Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

[MGmirkin]

Question even that which makes you question, lest you accept on blind faith the necessity of questioning. Hehe...

Wait, was that semi-circular reasoning?

~Michael

[pepgmsc]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post and a great subject with which to start.

The philosophy of Objectivism defines life as goal-directed action, not necessarily conscious action. If we can show goal directed action, I would say the universe is alive. I don't think we currently have enough information to confirm that hypothesis.

Also, I believe the development of religion began with the end of the Golden Age when man called the planets gods and tried everything they could think of to return to that wonderful age before the great changes in the solar system occurred. I also believe that the power the religious leaders developed became intoxicating after several generations and they have done everything they could since that time to maintain that power. They long ago forgot why religion developed in the first place and the EU theories are now bringing that development back to light.

[Bluewaters]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post and a great subject with which to start.

The philosophy of Objectivism defines life as goal-directed action, not necessarily conscious action. If we can show goal directed action, I would say the universe is alive. I don't think we currently have enough information to confirm that hypothesis.

Goal directed action is the definition according to of the philosophy of Objectivism. Who developed the philosophy? Seems like a limited definition. There is no one, including myself, who is not looking through their own perceptions, beliefs, their history encoded in their cells and influencing us.

To determine if the universe is a living organism might boil down to how are we defining "living organism"...what does being alive mean? Do we except one definition? And who is going to determine which definition to accept?

[pepgmsc]

I believe that we have to accept one definition of what 'being alive' means. If not, we will argue endlessly with no possible resolution because we are literally speaking different languages when we speak of any concept with which we disagree on the definition. I'm open to debate on the defintion of 'beling alive', but the final arbiter is, as always, reality.

Objectivism was developed by Ayn Rand.

[Grey Cloud]

I believe that we have to accept one definition of what 'being alive' means. If not, we will argue endlessly with no possible resolution because we are literally speaking different languages when we speak of any concept with which we disagree on the definition. I'm open to debate on the defintion of 'beling alive', but the final arbiter is, as always, reality.

Objectivism was developed by Ayn Rand.

I agree that defining terms is important to this or any other debate. One of the definitions of 'life' I have come across includes such things as the taking in of 'food' and the expulsion of waste, reproduction and so on.
Whether the Universe fulfills any or all of the criteria is, I feel, unanswerable (at the present time at least). One wonders for instance, where waste would be expelled to and with what does a Universe reproduce? To head off the obvious answer to the second part of the question I should point out that I use the word 'Universe' in it's original sense with the empasis on the 'uni' part, i.e. uni = 1.
I personally feel that the Universe is a form of consciousness rather than a form of (or life form). If one states that the Universe is alive then it begs the same question that we ask of ourselves: how did it become alive?
I realise that stating that the Universe is conscious begs the question of where the consciousness comes from. I have my own (provisional) answer to that.

As for Ayn Rand, she developed Ojectivism subject to her own intelligence, experiences, culture, etc, etc. Similarly, goal-directed action is subject to the goal, which is turn subject to ones experiences, opportunities, belief system, age, etc, etc. Goals change subject to ones personal development, for example ones goals at age 5; 25 and 50 will likely be different.

[webolife]

The universe alive? Goal directed? Considering our central place in understanding the universe, the infinite field which we (and the finite universe) occupy, and the infinitesmal worlds of which we (and the finite universe) are composed, wouldn't it be just as reasonable to recognize, through the life-ly and well-designed attributes of our universe, the presence of an intelligent designer? Come on, if we're going to talk about the universe as an organism, ought we not to consider the possibility of its being the product of one?

[Plasmatic]

.....!!!...... Never mind!

[junglelord]

What is the definiton of life is a pressing question in a debate like this. Maybe we could take it down a level.
Structure and Function. This has been pointed out. The Universe looks uncanny similar to a brain when you compare it to a neuron map of the brain vs the interconnections of the Local Goups and outward from there. That means a lot to some and nothing to others. It means a lot to me. You may not be able to compare Life to Life but we can compare Structure and Function. At a base level the structures have many embedded forms that are definately related. That is the Nature of the Universe. If you care to learn the language it speaks volumes. It's much too narrow to ask this question without allowing the relationships to speak for themself. Our language is not the language of the universe. Our definition of life is not a fair question in my opinion. A fair question is how much similar are the Stuctures and their Functions. That has again been pointed out and again to me that speaks volumes. Since the similaties are there and they are so profound, it must be telling us something. What is it saying is the question...not if its alive.

[Grey Cloud]

Junglelord wrote

What is it saying is the question...not if its alive.

I wouldn't know an embedded system if I tripped over one but I couldn't agree more with the above quote.

[junglelord]

Embedded Structure and Dimensions, its all here. Not only will you trip over it, it Kinda makes you fall flat on your face.

The Zome model does the talking, its Nature's Language, Structure/Function/Embedded Relationship. We just have to see what it is saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37DwuvIneIE

[Grey Cloud]

Embedded Structure and Dimensions, its all here. Not only will you trip over it, it Kinda makes you fall flat on your face.
:lol:
The Zome model does the talking, its Nature's Language, Structure/Function/Embedded Relationship. We just have to see what it is saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37DwuvIneIE

Thanks for that but I don't see what the guy is bringing to the table. It was just the fibonacci series and Platonic solids. The only difference I could see was that Plato managed without any extra dimensions.

[junglelord]

You asked what Embedded meant. The video shows geometric shapes embedded in geometric structures that only appear when you shift dimensions. Also that Dimensions can hide things you cannot see even though they are there and unless you drop or jump dimensions, it remains there but embedded. You will observe that the form that is embedded is in fact the form that makes the higher form even though it may be hidden. What that brings to the table is that Embedded Self Replication is Inherit in the Universe.

Since these are geometric forms and since we want to hear what the Universe has to say, we need to stick to a basic Language I call Structure and Function. Why is that? Because we want to define life in another way then if it eats and sleeps. Lets use Structure and Function and Geometry to do that as Nature uses this as a way of Self Replication and trying to define the parameters of life is clear when we use this method. Then it would only be logical to understand what Embedded means and how that relates to the structure and function of both life and the universe and how dimensions play such a huge role. Since I believe the Universe is Fractal and Holographic and is therefore a Non Linear Self Replicating System with Six Dimensions, then Embedded is a Intrinsic and Primary Function of the Universe and still a means to an end to find out What It is Saying, instead of asking "If it is alive?"

Tensegrity is a form of Structural Geometry that relies on the dictim that Structure/Function is inseperable. If one would care to observe the Geometry of Structural Engineering of Life Forms, we find it is Tensegrity that Nature uses from the Virus to the Human Cell. Thats a nice way to think as Structure and Function may also be the Language of the Universe
http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/research/in ... Ingber.pdf

Tensegrity is a geometric form of Structural Engineering that is based on Tension, not Compression (your basic brick structure, from homes to sky scrapers.) In Tensegrity Geometric Structures, Tension is continuous and Compression is discontinuous. This is important. Why is that important? Because we are talking about life. Since we would like to define life and since I would like to work at a level of Structure and Function to make logic of the Universe as I believe that is Her Language.

I think it quite clear the word Tension is always applied to EM. I find that interesting. I also find it interesting the Map of the Universe looks like a Map of Neurons. Based on that simple anology I would suspect that the similarities are uncanny. What does that mean and how far we can take that?

More accurate maps of the Universe may infact show it to be a Plasma Tensegrity Structure. That would be very interesting. If we allow the Plasma to be the Continuous Tension Structure Component *which it is* and the Stars to be Dis-Continuous Compression Members *which they are* then I may be on to something. Which I think I am.

I am trying to learn and to teach the Language of the Universe. I seem to have been able to rephrase the question and seem to have found a valid solution. Its up to you decide if you agree with that being alive. What I see is Tensegrity being a Primary component of the Universe and that Structure and Function is its Language. That may be something alive talking. It definately is a Language that is Her Language. What that means is anyones guess.

[junglelord]

Also Tensegrity in Biological Lifeforms is based on the icosahedron which is a Platonic Solid. Thats where Zome again comes into the question and how these are Structure and Function parameters.

[Grey Cloud]

Are you familiar with this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_ ... cate_Order

[junglelord]

I am very aware of Bohm, I was not aware of his Theory!
That is what I have discovered on my own, very cool.