If you would like to register, please click the link below. If you are already a member, please ignore this message and log in. Thank you for your cooperation. Join our community! |
| Our Living Universe; It isn't a project. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 11 2012, 10:56 AM (206 Views) | |
| miocenemadness | Jun 11 2012, 10:56 AM Post #1 |
Fire alone will save the Clan...
|
Ok, on a commercial for a show on the Science channel, it said that the universe itself may be living; with suns being like single-celled organisms, and with black holes being like multicellular things, like plants and animals. What do you think about this theory? |
 |
 
|
| Watcher In The Puddle | Jun 11 2012, 12:54 PM Post #2 |
Transhuman
|
Life= the capability to reproduce, the need for nutrition and an ability to relate with the environment. |
|
|
|
| miocenemadness | Jun 11 2012, 02:27 PM Post #3 |
|
Fire alone will save the Clan...
|
Yeah, I don't believe it either, but it would be cool if it was true. |
|
|
|
| Mike | Jun 11 2012, 02:49 PM Post #4 |
Adult
|
lolwut? how would black holes be multicellular? I'd imagine, if anything, that would be like cancer; when something becomes so massive as to be a detriment to all around it. And it's not a question of believing it; it's hardly even a theory. It's a semantic argument, the issue lies with how you define life. If you go with the standard definition, as provided by watcher, then no, by no means whatsoever is it true. Now, if you're using "life" in the new-age vague sort of sense, then perhaps, because stars are complex systems that start and stop and sometimes lead to the development of similar systems. But stars don't interact with each other aside from through gravity, so while I can sort of see someone calling a single star living, I have trouble seeing the universe as living, because it's a lot more chaotic than the subunits that compose it. That being said, my personal definition for what I'd consider living (though again, it doesn't matter; it's just a word) is "any system complex enough to seem to go against the laws of physics in favor of a perceived free will". So, for example, while we are perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics, as is all else, we as a system are too complex for the system itself to recognize as a system, and thus, when we perceive each other, we don't perceive each other as atoms moving about in a predictable fashion, rather, we think we have some semblance of control over things. Similarly, a dog can choose to run or sit as it so pleases, seemingly going against the whole "objects that are in motion stay in motion" thing. Plants take atoms from the air to make up their structure, and seeing as we have the ability to walk through air, we don't think of it as a substance, and anything coming from "thin air" is seen to come from nowhere. Therefore, a plant seems to build itself from nothing, going against conservation of matter. By my definition, I consider robots living, as are any substances which grow or move about in a way I don't expect. That brings into question, if I understand the nature of a substance or object to the extent that I can predict its motions, does it cease to be living in my mind? Well, to an extent, yes, because that substance is no longer an inhabitant in my life as much as an obstacle. It's all subjective. Blah blah blah [/rant] |
|
|
|
| Zerraspace | Jun 11 2012, 03:19 PM Post #5 |
UD Needs You!
|
Even from a semantic point of view I cannot see how the universe as a whole could be considered to be a living entity. Life as we know it requires controlled reversal of entropy to maintain an internal homogenous medium - acting against concentration gradients, maintaining physical temperatures, disposing of wastes and insuring metabolite intake... Thermodynamics states that total entropy is always increasing, and so long as there is no external medium to provide or take matter and energy (there is certainly no input or output of either, if the Law of Conservation of Energy has anything to say), the universe could not begin these most basic functions. Describing pieces of it in this fashion is more plausible, as these can now interact with surrounding systems, but even this demands , but even this demands some semblance of homogeneity, and again, these systems do not appear to exhibit any form of control over their input and output. |
|
|
|
| Parasky | Jun 11 2012, 07:55 PM Post #6 |
The Great Wizzard
|
I think this just stems from a simple misunderstanding. The show is based around showing how the universe as a whole resembles a single celled organism, going as far as to say that black holes may be like DNA and help in the creation of new universes (this is based on a not-quite-new but increasingly popular theory that black holes each contain a new universe spawned from the matter and energy sucked into them from our own; it makes sense but its more of a thought than a theory IMO). The problem is that the universe came first, so really life resembles the universe rather than the other way around. |
|
|
| Orionite | Jul 1 2012, 04:52 PM Post #7 |
Primate Thinker
|
That's the thing there - life as we know it. And life as we know it is not a constant occurrence throughout the universe. There could very well be countless examples of life as we don't know it. Especially if we see the universe as some sort of entity. It would definitely be life as we have no fucking idea about :). |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · The Habitable Zone · Next Topic » |
9:15 PM Jun 19
