Is the Universe a Living Organism?

[1137]

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

Think about this one for a minute. Look at a human being. We are made up of many complexities, from the functions of DNA all life shares to the insane complexity of our brain. How do we know that the universe is not the same? Obviously, the universe is a significantly larger scale than the human body, so they are hard to compare.

Now, not everything in the universe is alive itself, at least not nearly in the same respect as what we would consider alive. This does not vary from the human body though. Our bones are not "alive", like planets in the universe are not alive. But without being able to see the big picture (it may literally be impossible) there is no way to know that planets orbiting stars are not significantly important to how the universe works.

Also, it would have to be the product of some evolutionary process. I may be wrong here, but I have heard theories that our universe may have been born from two other universes colliding. Or, there may be some other cause. Anyone claiming to know what happened "before" the big bang is obviously lying. Also, there is the idea of a fine-tuned universe. I am not sure about the theory, but it is obvious that if the universe was different at the fundamental levels, at the very least life as we know it would not exist. And what is an "evolutionary" advantage of conscious life existing the way we are conscious? In a sense, the universe can "understand" itself.

Reproduction is an issue. I heard a theory that when a black hole is formed, new universe(s) are formed beyond the event horizon. Personally won't follow this aspect of the argument for now.

Finally, there is the issue of consciousness. I personally think an issue people have with nature / the universe being "conscious" is that most who present such arguments have no understanding of the concept of "different respect". You would not say that a plant is conscious in the same respect as human beings, yet plants are aware of the sun, other plants, music being played, things along that nature. Everything in our universe is made from the same material at the basic levels. Much as our brain working in certain ways creates consciousness in that respect, it may be possible for that to happen in other respects. I mean we are simply talking about interactions creating consciousness, and all parts of nature are constantly interacting in some sense. So, if you take every single event in the universe on every single level, it may create consciousness in a different respect much as our brain creates consciousness. And as said before, the brain has evolved in a way that produces consciousness in a respect where the universe can "understand" itself.

 

[Storm]

OK, not a bad attempt. A couple of errors/ miscommunications which are totally understandable, though. It's an unusual cosmology, so please let me clarify before debating. (The disclaimer that all following points are from MY perspective should go without saying, but I don't trust that everyone who reads this will be as intelligent and respectful as yourself, so I'll type the "DUH" out.)

Of actual necessity is the disclaimer that my conviction in the following points varies from "well, it's a possibility yet to be demonstrated illogical" to "this is as obvious as the existence of rocks." Please bear that in mind while reading. TIA.

Now, not everything in the universe is alive itself, at least not nearly in the same respect as what we would consider alive.

This is failure of neither the theological cosmology nor your attempt to get a handle on it, but the English language, which lacks an adequate term. As you pointed out, not every component of an organism qualifies as a biological life form in its own right. Yet, put it all together, and that's what you've got.

Further, the claim is not that the cosmos is an organism going by the strict definition of biological sciences. Rather, the word is used to convey a rough idea of the basic concept. Sometimes religion has to resort to these things, and it's as frustrating to the people borrowing the words as it is to you (at least!)

Finally, as an adherent of the idea, I do not claim that individual life forms throughout the cosmos are limited to biological manifestation.

But without being able to see the big picture (it may literally be impossible) there is no way to know that planets orbiting stars are not significantly important to how the universe works.

Uncontested. The belief that the universe is an "organism" is an article of theology, and as such, unfalsifiable to current (and in my case, conceivable) science. That's the nature of theology, take it or leave it.

Also, it would have to be the product of some evolutionary process.

Not really, though I contend it probably is.

And what is an "evolutionary" advantage of conscious life existing the way we are conscious? In a sense, the universe can "understand" itself.

It's not internally illogical to contend that the "Godiverse" requires sapient life through which to manifest its own thoughts.

Reproduction is an issue. I heard a theory that when a black hole is formed, new universe(s) are formed beyond the event horizon. Personally won't follow this aspect of the argument for now.

Please expand on what you believe the issue to be.

(Since you'll probably need to know eventually, I'll go ahead and state I do believe they reproduce, and ours is not the first. Which may eventually reveal Big Bang Theory to be the most amazing pun in the history of the English language.)

Finally, there is the issue of consciousness.

I would really rather not get into that element until we've got the basics down.

Looking forward to your response!

 

[1137]

Further, the claim is not that the cosmos is an organism going by the strict definition of biological sciences. Rather, the word is used to convey a rough idea of the basic concept. Sometimes religion has to resort to these things, and it's as frustrating to the people borrowing the words as it is to you (at least!)

Yeah it really makes it difficult, doesn't it.

Finally, as an adherent of the idea, I do not claim that individual life forms throughout the cosmos are limited to biological manifestation.

What do you mean?

Please expand on what you believe the issue to be.

(Since you'll probably need to know eventually, I'll go ahead and state I do believe they reproduce, and ours is not the first. Which may eventually reveal Big Bang Theory to be the most amazing pun in the history of the English language.)

Hmm, I was thinking in terms of living things reproduce, and so if the universe is a living thing it would have to reproduce.

 

[Storm]

Yeah it really makes it difficult, doesn't it.

It really, REALLY does! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, stupid linguistic limitations!

What do you mean?

Exactly what I said: I believe in individual life forms (entities) not based on or bound to carbon-based sacks of obscene glop subject to the mechanics of biological evolution.

For instance, I submit the World Mother, aka planetary entity. I believe that many planets, our own included are likewise 'organisms,' to the point of possessing independent consciousness vastly outstripping our own in complexity. Obviously, the planet will not die from lack of oxygen to the brain.

Hmm, I was thinking in terms of living things reproduce, and so if the universe is a living thing it would have to reproduce.

Ah, yes. See previous post, I think they do. And while I would personally appreciate something akin to sexual reproduction for pure lulz, that's probably not how it works.

 

[1137]

That is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure I would agree. I mean everything could have consciousness in its own respect, so actually why not? Really, viewing things as conscious with an understanding of what a different respect is changes little about how the universe is except how we view it.

 

[Alex_G]

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

Interesting post. My immediate thought was; what is meant when we say 'alive', and subsequently what would its attribution to the universe as a whole actually mean? Or rather, what would we take away from such a description being given to the universe as a whole?

Seeing as the word has developed to describe certain things here on Earth, perhaps 'alive' only makes sense as a word, in which there is an environment for that life to actually exist in, to have developed, to be contrasted against other non-life things. Could you have everything be 'alive' without that environment in which it lives, in which it is likely defined?

We humans do very much like to seek out patterns and anthropomorphise anything we can, I mean we blame the car morally for not starting in the morning! I air on the side of caution when we try and project our attributes onto what we discover. I mean an 'alive universe' has quite an insidious attraction, enough to trigger my alarm bells.

Additionally, as 'alive' is a somewhat broad term, with scope for technical usage as well as slang everyday use, there’s some flexibility in its meaning, and i would be careful that its use to describe biological creatures on earth, and its perhaps slightly different definition (with some artistic licence) in describing something like the universe doesn’t result in one jumping to the conclusion that the universe is therefore like a 'biological creature’ simply because it’s been attributed the term 'alive'.

My concern would be that over focus on loose similarities facilitated by a loosely defined word might cloud the fact that biological life and the universe are also hugely different. Perhaps a frustration with an apparently incomplete description of the nature of the universe drives the question of 'is the universe alive?', but hopefully not to the desperate point that one would accept a bad conclusion over on-going uncertainty. I would venture that a decent description of the nature of the universe be likely something quite new and unique, rather than rehashed from something already described.

 

[Storm]

That is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure I would agree. I mean everything could have consciousness in its own respect, so actually why not? Really, viewing things as conscious with an understanding of what a different respect is changes little about how the universe is except how we view it.

Who expects you to agree?

Any follow up questions? Points of contention?

C'mon dude, I so rarely get to expound my actual beliefs here! Pwetty pwease?

 

[PolyHedral]

Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[25][27]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Attempting to fit "the universe" as a whole into these criteria poses a few problems. For instance,
1. The universe's state is very much non-constant. The ambient temperature of space has gone from billions of kelvin to single-digits, and is likely to drop even further until heat death.
2. The universe is, at the highest scale, pretty much homogeneous.
3. Perhaps this counts? It's quite hard to say.
4. The universe, being everything, can't grow at all. It can only expand.
5. Similarly, there is no external environment for it to adapt to.
6. There is no stimuli external to the universe.
7. There's no current evidence that it makes sense to say that the universe can reproduce.

So I suspect when you say "living organism," you're not actually talking about living organisms.

 

[Storm]

Attempting to fit "the universe" as a whole into these criteria poses a few problems. For instance,
1. The universe's state is very much non-constant. The ambient temperature of space has gone from billions of kelvin to single-digits, and is likely to drop even further until heat death.
2. The universe is, at the highest scale, pretty much homogeneous.
3. Perhaps this counts? It's quite hard to say.
4. The universe, being everything, can't grow at all. It can only expand.
5. Similarly, there is no external environment for it to adapt to.
6. There is no stimuli external to the universe.
7. There's no current evidence that it makes sense to say that the universe can reproduce.

So I suspect when you say "living organism," you're not actually talking about living organisms.

From post # 2"

Further, the claim is not that the cosmos is an organism going by the strict definition of biological sciences. Rather, the word is used to convey a rough idea of the basic concept. Sometimes religion has to resort to these things, and it's as frustrating to the people borrowing the words as it is to you (at least!)

It helps to read the argument before attempting to rebut, doll.

 

[1137]

We humans do very much like to seek out patterns and anthropomorphise anything we can, I mean we blame the car morally for not starting in the morning! I air on the side of caution when we try and project our attributes onto what we discover. I mean an 'alive universe' has quite an insidious attraction, enough to trigger my alarm bells.

It's not anthropomorphizing though. I mean, is saying a cell is alive giving it human qualities?

I tend to agree that "alive" may be the wrong term, but as Storm pointed out it is an issue impossible to avoid if describing concepts we really cannot grasp with our mindset. I mean I have issues with saying that plants are conscious when talking about consciousness, as there is a significant difference between consciousness from the brain and how a plant is "conscious". However, there is no word to describe something we cannot ever experience, and so it is the best word to use.

 

[Storm]

It's not anthropomorphizing though. I mean, is saying a cell is alive giving it human qualities?

I tend to agree that "alive" may be the wrong term, but as Storm pointed out it is an issue impossible to avoid if describing concepts we really cannot grasp with our mindset. I mean I have issues with saying that plants are conscious when talking about consciousness, as there is a significant difference between consciousness from the brain and how a plant is "conscious". However, there is no word to describe something we cannot ever experience, and so it is the best word to use.

For the record, I can GRASP the idea with virtually no effort. I cannot articulate the idea in this language (and it's the only language I've got), without eventually wanting to cry while ripping out my own hair.

This is an important distinction!

 

[Storm]

Also, please contemplate the distinction between these proposals:

1) Anthropomorphic God
2) Theomorphic universe.

Also not a minor thing. Love y'all!

 

[PolyHedral]

From post # 2"


It helps to read the argument before attempting to rebut, doll.

I have just described how 6/7ths of the basic concept don't apply. If we're going to be using words to mean such drastically different things, no wonder this forum has millions of posts.

 

[Storm]

I have just described how 6/7ths of the basic concept don't apply. If we're going to be using words to mean such drastically different things, no wonder this forum has millions of posts.

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.

 

[1137]

Attempting to fit "the universe" as a whole into these criteria poses a few problems. For instance,
1. The universe's state is very much non-constant. The ambient temperature of space has gone from billions of kelvin to single-digits, and is likely to drop even further until heat death.
2. The universe is, at the highest scale, pretty much homogeneous.
3. Perhaps this counts? It's quite hard to say.
4. The universe, being everything, can't grow at all. It can only expand.
5. Similarly, there is no external environment for it to adapt to.
6. There is no stimuli external to the universe.
7. There's no current evidence that it makes sense to say that the universe can reproduce.

So I suspect when you say "living organism," you're not actually talking about living organisms.

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. 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. 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).

 

[1137]

For the record, I can GRASP the idea with virtually no effort. I cannot articulate the idea in this language (and it's the only language I've got), without eventually wanting to cry while ripping out my own hair.

This is an important distinction!

Agreed, good point. Thanks.

 

[Alex_G]

It's not anthropomorphizing though. I mean, is saying a cell is alive giving it human qualities?

I tend to agree that "alive" may be the wrong term, but as Storm pointed out it is an issue impossible to avoid if describing concepts we really cannot grasp with our mindset. I mean I have issues with saying that plants are conscious when talking about consciousness, as there is a significant difference between consciousness from the brain and how a plant is "conscious". However, there is no word to describe something we cannot ever experience, and so it is the best word to use.

Yeah sure i understand. It actually brings up something i often ponder when I’m daydreaming. That our language is very much geared up for retrospection, and does not lend itself well to delving into that black unknown that is the undiscovered. I mean imagine an ancient Egyptian being teleported to today, and trying to describe all the things he sees with his 'language of yesterday'. It would utterly fail him. It makes me think about how much i fail to see, because I’m so constrained by a language that can only describe the already discovered.
Essentially that’s part of the beauty of mathematics that it is able to see into that black, and uncover things we could never achieve with our everyday language.

 

[1137]

Attempting to fit "the universe" as a whole into these criteria poses a few problems. For instance,
1. The universe's state is very much non-constant. The ambient temperature of space has gone from billions of kelvin to single-digits, and is likely to drop even further until heat death.

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.

2. The universe is, at the highest scale, pretty much homogeneous.

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))

4. The universe, being everything, can't grow at all. It can only expand.

As pointed out, the universe does "grow / mature".

5. Similarly, there is no external environment for it to adapt to.
6. There is no stimuli external to the universe.

Give you these ones.

7. There's no current evidence that it makes sense to say that the universe can reproduce.

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

I have just described how 6/7ths of the basic concept don't apply. If we're going to be using words to mean such drastically different things, no wonder this forum has millions of posts.

I'll give you 2.5 / 7 max.

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.

 

[1137]

Yeah sure i understand. It actually brings up something i often ponder when I’m daydreaming. That our language is very much geared up for retrospection, and does not lend itself well to delving into that black unknown that is the undiscovered. I mean imagine an ancient Egyptian being teleported to today, and trying to describe all the things he sees with his 'language of yesterday'. It would utterly fail him. It makes me think about how much i fail to see, because I’m so constrained by a language that can only describe the already discovered.

That is a good way of describing it.

 

[otokage007]

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.

Our bones are not "alive”

I disagree. Osteocytes are living cells. Why are you stating the contrary?