Could the Universe be alive?

[Chasteen02]

I want to start by saying that there is little to no scientific backing for what I'm about to say. I am no physist and I have no ways to prove these theories, This is just some things that I have thought of and seems like it could be viable, atleast to me. My hope is that someone on these boards will either rip my theory to shreds and show me why it is not possible or that someone will give me some kind of scientific backing.

 

Basically I think it is possible that the universe itself is a living organism. I have heard many theories on what a black hole is and what happens inside of one. One thing we do know is that a black hole sucks in all the matter than comes into contact with it. Now if the black hole sucks in all this matter and keeps crushing it, then it seems at the center would be the makings of a big bang. A commonly accepted theory on how the universe came to be is the big bang, which was a singularity of infinite mass and density. This sounds alot like what I would picture the center of a black hole to look like. Once the black hole sucks in so much that it can not consume any more it would have the same singularity at the center of it. To put it simply I think that a black hole could be the umbilical chord going from one universe to it's offspring.

 

Another part of this theory is dark energy. I've heard alot of people say that they think dark energy is killing the universe by causing it to expand. Could it be that rather than killing the universe the dark energy is actually feeding the universe and keeping it alive? Could the dark energy be the 'food' that the universe needs to grow just like any other living organism?

 

Now if both of these theories were true than the universe would posses two qualities of a living organism: reproduction, and the capacity to grow. I know this is pretty far-fetched but it is just a thought.

 

[Moontanman]

I guess it would depend on your definition of "alive" I see no reason to assert the universe is alive but I am open to evidence...

[Chasteen02]

I guess it would depend on your definition of "alive" I see no reason to assert the universe is alive but I am open to evidence...

Well life is one of those words that is rather hard to define, but the best that I can do is give the characteristics that living organisms share.

1.Homeostatsis

2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells

3.Metabolism

4.Growth

5.Adaptation

6.Response to stimuli

7.Reproduction

[Airbrush]

There is an episode of "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freedman" that talks about the universe as a living being, figuratively speaking.

 

Also the "Gaia Hypothesis" speaks about the Earth being a giant living organism that self-regulates to keep conditions optimal for life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

 

"One thing we do know is that a black hole sucks in all the matter than comes into contact with it."

 

Not so. Black holes are messy eaters. Most of the matter that comes in contact with them gets spit out in polar jets.

 

"A commonly accepted theory on how the universe came to be is the big bang, which was a singularity of infinite mass and density."

 

Not infinite mass, but perhaps infinite density.

[Chasteen02]

There is an episode of "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freedman" that talks about the universe as a living being, figuratively speaking.

 

Also the "Gaia Hypothesis" speaks about the Earth being a giant living organism that self-regulates to keep conditions optimal for life.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

 

"One thing we do know is that a black hole sucks in all the matter than comes into contact with it."

 

Not so. Black holes are messy eaters. Most of the matter that comes in contact with them gets spit out in polar jets.

 

"A commonly accepted theory on how the universe came to be is the big bang, which was a singularity of infinite mass and density."

 

Not infinite mass, but perhaps infinite density.

Yes, you are right that the black hole spits out most of what it comes into contact with. My wording may have been a little off but I was just trying to say that the black hole is constantly consuming matter.

As for the "Infinite mass and density" I could be wrong here but if something is infinitly dense, would that not mean that within it's confines it has infinite mass or atleast the most mass that it could possibly have?

[Consistency]

Alive: Consciousness

 

You'll learn more about the universe by experiencing it for yourself first hand.

[moth]

Alive: Consciousness

 

You'll learn more about the universe by experiencing it for yourself first hand.

When I'm unconscious, I'm not alive?

[Consistency]

When I'm unconscious, I'm not alive?

 

What does being unconscious mean to you?

[moth]

I understand unconscious to mean not conscious. But you seemed to equate conscious with alive so I was looking for some clarification.

[Moontanman]

Well life is one of those words that is rather hard to define, but the best that I can do is give the characteristics that living organisms share.

1.Homeostatsis

2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells

3.Metabolism

4.Growth

5.Adaptation

6.Response to stimuli

7.Reproduction

 

 

if alive means all of those things then the universe is obviously not alive...

[Chasteen02]

if alive means all of those things then the universe is obviously not alive...

Of these prerequisites for life, Which ones can you say definatly doesn't apply to the universe? Maybe it is in a more abstract/complex way than our undertanding allows us to think, but I cannot say that these in no way could apply to the universe.

[Consistency]

I understand unconscious to mean not conscious. But you seemed to equate conscious with alive so I was looking for some clarification.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciousness (Coma) <-- Unnatural state. People in a coma cannot live without life support.

 

A person can be in a deep thought and be unconscious to the environment.

 

Alive: Conscious, Unconscious.

[Moontanman]

Of these prerequisites for life, Which ones can you say definatly doesn't apply to the universe? Maybe it is in a more abstract/complex way than our undertanding allows us to think, but I cannot say that these in no way could apply to the universe.

 

 

1.Homeostatsis

2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells

3.Metabolism

4.Growth

5.Adaptation

6.Response to stimuli

7.Reproduction

 

 

 

 

(Coma) <-- Unnatural state. People in a coma cannot live without life support.

 

 

You know that's not true...

[Chasteen02]

 

1.Homeostatsis

2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells

3.Metabolism

4.Growth

5.Adaptation

6.Response to stimuli

7.Reproduction

 

 

 

You know that's not true...

Well as I've said nothing that I am saying is fact by any means, but it is my opinion that the universe is capable reproducing itself, which would also lead to adapatation. Thats 2 that you just crossed off. If you don't believe it then thats cool, but I was asking if you could definatly say that any of these just purely cannot apply.

[Moontanman]

Well as I've said nothing that I am saying is fact by any means, but it is my opinion that the universe is capable reproducing itself, which would also lead to adapatation. Thats 2 that you just crossed off. If you don't believe it then thats cool, but I was asking if you could definatly say that any of these just purely cannot apply.

The reproduction idea is interesting but not at this time falsifiable. IOW there is no way to know one way or another if the universe can reproduce in any manner. The rest are reasonably self evident...

[Chasteen02]

The reproduction idea is interesting but not at this time falsifiable. IOW there is no way to know one way or another if the universe can reproduce in any manner. The rest are reasonably self evident...

I understand what you are saying. Yes we cannot prove that the universe can reproduce, but it has not been proven to be false either. That is the basis for my argument. As I have said this is a pretty far-fetched idea but I believe it is good to think outside the box every now and then. As for the other characteristics of life that I have listed, looking at them in the way we know them I understand how you can say that it is evident that they do not apply to the universe. If you start to look at them in a more abstract way then I believe you can start to apply them.

[Moontanman]

I understand what you are saying. Yes we cannot prove that the universe can reproduce, but it has not been proven to be false either. That is the basis for my argument. As I have said this is a pretty far-fetched idea but I believe it is good to think outside the box every now and then. As for the other characteristics of life that I have listed, looking at them in the way we know them I understand how you can say that it is evident that they do not apply to the universe. If you start to look at them in a more abstract way then I believe you can start to apply them.

 

 

Chasteen02, not being able to show something is false does not support it's existence. I can't prove there are no invisible pink unicorns either but I see no reason to assert they exist.

 

Feel free to support your definitions of the qualities i suggested do not apply to the universe. I am willing to discuss the possibilities..

[Arch2008]

Welcome Chasteen02!

People of all walks of life make theories about the weather or which horse may win the Triple Crown. However for a theory to be scientific it must make a prediction that is falsifiable, i.e., that must be true or the theory is incorrect. You base your theory that the universe is alive on two assumptions. #1 Black holes accrete matter until the singularity becomes a Big Bang for another universe, thus reproducing itself. #2 that dark energy exihibits the property of food for a universe that appears to "grow" like a living organism.

You may be happy to know that your first assumption has already been proposed by scientists back in the twentieth century. However, we still don't have a mechanism to verify/falsify this, as no way exists to acquire information on anything that passes the event horizon of a black hole.

Dark energy does cause the universe to "grow". Does this qualify the universe to be "alive". Even NASA is struggling with what qualifies for life. Obvious signs for life, like breathing, consuming food and growing also would apply to a fire. The ability to reproduce would seem obvious, but would exclude all mules. So, it seems that science cannot provide an answer to the question of whether the universe qualifies for a living organism.

[Airbrush]

"As for the "Infinite mass and density" I could be wrong here but if something is infinitly dense, would that not mean that within it's confines it has infinite mass or atleast the most mass that it could possibly have?"

 

ANY amount of matter, confined to zero volume, which is a singularity, has infinite density. Black holes masses is variable from stellar to supermassive, or maybe even microscopic primordial.

[Consistency]

You know that's not true...

 

A person in a coma doesn't need a IV feeding needle and oxygen supply for the brain after the initial 24 hours? In other words.. can they swallow their own food? Are they able to sufficiently supply oxygen to their brain without medical intervention?

[Moontanman]

A person in a coma doesn't need a IV feeding needle and oxygen supply for the brain after the initial 24 hours? In other words.. can they swallow their own food? Are they able to sufficiently supply oxygen to their brain without medical intervention?

IV, possibly but they breath ok on their own or at least most do and it depends on how profound the coma is and how long it lasts... You make there sweeping statements that make no sense and do nothing but obfuscate the issue..

[Consistency]

IV, possibly but they breath ok on their own or at least most do and it depends on how profound the coma is and how long it lasts... You make there sweeping statements that make no sense and do nothing but obfuscate the issue..

 

I will agree with you if a coma is not the result of human civilization. Fair enough?

[Moontanman]

I will agree with you if a coma is not the result of human civilization. Fair enough?

 

I'm not sure what we are agreeing on but even coma patients have been communicated with, what does that say about this idea of coma patients not being conscious?

 

http://io9.com/5960071/man-in-coma-uses-his-thoughts-to-tell-doctors-im-not-in-pain

[Chasteen02]

Chasteen02, not being able to show something is false does not support it's existence. I can't prove there are no invisible pink unicorns either but I see no reason to assert they exist.

 

Feel free to support your definitions of the qualities i suggested do not apply to the universe. I am willing to discuss the possibilities..

I agree with this statement 100%. It does however leave a window open. As I have stated many times, I am not trying to present this to be fact. It was merely an idea that I had that I thought I would throw out there and see what some other people thought of it. I may have went a little far to go ahead and assert the universe is alive, but I do really like my two theories on black holes and dark energy. After I thought of these two ideas I thought to myself "Hey, if the universe is consuming food to help itself grow and is reproducing, Is it possible the universe could be a living organism?" That was basically my thought process behind this post. I know that we will probably never have a way to prove any of this but understanding must start somewhere.

 

Welcome Chasteen02!

 

 

People of all walks of life make theories about the weather or which horse may win the Triple Crown. However for a theory to be scientific it must make a prediction that is falsifiable, i.e., that must be true or the theory is incorrect. You base your theory that the universe is alive on two assumptions. #1 Black holes accrete matter until the singularity becomes a Big Bang for another universe, thus reproducing itself. #2 that dark energy exihibits the property of food for a universe that appears to "grow" like a living organism.

 

 

You may be happy to know that your first assumption has already been proposed by scientists back in the twentieth century. However, we still don't have a mechanism to verify/falsify this, as no way exists to acquire information on anything that passes the event horizon of a black hole.

 

 

Dark energy does cause the universe to "grow". Does this qualify the universe to be "alive". Even NASA is struggling with what qualifies for life. Obvious signs for life, like breathing, consuming food and growing also would apply to a fire. The ability to reproduce would seem obvious, but would exclude all mules. So, it seems that science cannot provide an answer to the question of whether the universe qualifies for a living organism.

Yes, After starting this post I read where someone pointed out that there is an episode of "Through the Wormhole" that runs along the same lines as my post. I have since found the episode and watched it. One Physicist on the show had basically the same exact idea on black holes. Except the way they presented it seemed like they were saying each black hole was capable of spawning multiple new universes. I believe each black hole would be capable of spawning only one new universe. That is the only difference. Aside from that it did make me very happy to know someone alot smarter than myself had the same kind of thought that I had. It atleast lets me know that my thoughts may not be that crazy.

[zapatos]

Alive: Consciousness

Does this mean my ficus is not alive?