[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/sci/ - Science & Math

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)21:46 UTC+1 No.6735580 Report

Is the Universe alive?
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)21:48 UTC+1 No.6735583 Report

>>6735580
Define alive

No.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)21:51 UTC+1 No.6735589 Report

>>6735583
>define alive

fuck off
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)21:53 UTC+1 No.6735592 Report

>>6735589
Asking for a definition of a term you would like applied to something warrants being told to fuck off?

The answer is still no.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)21:57 UTC+1 No.6735599 Report

>>6735580
It's a distinct possibility.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)22:27 UTC+1 No.6735666 Report

>>6735580
yes I am
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)22:36 UTC+1 No.6735690 Report

who knows? no1

its like asking, what if i was born 5 secs ago with all my memories implanted in me
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:05 UTC+1 No.6735766 Report

>>6735580
probably not, but the idea that a cloud of dust somewhere has formed a cosmic computer complex enough to have gained consciousness due to a form of non-organic evolution is much more valid.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:09 UTC+1 No.6735772 Report

Parts of it are.

But as a whole, no.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:09 UTC+1 No.6735773 Report

>>6735580
If you define alive as immensely beautiful, mysterious and vast. Then yes it is more alive than all of us.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:13 UTC+1 No.6735776 Report

>>6735773
>If you define alive as immensely beautiful, mysterious and vast.

Why would you do that? That's not even remotely like any reasonable defintion of "alive." You may as well say, "if you define it as containing bestiality porn, then yes, it is more alive than all of us." Stupid.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:15 UTC+1 No.6735781 Report

>>6735776

lol
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:21 UTC+1 No.6735791 Report

>>6735776
No youre the simpleton here, the universe by definition contains everything. So defining it by whether it includes something is absurd. Checkm8 atheists.
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:24 UTC+1 No.6735793 Report

>>6735580
life is just a series of chemical reactions. The universe is just a series of chemical reactions. Coincidence? I think not.
Gaia theory: 1
Athetits: 0
>>
Anonymous 09/04/14(Thu)23:45 UTC+1 No.6735825 Report

>>6735583
OKAY
Alive can be defined by anything which exhibits all of the following characteristics:

1. Ability to reproduce
>If the universe follows a bang->crunch->bang cycle on trillions of years then one could say the universe reproduces, though whether or not the second big bangs by product could be considered an entirely new universe is up for debate. However current data indicates that galaxies are accelerating away from us, and therefore a big crunch does not fit current data.

2. Contains and Stores Extrinsic Information.
>Unknown, honestly. However, since by definition the Universe contains everything, all of it's information is intrinsic. If there is some sort of multiverse, there could be extrinsic information we do not understand. On the other hand, thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe is increasing, and entropy can be understood as a lack of information about a system, it can be hard to say that the universe stores information.

3. Responds to stimuli
>Again, the universe is everything arguement. There is nothing external for a universe to respond to but we have no way of knowing if there can even be external factors.

So, no, the universe is not alive.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)16:08 UTC+1 No.6737010 Report

>>6735583
Define universe, while we're at it.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)16:23 UTC+1 No.6737026 Report

>>6735776
MEIN SIDES
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)16:39 UTC+1 No.6737039 Report

>>6735825
>The universe does not respond to stimuli.
>what is action and reaction.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)18:40 UTC+1 No.6737200 Report

>>6737010
The space in which any point can be described with coordinates (x,y,z,t) in which c, G, and h (h-bar) have values equal to their metric conversions.

Yeah? Maybe throw k-boltz in there?
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)19:15 UTC+1 No.6737237 Report

Physicist and spiritual genius here.

I say yes. Matter fact, I am convinced everything is alive in the sense that you can assign a consciousness to it. Also I'm fairly certain conservation of energy follows from the fact that everything is one.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)19:23 UTC+1 No.6737246 Report

Obviously not. Biology has a specific conditions for something to be "alive", and the universe does not even come close to these specified necessities.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)19:26 UTC+1 No.6737254 Report

>>6737237
>I am convinced
>I'm fairly certain
:^)
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)20:31 UTC+1 No.6737356 Report

>>6735580
If you define "alive" as being black and retardedly boring with light and water... then yes, it is alive
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)20:53 UTC+1 No.6737403 Report

>>6737246
yeah but you are considering it on your time frame. What if a billion years is like one microsecond for the universe? It might still be alive. If you observed some molecules in your body for a nanosecond you probably would not think they were alive either.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:04 UTC+1 No.6737421 Report

>>6735580
if by alive you mean it has degenerates... then yes
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:05 UTC+1 No.6737423 Report

>>6737421
You mean like people who over use ellipsis?
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:16 UTC+1 No.6737441 Report

>>6737403

We can see what the universe looked like 13.7 billion years ago, and that is more than enough information to deduce that the universe itself is not alive.
Now lets analyze facts about the universe:
- Does it reproduce?
- Attempt to maintain homeostatis?
- Is it organized?
- Does it metabolize?
- Does it undergo massive change?
- Does it adapt to its surroundings?
- Does it respond to stimuli?

If the answer to all of these questions isn't yes, then the universe is not alive. We know that entropy constantly increases in the universe, meaning it does not maintain homeostasis or order. There is no ordered metabolism for the universe, unless you consider hydrogen fusion in stars. Does the universe adapt or respond to stimuli? Not to our knowledge.

I thought this was the science board, not the philosophy mental masturbation board as many of its posts have me believe it is.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:21 UTC+1 No.6737443 Report

>>6737441
>We can see what the infinitesimally small part of the universe that we can observe looked like 13.7 billion years ago
There, fixed that for you.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:31 UTC+1 No.6737453 Report

>>6737441
>- Attempt to maintain homeostatis?
- Is it organized?
- Does it metabolize?
- Does it undergo massive change?
- Does it adapt to its surroundings?
- Does it respond to stimuli?

Those are all the requirements for organic life on earth. But those "laws" May not apply to other forms of life.

There may very well be life out there that uses different forms of biology and physics that we haven't discovered yet. We only know about life on earth, not life elsewhere. To think humans have everything figured out is just ignorant
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:34 UTC+1 No.6737457 Report

The universe died a long time ago long live the multivers
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:39 UTC+1 No.6737461 Report

Life is a process that locally decreases entropy.
Since there is nothing external to the universe, no the universe is not alive. At best, it's a rotting corpse.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:43 UTC+1 No.6737466 Report

>>6737423
you mean STDs
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)21:51 UTC+1 No.6737474 Report

>>6737443
>>6737453

That's fine, but this is a science board, not a mental masturbation/ philosophy board.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)22:23 UTC+1 No.6737529 Report

>>6735580
In what sense? It's active, if you want to call it alive. But no, it's not conscious nor is it self aware...
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)22:52 UTC+1 No.6737578 Report

>>6737529
>But no, it's not conscious nor is it self aware
Prove consciousness/self awareness isn't an inherent property of matter nor an emergent phenomenon arising from sufficient activity/complexity.
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)22:53 UTC+1 No.6737580 Report

>>6737578
>proving something isn't
Lel
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)22:55 UTC+1 No.6737583 Report

/sci/ - pseudoscience and unfalsifiable claims
>>
Anonymous 09/05/14(Fri)23:51 UTC+1 No.6737653 Report

>>6737583
>Being unfalsifiable means it doesn't true
>>
Anonymous 09/06/14(Sat)00:11 UTC+1 No.6737670 Report

>>6737237
>spiritual genius
I kekt
>>
Anonymous 09/06/14(Sat)00:16 UTC+1 No.6737681 Report

>>6737653
Being unfalsifiable means it's a useless claim and probably gibberish.

>It is not only not right, it is not even wrong!
>>
Anonymous 09/06/14(Sat)00:23 UTC+1 No.6737690 Report

>>6735580
Yes. With the sound of music. And also dumb questions
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.