TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

What Is Life? (2019)

127 pointsby marcobambiniover 4 years ago

22 comments

Daniel_skover 4 years ago
In the book Sapiens there was an interesting thought that life is basically information that is trying to "survive". In the same way you can look at religion as some sort of information that spreads in people minds and without people it would ceise to exist or have even reasons to exist - the same way like a virus is just information that goes from host to host. Viruses can represent the simplest form of what life is actually trying to achieve. I am over simplifying that part of book, but it definitely gave me an interesting different look on life.
评论 #25595955 未加载
评论 #25598583 未加载
评论 #25593715 未加载
评论 #25596738 未加载
评论 #25600580 未加载
评论 #25597844 未加载
评论 #25594943 未加载
plutonormover 4 years ago
A virus is a meta lifeform. It is life that operates given the existence of metabolising organisms. Life operates directly over the physical matter in the universe, a virus just operates a step above this.
评论 #25596831 未加载
评论 #25600597 未加载
评论 #25594395 未加载
bonoboTPover 4 years ago
Before all the details we need to arrive at the right ballpark and establish the basics. I know on my example that even though I got through school with good grades, I was still full of misconceptions due to a few key errors fed from teachers, bullshit pseudo knowledge I picked up from ufo+mystery magazines and TV edutainment.<p>So first, there is nothing special about life. Life doesn&#x27;t break the normal laws of physics we use to describe everything else. Our naive concept is often along the lines of a game engine with inputs coming &quot;from outside&quot;, from spirits or something. But there&#x27;s no evidence of that. Living material is ordinary.<p>Physics teachers will explain that heat doesn&#x27;t go from cold to warm places. If you ask how fridges can exist, they may say &quot;well, heat doesn&#x27;t go there <i>by itself</i>&quot;, invoking some kind of magic explanation. Now I know there are more precise phrasing in physics, but that&#x27;s beside my point. We grow up with a concept that there are things that happen &quot;by themselves&quot; and there are things that happen due to living creatures&#x27; actions. In this implicit naive view that many, including past me hold, a fridge does an exceptional thing because it vaguely obeys our effortful engineering intentions. We <i>make it</i> do that, it doesn&#x27;t do it out of its own nature.<p>Actually in primary school physics class when we learned the concept of forces, we learned different categories: magnetic, gravitational, &quot;holding&#x2F;mounting&quot; force, friction force, muscle force... And we had to label the arrows in different everyday cartoons, like a kid pulling a sled in the snow: muscle force towards the kid, gravity down, holding force from the ground up, friction force backward. As if muscle force was some irreducible special magic phenomenon in physics. While correctly teaching basic school-level vector calculus skills they failed at teaching fundamental world view skills.<p>Because there&#x27;s no distinction like this. Life doesn&#x27;t violate the second law of thermodynamics.<p>Of course this article also doesn&#x27;t claim that, but as I said, it&#x27;s important to first arrive on the same page, in the same ballpark before the high resolution discussion.
评论 #25597600 未加载
评论 #25599483 未加载
f430over 4 years ago
The purpose of life is for the consciousness to realize that it is part of the whole. There is some form of an attractor force, outside of our immediate 3d world, that is <i>attracting</i> all self-aware sentient entities to become.<p>Applying western science and demanding evidence when it cannot be comprehended by the human mind is like the petulant child who asks why at the end of every sentence.<p>Terrence Mckenna is probably the only Westerner who has been able to articulate what the rest of the ancient civilizations have figured out independently.
评论 #25600080 未加载
评论 #25600544 未加载
评论 #25600367 未加载
proc0over 4 years ago
Life can be defined in terms of entropy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says it&#x27;s always increasing, and it was once lower. The law only applies for closed systems, so if we generalize to any system sometimes entropy increases. Life is a system that consumes low entropy and transforms into high entropy [negative entropy]. From light to other life, life is consuming lower forms of entropy to then use it in its information processing systems.
评论 #25601399 未加载
vardhanwover 4 years ago
It was interesting to also read his previous article in &quot;Is biology too complex to understand&quot; [1], where he surmises that after the initial &quot;physicsization&quot; of the discovery process in biology, where you came up with the whole DNA, RNA, amino acids (codons), ribosome, protein and related discoveries, there is a lot of complexity left undiscovered and which may not have simplified&#x2F;abstract solutions&#x2F;theorems a la physics. This is exemplified with the reported 100+ articles per hour in pub med, which cannot be expected to be understood by a human (or groups of humans) to any significant extent to extend the boundaries of our understanding in a fundamental sense and the hope is that machines (ML) may help us in getting a better send of the discovery landscape and provide insights we may not be able to divine ourselves.<p>Which leads the the (my) question - what is the current level of development in ML theory &amp; practice to &quot;understand&quot; a particular set of research articles to create a &quot;knowledge database&quot; which can then be used to ask questions about it or relate the consisting articles etc.I know some basic research in NLP like topic modeling, question answering, summarization, information extraction, etc. and perhaps some sort of causal reasoning can be applied, but is there enough progress in this so as to start meeting the goals he wishes for - i.e to be able to advance science by machine processing of research articles as an aid for further insights and research?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;berthub.eu&#x2F;articles&#x2F;posts&#x2F;biologists-physics-envy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;berthub.eu&#x2F;articles&#x2F;posts&#x2F;biologists-physics-envy&#x2F;</a>
评论 #25596278 未加载
juvenalmunizover 4 years ago
&quot;Life is a chemical system that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium.&quot;<p>I like the above &quot;definition&quot; from this YT video (This Ciliate is About to Die): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ibpdNqrtar0" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ibpdNqrtar0</a>
评论 #25600941 未加载
mseepgoodover 4 years ago
&gt; &quot;And we may also wonder if a sentient computer program might one day be called alive of course&quot;<p>Why does a computer program have to be sentient to be called alive?
评论 #25593673 未加载
评论 #25595530 未加载
verma7over 4 years ago
The analogy of the question &quot;What is life?&quot; with &quot;What is a computer?&quot; bring up interesting parallels. The author defines a computer as any device that has transistors, RAM, etc that is, the computing substrate. But there were devices that didn&#x27;t use transistors, but used vacuum tubes or mechanical gears (like Babbage&#x27;s Analytical engine), which I think are still computers. We have some good theoretical model of computers: like Turing machines. One possible definition of a computer is any device that is Turing complete.<p>I wonder what such a theoretical model of life would look like.
评论 #25597758 未加载
ssijakover 4 years ago
A blip between 2 ethernal nothingness.
评论 #25594000 未加载
评论 #25595472 未加载
评论 #25593330 未加载
评论 #25593659 未加载
评论 #25593535 未加载
Traubenfuchsover 4 years ago
An unpleasant philosophical discussion* about the multiple definitions or the lack of even one proper definition for one annoying word. It has no meaning!<i></i> No matter how we define life or being alive, the atoms, reality, physics, chemistry don&#x27;t change. Say we decide a virus is properly alive -what does it matter? What does that decision affect?<p>* if it&#x27;s pleasant, it&#x27;s probably not a philosophical discussion<p><i></i> like most philosophical discussions
analog31over 4 years ago
I think it&#x27;s reasonable to recognize genetic replication as being a defining feature of life on earth as we know it today, without ruling out discovery or invention of other possibilities in the future.<p>If you brought me a blob of something and ask me whether it contained &quot;life,&quot; I&#x27;d analyze it for DNA or RNA. In the absence of those things I&#x27;d look for a preponderance of chirally selected molecules.
douglaswlanceover 4 years ago
Life is a _single_ self-propagating chemical reaction.
评论 #25599569 未加载
评论 #25600073 未加载
mcphageover 4 years ago
&quot;Life&quot; is an english word. There will never be a definition of &quot;life&quot; that includes everything we want included, and excludes everything we want excluded, because there is no distinct corresponding physical <i>thing</i> that it refers to, nor should there be any expectation of one. It&#x27;s just a word.
Enginerrrdover 4 years ago
My own personal definition of life is the following, somewhat hand-wavy, theoretically weak, though pragmatically strong definition:<p><i>Life is anything capable of sloppy self-replication in a sufficiently complex environment.</i><p>Viruses are <i>definitely</i> alive. Something like Tierra [1], Avida[2], or modern variants[3] of mutating copying programs come close, giving rise to whole ecosystems of parasites and hosts and defenses, etc. though perhaps they are lacking the &quot;sufficient complexity&quot; necessary so as not to stall out and stop evolving much. Chemistry provides such a massive environment of complexity that it&#x27;s hard to replicate elsewhere, though I&#x27;d argue it&#x27;s hardly impossible.<p>The problem with this article&#x27;s definition is that, with near certainty, the first progenitor lifeform on earth did NOT utilize ANY of the DNA&#x2F;RNA protein translation machinery they state are necessary to meet their definition of alive. You can find some surpringly good statistical analyses of this assertion in an unlikely ally: creationist statistical arguments. They prove pretty definitively that life didn&#x27;t begin with a transcriptase protein popping into existence.<p>What are the problems with my definition:<p>The big theoretical hole: You could concoct some hypothetical scenario where something I&#x27;d definitely agree is alive replicates using some star trek technology that doesn&#x27;t allow for the &quot;sloppy&quot; part. W&#x2F;e, I consider this pragmatically irrelevant.<p>The second big objection: It allows us to consider many things as &quot;alive&quot; that most would say are not. In my opinion, this is actually a major strength.<p>Ok, but what about things like crystals? Personally, I consider some type of self-catalysing crystal or quasicrystal to be one of the most plausible forms of original life on earth. That said, they seem to be lacking the &quot;sufficient complexity&quot; aspect. However, are they really? I&#x27;m not so sure. Is it possible for a particular pattern of crystal defects to bring about a replication of sorts of that defect pattern elsewhere in the crystal during crystallization? That may be enough complexity particularly when you consider substitutions (when one element in the crystal lattice gets swapped for another). If some type of pattern of crystal defects or quasicrystal or something developed sufficient self-catalysing ability to bring about a form of sloppy self-replication, it&#x27;s likely that&#x27;s enough for life provided that the environment allows it under entropy considerations.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tierra_(computer_simulation)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tierra_(computer_simulation)</a> [2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Avida" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Avida</a> [3]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Artificial_life" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Artificial_life</a>
评论 #25594683 未加载
评论 #25594675 未加载
评论 #25596306 未加载
soufronover 4 years ago
This is only a simple take on the life-as-a-computer metaphor. The problem is that it&#x27;s only a metaphor.
endeover 4 years ago
A localized reversal of entropy.
评论 #25599554 未加载
xchipover 4 years ago
What is love?
评论 #25598827 未加载
iamkdevover 4 years ago
It&#x27;s a collections of shit we do till death.
carabinerover 4 years ago
Ball is life.
szczepanoover 4 years ago
Isn&#x27;t life just light projection, why complicate things with chemical equations ?
ytersover 4 years ago
What if the universe itself is alive, just on a vastly longer timescale than normal organic life? It contains all other life, after all.