Is the Universe living?

[Nikkums]

Do you think there is any possibility that the universe itself is an organism?
Why or why not?

[Jern_Sandyer]

Possible yes. Probable no

[Jack]

If we found a way to determine that it was an organism , in the same way that some have suggested the Earth itself is (Gia), it would cause us to totally redefine what we consider life. It could happen, though we're nowhere near discovering that at the moment.

[iahag]

How do you go about defining life on a fundamental level? You cant move forward until you define life, in its most natural state.

[Lullaby Chainer]

It is living, by my definitions.

It's more complex than we are.. it's changing more than we do.. it transfers energy just like we do.. its stars die and grow just like our cells.. it's a moving and dynamic creature. Hell, it even has parasites.. I mean.. we ARE living with the universe.

The only thing it lacks is our meat. It hasn't the "meat" of what we think of life today.

Is that it, though? Life is defined by our chemical substances?

I believe the universe thinks just as well as we do. I believe we are prisoners to chemical causality (and mental causality if one wants to parallel the two) and there is no doubt the universe is following the same causality of energy.. growing and pulsing, acting and moving.

[Osborn F Enready]

Jern spoke my answer.

Possibly yes, probably not.

[Kuldeep]

I am living because I have got ego that I am existing as something . Including that feeling of existence, many other physical, chemical and abstract feeling of emotions, consciousness etc; I feel all such things exist in whole of universe and therefore think this universe is definitely living a life may not exactly similar as ours.

[iahag]

A living organism ... feeds upon negative entropy ... Thus the device by which an organism maintains itself a fairly high level of orderliness (i.e. a a fairly low level of entropy) really consists in continually sucking orderliness from its environment.

- E. Schrodinger

This is very much a physical question, so cut the airy fairy stuff.

Determine what fundamental properties life and the universe have in common, even if it is just stark intuition leading your thoughts.

[Praxius]

We live inside one universe.... that one universe out of all the trillions out there, is basically one atom.... we live in an atom, and an atom is made up of a universe, you split an atom, and you got Nuke power..... you're collapsing a mini universe for power.

The Universe exists because we exist. We exist because the Universe exists. Energy is constant.

Look at your skin, look at one scale of your skin, look between the cracks, and then focus on the atoms that make that up..... then think about what makes up atoms and what is inside of an atom.

Atoms are considdered a sphere shape..... planets are sphere shaped, the universe is claimed to be sphere shaped, the Sun is a sphere, the signs are all around us on what life truly is.... it's all on how you look at it.

When you are living you are on the other side of the atoms, looking at them from the outside. When you die, you are on the "Other side" and all answers are answered. The universe is complex, yet so simple at the same time, it boggles the mind.

[ZNFYRH]

According to our current definition of life and all the properties required of life as defined by the life sciences, we can't observe certain characteristics of our universe that would make it "life".

Unless our definition of life suddenly undergoes a change, I'll just shrug and entertain "what ifs" for the sake of a fun conversation.

[Praxius]

that's all I'm doing..... but then again, I believe what I am saying..... I may not be explaining it the best way I can, but up in my head it all makes sense.

[iahag]

Atoms are considdered a sphere shape..... planets are sphere shaped, the universe is claimed to be sphere shaped, the Sun is a sphere, the signs are all around us on what life truly is.... it's all on how you look at it.

Tell yuo the truth Praxius Im absolutely amazed by sheres and circles and expnonential functions with regard to the physical world. I came across a very interesting mathematical simplicity regarding spheres and the natural exponential. They both exhibit a unique, similar, but not identical property.

Define a circle
A 2 dimensional object whose rate of change of area is equal to its perimetre (hint, theres only one solution for such an object).
Define a sphere
A 3 dimensional object whose rate of change of volume is equal to its surface area (again, only one solution).

From a philosophical standpoint, it seems somewhat mystical that there is only one such solution for each case, and that, the universe reproduces such shapes everywhere. Indeed, one can analyse a system and conclude thats its most natural state is in a sphere - I just find the coincidences so appealing.

Define the natural exponential function
The NEF is an implicit function whose rate of change with respect to a distinct, stand alone variable is proportional to the function itself. - Its called the natural function for a reason. There is only one such solution.

What gets more interesting is that this function, when placed on an argand diagram, formulates a circle across a real and an imaginary dimension. Coincidence? Or simply a mathematical inevitability? Are circles the key to other dimensions?

I ponder on.

Wow, Ive gone completely off the tracks of topic!

[LogicaLunatic]

What exactly makes something alive?

Lets say for starters that the thing we call alive has to be able to reproduce.

I don't know if the universe is actually capable of making a copy of itself but I know a brick can.

Lets also say that the thing we call alive actually has to evolve.

Without knowing whether the universe can reproduce I can't say whether or not the population of universes (if there actually can be more than one) can change over time in reaction to whatever environment universes are subjected to, if any.

But a brick? Hell yeah.

Ok yes fine I'll explain myself...

Bricks reproduce. This is obvious if you've ever been to New Albany, Ohio. There are bricks f'n everywhere! Anyway...

I'm guessing you're thinking something along the lines of, "Yeah but humans produce bricks. Bricks can't reproduce themselves."

Do we fault the flower for needing the bee? The dandelion for needing the wind the sun or the rain? (almost?)-Everything alive is dependent upon it's environment to survive and reproduce. How are humans not considered part of a brick's environment? It's a required part of the environment but no more than water is required by the fish.

"Yeah but organisms have DNA. A brick has nothing even resembling DNA."

Really? DNA(simplified) is just a set of instructions that tell other things how the thing that is alive is to be built.

So what is... this?

Simplified, that is just a set of instructions that tell other things how the brick is to be built.

Bricks not only reproduce, they appear to actually be flourishing. Again, see New Albany, Ohio.

And after generations of bricks, there are some that appear to work better than others do with regards to the environment (us and what we want bricks for). The ones that tend to not hold up as well, are dropped to use better ones. Then the instructions to make the better ones are stored and reused and so on and so forth.

Even more amazing than the brick is the computer! Look how fast those reproduced and evolved!

[iahag]

Love your analogy logical lunatic.

[Pockets]

I had a big long paragraph that made me sick. Calling something 'alive' or 'organism' doesn't change anything. I think the Earth is alive. I do not think it has a conciousness. Same with the universe. I do not need a definition of what is alive and what is dead to make it work. If someone else feels conciousness is the one attribute an object must have to be considered alive then my model doesn't work. It won't change what is. Not even a little. At 4 AM it doesn't need to. Either way even if you don't think the Earth is alive you should act as if it were. So that means the Universe is an organism and circles are best made in the zero gravity of space (see 'ball-bearing manufacturing') if you want to travel to another dimension. If your circles worked and you did travel to another dimension you wouldn't know it if you saw it. I mean if you saw something from the third dimension while you lived in the second dimension, you would have no chance of recognizing it. You would have no imperical (emperical?) data to base your theory on. Even with perfect circles!

[Praxius]

Quote by: iahag Tell yuo the truth Praxius Im absolutely amazed by sheres and circles and expnonential functions with regard to the physical world. I came across a very interesting mathematical simplicity regarding spheres and the natural exponential. They both exhibit a unique, similar, but not identical property. Define a circle A 2 dimensional object whose rate of change of area is equal to its perimetre (hint, theres only one solution for such an object). Define a sphere A 3 dimensional object whose rate of change of volume is equal to its surface area (again, only one solution). From a philosophical standpoint, it seems somewhat mystical that there is only one such solution for each case, and that, the universe reproduces such shapes everywhere. Indeed, one can analyse a system and conclude thats its most natural state is in a sphere - I just find the coincidences so appealing. Define the natural exponential function The NEF is an implicit function whose rate of change with respect to a distinct, stand alone variable is proportional to the function itself. - Its called the natural function for a reason. There is only one such solution. What gets more interesting is that this function, when placed on an argand diagram, formulates a circle across a real and an imaginary dimension. Coincidence? Or simply a mathematical inevitability? Are circles the key to other dimensions? I ponder on. Wow, Ive gone completely off the tracks of topic!

Good points.... another aspect is the Big Bang theory. If the Universe was created by the Big Bang, then the universe would have been created at a central point and expanded in an equal sphere-like explosion. As eons go by, everything in the universe passes further and further from one another....... eventually as I mentioned before, the universe would counter it's own gravity and momentum to start pulling back on itself, in an equal amount (Sphere) and cause the Big Squish, possibly producing yet another Universe.

Is the Universe alive? I say yes..... It moves, it produces, it sustains life on various planets, and sustains other unknowns. Everything inside the universe works together to make the Universe, such as our own internal systems. The Universe is in a sense, one big Atom of existance, and we live inside it.

Now think about what's outside our Universe.

[rcne]

I pondered this recently on a different forum. Our current definition of life and its requirements need adjusted...think thermal vents in deep sea trenches.

But life exists here, and I think it would be hard to claim this planet is the only source of life in the cosmos, after all stardust may have provided the seeding for life here anyway.

Pockets of life may very well be common in this universe, but that does not in itself make the universe alive in totality.

If you look at a seaside rock with barnacles on it and ask - is that rock alive, you would answer - no. But if you ask does life exist on that rock, you would have to answer - yes.

So my short answer would be - yes, the universe is alive because it harbors life.

[ZNFYRH]

Then would you say that the rock is alive because it harbors life?

[Praxius]

Quote by: rcne If you look at a seaside rock with barnacles on it and ask - is that rock alive, you would answer - no. But if you ask does life exist on that rock, you would have to answer - yes.

I considder rocks, sand, bricks, buildings, vehicles, anything as alive. It's all composed of Atoms and although it is inanimate, it still changes, grows, erodes, changes to something else, eaten by something else, and it's atoms and energy is transferred.

Mind you, rocks, and the sort are not on the same level of life as us, but they hold true to the basic foundations that make us up.

And in response to the posts above mine, they have a good point..... organisms that live on the rock and use the rock for their own survival are alive, so the rock is in a sense a part of their life, making it have the factor of life too...... much like our bones are not really alive, but everything that makes us alive, passes over and through them, altering the bones structure, size and health, much like the organisms would to the rock.

[Deus_ultima]

Maybe we are the cancer in the Universe's bloodstream?

With the ideas of growth, energy, etc already mentioned, I do find the hypothesis of the universe being living interesting.