Defining life: reductionist physics does not work (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, October 25, 2020, 18:58 (1490 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The logic is encapsulated in the presentations of ID, which I assume you have assiduously avoided. The design is so complex it requires a designing mind. They never refer to it as God.

dhw: I didn’t either, in this instance. I described what sort of mind I think you understand as the designer. Does this explain where life came from and how it really works? Of course it doesn’t. Give that mind any name you like, it is still a nebulous concept just as mysterious as the source of life and how it works!

Still as you avoid it, logic requires a designing mind.

DAVID: I love his approach!!! Note the emphasis on the energy supply which I constantly bring up as ecosystems. Available energy drives life.

dhw: That is simply another way of saying that living organisms need food. I can’t imagine that anyone on this planet would disagree.

DAVID: Of course not. I was really referring to the entire article against reductionism.

dhw: Sorry, I thought you were referring to the energy supply you keep bringing up as ecosystems, and to the fact that all life needs energy.

DAVID: Ecosystems and food supply explain why the bush of life is so big.

dhw: Any ecosystem and food supply is as big as the creatures that are part of it. Millions of ecosystems have come and gone, so what bush of life are you talking about? The whole history of life? Yes, the fact that there were millions of ecosystems that came and went explains why the whole bush of life past and present was/is so big. Or do you mean the current bush? Yes, the current bush is big, but as you have so rightly said, “extinct life plays no role in current time”.

Finally presenting my statement about time relationships in the proper context.