Is the Universe a Living Organism?

[1137]

Our planet is not alive. The Earth is not “an organism”. But because it has the capacity of autoregulation (the hydrological cycle, the creation/destruction of forests/deserts, etc.) it tricks us giving the impression of being somehow conscious and therefore alive. But it is just an illusion.

I am definitely not under any illusion that the planet is conscious is any way, that was what Storm beliefs, not what I do. However, is the nucleus of a cell specifically alive, is it conscious? Not every aspect of a "living organism" was to be conscious, definitely not in the same sense that we are conscious.

 

[Storm]

Our planet is not alive. The Earth is not “an organism”. But because it has the capacity of autoregulation (the hydrological cycle, the creation/destruction of forests/deserts, etc.) it tricks us giving the impression of being somehow conscious and therefore alive. But it is just an illusion.

You are no more or less entitled to your opinion than I am to mine. If you want to have a friendly debate, you'll have to address my actual points, rather than just say "nuh uh." Same goes if you want to debunk my view. I wouldn't suggest the latter, given that it's about as falsifiable as any other theology out there.

 

[idav]

*This isn't my argument (yet), and I will present it the best I can*

One thing that matter seems to have an endless supply of energy so in a sense "It's alive" isn't too far from the truth. Another thing is the nature of matter/energy changing forms and building upon itself which is in turn used to a greater extent by lifeforms.

The universe has all these processes that became possible growing in complexity even to the point of consciousness being a possibility. The idea would be that the basic functionality would already be at the basic level in order for complexity to be able to achieve higher levels of awareness.

I do try to look at it as the whole and when doing so you can see what you would consider a living organism. I can see the earth, or a beehive, or a bunch of cells coming together to form a brain is a living system. In the same way life is a system on earth, the universe is the foundation for this system.

 

[PolyHedral]

I took the last line as indicative of an attempt to rebut the idea. If I erred in doing so, please accept my humble apology.

It's not so much an attempt to rebut the idea, but a statement that the words you are using to describe the idea don't really mean what you're using them to mean. Use different ones, and save us lots of confusion.

Thanks for this. As said, living organism is a term for comparison that is not actually literally a living organism in the sense that we see living organisms as.

But what other sense is there? A living organism is quite a specific thing that's not really open to interpretation.

However, there are some issues here. First of all, the universe does grow. Sure, it expands, but look at the big bang. The elements that exist today were not around, not even hydrogen was around at one point.

But that's not "growth" in any real sense. It's just a state change. What does it mean for the universe to grow, when it doesn't have a life cycle?

Also, string theory says that the universe was made by two colliding universes or membranes or something along those lines haha. No reason the think our universe cannot. Also, if you happen to know something about black holes that nobody else does, I think you owe it to the scientific community to share (that's a low blow, I know).

There is no evidence for string theory; additionally, it doesn't really make sense to say a black hole spawns a new universe, since the conditions inside a black hole are pretty fatalistic. (read: everything collides with the hole and is destroyed.)

I do not see the laws of the universe drastically fluctuating. In fact, if they were, I think it would cause some blatantly obvious and significant problems for life on earth.

Homoeostasis doesn't describe behaviour - it describes state. The universe's state is rather inconsistent. (Alternatively, one could say that over its entire lifespan, it is consistent - consistently dark, dead and cold, which produces the bizarre conclusion that the universe isn't a living organism yet. )

I think (somewhat surprisingly) you are one of those people who has an issue with the concept of "different respect".

A cell : living organism (in the common respect) :: _______ : the universe ("living organism"(different respect))

A single photon of light is bigger compared to your cells than the largest coherent components of the universe are compared to the universe's scale.It's hard to be homogeneous in "a different respect".

Again, colliding universes / membranes, and provide the scientific community with your occult knowledge of black holes

See above.

In a different respect we can even compare a city to a living organism. Is it a living organism in the way we are? No, but in its own respect, with no way to describe it free of our perspective, it is analogous to a living organism.

A city is more like a living organism - it fits more of the criteria.

 

[1137]

I don't see how we can have this discussion if you cannot understand the flaws of language or the use of analogy. The universe is equally comparable to a living organism as a city is. As for black holes, if you think we understand black holes you are greatly mistaken. Just because matter from ohr universe may get torn apart, how's that invalidate the possibility of it creating a big bang for another universe?

 

[Storm]

It's not so much an attempt to rebut the idea, but a statement that the words you are using to describe the idea don't really mean what you're using them to mean. Use different ones, and save us lots of confusion.

I'd be delighted to, but I'm at a total loss. If you have suggestions, I'll hear them out. Sometimes I make up my own, but then people whine about that, too, and I have to refer to the inaccurate English approximations when defining anyway. Got an answer?

But what other sense is there? A living organism is quite a specific thing that's not really open to interpretation.

The one we've been discussing. Please don't try to make me cry.

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't see how we can have this discussion if you cannot understand the flaws of language or the use of analogy. The universe is equally comparable to a living organism as a city is. As for black holes, if you think we understand black holes you are greatly mistaken. Just because matter from ohr universe may get torn apart, how's that invalidate the possibility of it creating a big bang for another universe?

The universe is not equally comparable to an organism as a city is - like I said, a city fulfils more of the criteria, and has fairly vital things like an environment external to it.

re: black holes, we know that nothing can ever travel away from the singularity once inside the horizon. A universe that does that doesn't behave much like ours, if it's coherent at all.

 

[1137]

The universe is not equally comparable to an organism as a city is - like I said, a city fulfils more of the criteria, and has fairly vital things like an environment external to it.

Yeah, I give up.

re: black holes, we know that nothing can ever travel away from the singularity once inside the horizon. A universe that does that doesn't behave much like ours, if it's coherent at all.

What you mean to say is that nothing that gets sucked into a black hole from our universe comes back into our universe. That doesn't cause the slightest problem.

 

[otokage007]

I am definitely not under any illusion that the planet is conscious is any way, that was what Storm beliefs, not what I do. However, is the nucleus of a cell specifically alive, is it conscious? Not every aspect of a "living organism" was to be conscious, definitely not in the same sense that we are conscious.

You are no more or less entitled to your opinion than I am to mine. If you want to have a friendly debate, you'll have to address my actual points, rather than just say "nuh uh." Same goes if you want to debunk my view. I wouldn't suggest the latter, given that it's about as falsifiable as any other theology out there.

Yes I was just giving my point of view. Not answering to you both personally.

However, I think we all may agree with a very simple definition of organism that wikipedia gives us, and that probably many dictionaries give:

Any contiguous living system that in at least some form, is capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

Can Earth respond to stimuli? I think it can not. Not in the way real living entities do. Of course a stone can respond to stimuli: it will brake if hit, but this doesn't mean it is alive.

Can a planet reproduce? I think it can not. It maybe can split into parts (the moon is said to be a part of Earth). But again, keeping the stone analogy, if you turn a stone into pieces, you will certainly not say that the stone is capable of reproduction.

Can a planet grow and develop? Not in the way living creatures do. You can say a planet is not isolated from it's environment (nothing is isolated actually), so it will be shaped by the environment, it will change with time and it will have a development. Can this be called "growth" in the same sense bacteria or cats grow?

Maintenance and homeostasis. This is something Earth actually do. For example when the temperature rises, forests dissapear and deserts appear, which result in a rise of the light reflected and therefore in a descent of temperature. Earth is full of autoregulation strategies, and lots of them can only be carried out by the present life on the planet, like plants or bacteria. I think this is the main thing that tricks people into thinking the Earth could actually be alive. However, I'm confident that it can hardly be considered a living entity, at least, it can not adjust to the conventional definition of "alive".

 

[1137]

I already and still agree that a planet is not alive...

 

[1137]

Polyhedral,
The universe obviously cannot cause itself to exist. This specifically shows, by reason alone, there must be something "external" / separate from the universe.

 

[Storm]

OK, otokage. FTR, I wasn't annoyed, just unclear as to your point.

To address the latest post, have you been following the thread? The inadequacy of 'organism' has been a major theme, starting with my own argument that it is simply the best of bad options way back in post 2.

Let's not derail the conversation with quibbling over acknowledged inaccuracies, please. That goes for you too, Poly!

 

[otokage007]

I already and still agree that a planet is not alive...

I know, I know. Just clarifing my point

EDIT: in some other abstract meaning of "living", I think that our planet itself could be included. In fact, I think very well could we invent a concept of "living" that included only "living planets" like Earth, because although I believe that the Earth is well distinguished from a living creature, I also believe it can be distinguished perfectly from a lifeless planet as Mars. So, is the Earth is a living creature? I'm sure it is not. But is the Earth is a living system? I would say yes, and also, a unique one.

 

[idav]

Polyhedral,
The universe obviously cannot cause itself to exist. This specifically shows, by reason alone, there must be something "external" / separate from the universe.

That doesn't solve the infinite regression issue. Something has to be first.

 

[otokage007]

Something has to be first.

Not that I disagree with you. But why?

 

[1137]

That doesn't solve the infinite regression issue. Something has to be first.

Why can't that "something" affect the universe(s) similarly to how organisms are acted on by outside forces?

 

[PolyHedral]

What you mean to say is that nothing that gets sucked into a black hole from our universe comes back into our universe. That doesn't cause the slightest problem.

I said exactly what I meant to say. Nothing can move away from the singularity once inside the horizon. This is because time and space have been flipped around so that the "the future" is synonymous with "the singularity."

Polyhedral,
The universe obviously cannot cause itself to exist. This specifically shows, by reason alone, there must be something "external" / separate from the universe.

That doesn't solve the infinite regression issue. Something has to be first.

You're both considering time to be a lot more linear than it actually is.

 

[1137]

You're both considering time to be a lot more linear than it actually is.

No I am not. Time being more complex that past ------> future does not invalidate causation. Time still exists after all, and the universe we perceive is third dimensional.

 

[idav]

Yes I was just giving my point of view. Not answering to you both personally.

However, I think we all may agree with a very simple definition of organism that wikipedia gives us, and that probably many dictionaries give:

Any contiguous living system that in at least some form, is capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

Can Earth respond to stimuli? I think it can not. Not in the way real living entities do. Of course a stone can respond to stimuli: it will brake if hit, but this doesn't mean it is alive.

Can a planet reproduce? I think it can not. It maybe can split into parts (the moon is said to be a part of Earth). But again, keeping the stone analogy, if you turn a stone into pieces, you will certainly not say that the stone is capable of reproduction.

Can a planet grow and develop? Not in the way living creatures do. You can say a planet is not isolated from it's environment (nothing is isolated actually), so it will be shaped by the environment, it will change with time and it will have a development. Can this be called "growth" in the same sense bacteria or cats grow?

Maintenance and homeostasis. This is something Earth actually do. For example when the temperature rises, forests dissapear and deserts appear, which result in a rise of the light reflected and therefore in a descent of temperature. Earth is full of autoregulation strategies, and lots of them can only be carried out by the present life on the planet, like plants or bacteria. I think this is the main thing that tricks people into thinking the Earth could actually be alive. However, I'm confident that it can hardly be considered a living entity, at least, it can not adjust to the conventional definition of "alive".

Nothing really grows though. Everything is just change and evolution. The universe evolved in a way that made it possible for things to "grow" but the universe is the basis of this system, an integral part even.

Something else making it like a system is spacetime which is integrated with matter and energy creating the physics necessary for evolution to take place. This actually gives an argument for the universe being homogeneous as long as it can be proven that there is some consistency to it, which relativity attests to.

 

[PolyHedral]

No I am not. Time being more complex that past ------> future does not invalidate causation. Time still exists after all, and the universe we perceive is third dimensional.

It does, however, invalidate the idea of there being a first cause.