Could the Universe be alive?

[Consistency]

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

 

I said that being in a coma is unnatural. Hence I wasn't agreeing with the wikipedia page and ultimately I am agreeing with you.

 

Does this mean my ficus is not alive?

 

Plants do respond to stimuli. Hence being conscious of their environment.

 

http://leavingbio.net/plant%20responses.htm

 

http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/plant_experiments.asp

[zapatos]

Plants do respond to stimuli. Hence being conscious of their environment.

So if plants responding to sunlight makes them conscious, I guess the ice on my driveway is conscious too.

[Consistency]

So if plants responding to sunlight makes them conscious, I guess the ice on my driveway is conscious too.

 

I guess it is...

 

On a serious note.. plants grow as the result of the stimulis.. ice doesn't.

[zapatos]

On a serious note.. plants grow as the result of the stimulis.. ice doesn't.

Sure it does. Set a glass of water outside during the winter and watch. Edited February 17, 2013 by zapatos

[michel123456]

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.

The law of conservation of energy should tell us that the universe cannot procreate, In the sense that the universe has no external source to borrow energy from, grow and reproduce itself. Unless of course there is some external source "out of the universe", that is not encompassed into the universe itself.

That is for the universe as a whole.

But it is an evidence that elements of the universe (human beings for example) can reproduce.

So, at the moment we consider ourselves as part of the universe, yes the universe is alive, like an inhabited house is alive and an abandonned house is dead.

 

now, if you are asking wether other parts of the universe are alive, stars & galaxies for example, it depends on the definition of "life". It is sure that without the Sun we all would be dead, so if one wants to include the Sun into the biosphere, why not.

[Consistency]

Sure it does. Set a glass of water outside during the winter and watch.

 

Expansion is the same as biological growth? (rhetorical question)

[zapatos]

Expansion is the same as biological growth? (rhetorical question)

Then why bring it up? No one here said it was.

 

Notice how I did not fall for you substituting 'water expansion' for 'growth of ice'?

Or 'biological growth' for 'growth'?

 

Seriously though, you can only say plants have consciousness if you redefine the definition of consciousness.

Plenty of things 'respond to stimuli' that are not conscious, so that is a bogus definition.

Crystals can grow if you add the right 'stimulus' to a beaker of chemicals.

[Consistency]

Then why bring it up? No one here said it was.

 

Notice how I did not fall for you substituting 'water expansion' for 'growth of ice'?

Or 'biological growth' for 'growth'?

 

Seriously though, you can only say plants have consciousness if you redefine the definition of consciousness.

Plenty of things 'respond to stimuli' that are not conscious, so that is a bogus definition.

Crystals can grow if you add the right 'stimulus' to a beaker of chemicals.

 

What else could it possibly mean?

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waterdens.html

 

Crystals can expand and aren't biological.

[36grit]

parasites.

[SamBridge]

How do the results confirm water is conscious? Even if there were predictable patterns, there's things called fractals. The slightest disturbances will alter how a crystal could potentially form because the pattern of ice crystals keep building off of each other repeatedly, so any alteration on a small scale will ultimately have a large effect on the crystals final structure. I can see this being used on either side. For one side, you could argue that you cannot reproduce the same type of crystal from putting in the same emotion, but you could argue that the changes are too small to measure and are convoluted by other outside factors. However, science is not based on guessing at what could be true, if there is no evidence that emotions effect crystals, such as by recreating crystal types, there is no way to confirm that it is true, and thus there is no particular reason to believe it is true. If emotions and consciousness truly effect water, there should be some predictable result, yet so far there are none. You can predict that if someone get's angry, their IQ drops and a certain chemical is found in their blood stream which is a repeatedly confirmed result regardless of the ultimate actions of a person being uncertain. Can we say anything similar about this with water when it is supposedly effected by an angry person?

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[Popcorn Sutton]

Theres no reason to believe that the universe is not alive. It depends on what kind of metaphor youre willing to accept. I like the house analogy about inhabitance. I don't think there is any distinction that can be made between alive and dead, its actually a question about size in my opinion. Ask yourself [noun], is it alive? If you choose to answer yes, how big is the unit that can be categorized as alive.

 

A decaying corpse, is it alive? The answer is always yes at a certain size. While the immobile rotting corpse is not displaying the characteristics of being alive, it is also a part, or at least becoming a part, of something that is showing the characteristics of life, in this case, its surroundings. The question of life is a question of computation. Does it compute? In other words, does it fit into the chain of cause and effect.

 

Ultimately, it boils down to one principle. "A rose by any other name". The point is to show that categories are fictitious. The real trouble is working out all the categories that you've determined based solely on language.

[Tamorph]

Could the Universe be alive?

 

Don't want to be accused of spam, but I have a website that presents the same hypothesis. tamorph.com

[Moontanman]

Don't want to be accused of spam, but I have a website that presents the same hypothesis. tamorph.com

 

 

Do you realize just how weak your idea is? Scientists do not rely on faith. but do rely on empirical evidence of which your theory has none. I suggest you start a new thread on this if you want to discuss the details... I can see many problems with it...

[Tamorph]

Scientists do not rely on faith. but do rely on empirical evidence

 

They do not start with evidence. They start with faith in an idea for which there is no evidence. Then they conduct experiments to see whether or not they can find evidence (to prove or disprove) their idea.

 

I completely agree that there is no evidence (either way) for my hypothesis. I know of no experiments that either prove or disprove the hypothesis. If and when science comes up with a valid experiment I will be happy to agree with the results.

 

Until science has enough knowledge to come up with such an experiment I am left with conjecture. My conjecture leads me to believe that the hypothesis is at least possible. Your conjecture leads you to believe it is impossible. Neither of us can point to proof either way.

[Moontanman]

They do not start with evidence. They start with faith in an idea for which there is no evidence. Then they conduct experiments to see whether or not they can find evidence (to prove or disprove) their idea.

 

I completely agree that there is no evidence (either way) for my hypothesis. I know of no experiments that either prove or disprove the hypothesis. If and when science comes up with a valid experiment I will be happy to agree with the results.

 

Until science has enough knowledge to come up with such an experiment I am left with conjecture. My conjecture leads me to believe that the hypothesis is at least possible. Your conjecture leads you to believe it is impossible. Neither of us can point to proof either way.

 

 

Again, i suggest that if you want to discuss your pet idea that you start another thread. I will not derail this one discussing your ideas...

[Tamorph]

if you want to discuss your pet idea that you start another thread

 

 

I've obviously missed something or been misunderstood. I thought this thread was entitled "Could the Universe be alive?"

 

"Could the Universe be alive?" is the only idea I've written about on this thread. My opinion is that the universe is alive, but there is no evidential proof either way. How is that an idea that should be in another thread? It is entirely consistent with this thread.

[Moontanman]

I've obviously missed something or been misunderstood. I thought this thread was entitled "Could the Universe be alive?"

 

"Could the Universe be alive?" is the only idea I've written about on this thread. My opinion is that the universe is alive, but there is no evidential proof either way. How is that an idea that should be in another thread? It is entirely consistent with this thread.

 

 

you provided a link to your site as as evidence, spammy at best, feel free to show your own ideas as support for the OP but just pointing out your site with no discussion is not what is going on here.

 

As i have pointed out already in this thread the universe does not conform to the definition of life, I will not debate your link unless you put it in a new thread and not as a link, you need to list what you think makes the universe alive so others can debate you as well with out having to visit your site...

[Tamorph]

"The atom, instead of being just the little hard solid particle of the original view, was a very complex thing, comparable in complexity with the solar system" (Joseph John Thomson the English physicist who discovered the electron - lecture given 8 March 1928)

 

“One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.” (UK scientist James E Lovelock who has conducted research at both Yale and Harvard. He formulated his Gaia theory in the early 1960’s whilst he was working for NASA. The above quote is from an interview he gave in 2012)

 

Inside your body there is an atom that makes up your heart muscle. If that atom had an eye and and ear and some measure of intellect, would it be able to work out why it was there? I think not (but have no proof). It would simply see a group of similar atoms, but would know little else.

 

Let's move up a little to the heart muscle itself. If that muscle had an eye and ear and some intellect, would it be able to work out why it was there? I think not (but have no proof). It would simply be aware that other muscles were moving in unison, but would have no idea why.

et's move up even further and look at the heart as a whole. The heart is pumping the fluid that enters it, but does it know why? I think not (but have no proof). The heart could have little or no concept of the person that is you. No concept of the complexity of the human body and mind in its entirety, No concept of its vital function to life. It would be aware of the influence of chemical and electrical impulses compelling it to beat faster or slower, but would have no concept of why.

If that is true on a small level, is it not possible that our solar system is simply a part of a living universe? I think so, but have no proof. It is, though, a simple enough concept that is not unscientific, and is a question that several well known scientists have asked before.

It is a simply hypothetical question, which is where most science starts out from.

[Moontanman]

You have no more evidence of this than creationists have of the earth being 6,000 years old. The OP at least asked specific questions that could be answered in a specific way. If you use the standard definitions of life then obviously the universe is not alive by those standards. But you can redefine life and speculate endlessly about it but you still have to have a definition of life before you speculate on something being alive. I could change the definition of life and declare a volcano alive but it would still be a volcano not a living thing and only I would think it was alive...

[too-open-minded]

Check out Lee Smolins hypothesis of cosmological natural selection.

[Tamorph]

If you use the standard definitions of life then obviously the universe is not alive

 

There is nothing 'obvious' about it. The above statement is unscientific.

1.Homeostatsis

The universe is a highly regulated environment.

there are many scientific examples. For example, the almost constant temperature of space, and the uniformity created by gravity.

2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells.

The word 'cell' was coined in the 1600's and 'cell theory' was developed in the 1800's, but our knowledge of cells is still far from complete. There is a striking correlation between the vastly different types of cells and the vastly different types of planets.

3.Metabolism

There are many physical and chemical transformations within cells. There are also many physical and chemical transformations in our planet. Tectonic plates are still moving, volcano's are still erupting, and we are also changing the Earth's atmosphere. We also know that there is physical and chemical transformations occurring throughout the universe.

4.Growth

The universe still appears to be expanding. The Earth is also growing in size and volume, from dust from meteors attracted by our gravity.

5.Adaptation

We adapt to our external environment. With our current state of knowledge we do not know what is external to our universe. It follows that we cannot therefore know if our universe is adapting itself to anything external. If it was, this would in any event be likely to happen over such a long time scale that we would be unaware of it.

6.Response to stimuli.

The answer to this is similar to point 5.

7.Reproduction

If there is a 'multiverse' and if universes come and go over long periods of time, the theory that new universes are born out of old ones is quite a reasonable one.

Summary:

None of the above is proof that the universe is alive, but points 1 to 4 are all scientifically possible (some would say probable). Points 5 to 7 are not provable either way, but saying something is not provable is a world away from saying that it is not possible. The truth is that we just don't know.

I don't know whether the universe is alive, but I choose to believe in the possibility.

You don't know whether the universe is alive, but you choose to believe it is impossible.

I believe my belief is more scientifically valid (but no doubt you will soon correct me!)

[Moontanman]

 

 

There is nothing 'obvious' about it. The above statement is unscientific.

1.Homeostatsis

The universe is a highly regulated environment.

there are many scientific examples. For example, the almost constant temperature of space, and the uniformity created by gravity.

No, the universe is not a highly regulated environment.

 

2.Organization or being composed of one or more cells.

The word 'cell' was coined in the 1600's and 'cell theory' was developed in the 1800's, but our knowledge of cells is still far from complete. There is a striking correlation between the vastly different types of cells and the vastly different types of planets.

No, planets are not alive in any sense of the word any more than sand grains on a beach are alive.

 

3.Metabolism

There are many physical and chemical transformations within cells. There are also many physical and chemical transformations in our planet. Tectonic plates are still moving, volcano's are still erupting, and we are also changing the Earth's atmosphere. We also know that there is physical and chemical transformations occurring throughout the universe.

And yet life is not just random chemical and physical chnages...

 

4.Growth

The universe still appears to be expanding. The Earth is also growing in size and volume, from dust from meteors attracted by our gravity.

As far as we know the universe is expanding but it is not adding mass but your analogy fails even more basically than that, adding mass doesn't make something alive...

 

5.Adaptation

We adapt to our external environment. With our current state of knowledge we do not know what is external to our universe. It follows that we cannot therefore know if our universe is adapting itself to anything external. If it was, this would in any event be likely to happen over such a long time scale that we would be unaware of it.

Something external to the universe is nonsensical...

 

6.Response to stimuli.

The answer to this is similar to point 5.

And just as meaningless...

 

7.Reproduction

If there is a 'multiverse' and if universes come and go over long periods of time, the theory that new universes are born out of old ones is quite a reasonable one.

And yet has no evidence to back it up, I think it's more reasonable that a brobdingnagian beast that feeds on dark matter and excretes universes is how universes are born...

 

Summary:

None of the above is proof that the universe is alive, but points 1 to 4 are all scientifically possible (some would say probable). Points 5 to 7 are not provable either way, but saying something is not provable is a world away from saying that it is not possible. The truth is that we just don't know.

I don't know whether the universe is alive, but I choose to believe in the possibility.

You don't know whether the universe is alive, but you choose to believe it is impossible.

I believe my belief is more scientifically valid (but no doubt you will soon correct me!)

 

 

you can define life anyway you want to get the results you want but that doesn't make your definition evidently true... Fire fulfills most of your criteria as well but fire is not alive be the standard definition...

[Tamorph]

you can define life anyway you want

 

Thanks for that, I thought I was going through a generally accepted list.

 

that doesn't make your definition evidently true

 

I have never claimed the hypothesis id 'evidently' true, only that it is 'possible'.

 

By saying that it is not possible (and I assume you have conducted scientific experiments on the whole universe) you deserve the credit of all your inferior peers. I look forward to seeing your proof in the next edition of 'Nature'.

 

I know my hypothesis is a published theory, but unproven. You know better and can factually prove my hypothesis is rubbish so I can't wait to read your scientific paper and peer review.

[Moontanman]

you gave a link to a paper that suggested the ecosphere of the earth could be thought of as a living organism, not the entire earth or the entire universe...

Oh and I cannot prove there are no invisible dragons either, doesn't make it any more probably they exist...

[Tamorph]

there are no invisible dragons

 

No! No! No! Please don't tell me there are no invisible dragons. I'm Welsh, and a big red dragon is our national symbol.

 

Rubbish my hypothesis that the universe may be living by all means. That's only a hypothesis. But dragons are fact man. Red dragons particularly.