Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.

Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.

Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.

David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.

Tony: When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion

David: Religion, at least the organized type, is losing its grip over the western world. Severe factionalism is what we are getting into.

Tony: How is battling over different ideologies different than battling over different religious beliefs?

It isn't. Passionate beliefs.

Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.

Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.

Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.

David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.

Tony: When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion

David: Religion, at least the organized type, is losing its grip over the western world. Severe factionalism is what we are getting into.

How is battling over different ideologies different than battling over different religious beliefs?

Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.

Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.

Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.

David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.

Tony: When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion

Religion, at least the organized type, is losing its grip over the western world. Severe factionalism is what we are getting into.

Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.

Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.

Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.

David:You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.

When we lose our ability to challenge entrenched ideas, we are set for another round of the dark ages, only this time it will not be dominated by religion

Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.

Tony: But that wasn't the main point of my post.

Gatekeeper: I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.

You're describing political correctness rampant among liberals.

Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.

Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.

I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.

The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.

David: Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.

Tony: And part of the reason I live on a farm about 50 miles away from the nearest major city

Twin thinkers!

Gatekeeper: I am saying that some groups of atheists, I call them sects of atheism, have violent reactions to the notion that we exist in a system that looks like life.

But that wasn't the main point of my post.

I realize it wasn't the main point, it was just an unclear statement. I would also expand that statement to: People, especially people in modern society which shelters them from differing ideas(safe spaces in university), have violent reactions to opinions that are opposed to whatever ideology they support, regardless of what ideology they subscribe to.

Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.

Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.

I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.

The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.

David: Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.

And part of the reason I live on a farm about 50 miles away from the nearest major city

Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.

Tony: It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.

I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.

The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.

Your discussion is why I live on a ranch more than 50 miles from Houston, and the local town is perhaps 6,000.

Gatekeeper: why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

David: I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.

It is not simply a case of plundering the planet, though that definitely happens on a incredible scale. The way human society has developed is toxic, both to the planet and to ourselves. The vast majority of problems that plague humanity emerge directly from the fact that our preferred social construct, that of city dwelling, is not sustainable at scale. It utterly destroys the environment in which the cities emerge, and forces people into very unnatural states by simple proximity. Decentralize the population and, by and large, the problems disappear. Of course, that won't happen naturally any more. Humanity has made its choice in terms of social growth, the outcome is inevitable, and utterly irreversible. Nothing short of a global cataclysm could reconcile humanity with our ancestral home, and unfortunately, I am almost certain that is in the making.

I don't mean to sound like a doomsday crackpot, but it is simply the convergence of thousands of points of data into a single inescapable conclusion. The measures we have taken are inadequate because we have not addressed the underlying cause: cities. Population density spurs pollution, disease, famine, poverty, and eventually, war and death. It has happened repeatedly throughout history. In medicine, we realize that toxicity is largely a matter of dosage. Humans in high concentrations(cities) are toxic. There is no escaping that fact. The greater the concentration, the higher the toxicity. Like other animals, high concentrations lead to competition for resources, which leads to deprivation and violence as the system begins to fail, vainly struggling to re-balance itself.

The earth provides enough resources, even for our current population, but not the way that the resources and people are distributed. We have poisoned our water and air to the point it has become toxic for life. Food is wasted or horded on an unimaginable scale. It's really very sad. You can't even step outside for a breath of 'fresh' air anymore.

Gatekeeper: why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

Tony: There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

I like your categories. The human microbiome would fit the passenger classification while they influence us in many ways. And you certainly have a major point in humans plundering the planet. At least it is recognized and remedial measures are on place, sort of.

Gatekeeper: why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

I don't get this sentence, or what you are trying to say here. Could you please rephrase and expound upon it?

David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:

"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."

Life is more than the sum of its material parts.

Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.

Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)

I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.

why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

David: I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

There are three categories of organisms that reside with a host: symbiote, parasite, and a neutral zero-sum passenger. The primary difference between the three is the character of there relationship with their host. Symbiotic relationships are mutually beneficial, parasites are deleterious to the host, and passengers give and take, but only to the extent of a zero-sum (Homeostasis).

From a theistic standpoint, we were designed and created to have a symbiotic relationship with the earth and the other organisms in it. That is, we were supposed to give back as more than we take, the same as the Earth gives us more than it takes from us. Our job was basically to husband the earth and its inhabitants, bringing order to the chaos in a mutually beneficial way that would amplify the rich bounty of this world.

However, we have bastardized that relationship, forsaken our duty to protect and nurture the planet and other life on it, and instead have stripped its resources, destroyed the ozone, poisoned the earth and water, and slaughtered other lifeforms (and each other), often to extinction. By definition, an organism that is deleterious to its host for its own gain is a parasite, and that is exactly what we have become.

David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:

"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."

Life is more than the sum of its material parts.

Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.

Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)

I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.

why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

Gatekeeper: Yes, I quoted wrong post. But it partially fits your comment too. I agree with you, homeostasis is a word I often use to describe the dynamic equilibrium we see around us.

Glad you are back and actived.

David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:

"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."

Life is more than the sum of its material parts.

Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.

Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)

I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.

why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

Yes, I quoted wrong post. But it partially fits your comment too. I agree with you, homeostasis is a word I often use to describe the dynamic equilibrium we see around us.

Tony: However, there is no way of knowing if there are more than four dimensions, ones that can only be observed at particular scales.

David: Multiple dimensions are math games in my view. I don't think string theory is going anywhere along with Woit and Smolin.

Tony: X,Y,Z and Time are not math games, and quantum physics offers some interesting possibilities through superposition and entanglement. If time and space have no meaning to entangled particles, since changes can happen instantly between two particles regardless of spatial difference, how do we describe the path of communication between them? How is the informational change getting from point A to B?

I am not interested in string theory, nor am I talking about it. However, it is scientifically observable that we humans are not capable of what electrons are. Why is it such a stretch to think that at a similar differences of scale (electrons are to humans as humans are to the universe) that there might be options available at one end of the scale that are not available or accessible to objects at the other end of the scale?

Back to the imponderability of quantum mechanics. I think we could explain much if we understood quantum activity.

David:You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:

"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."

Life is more than the sum of its material parts.

Gatekeeper: exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.

Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere. (my bold)

I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.

why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.

I agree about atheists. Your comment and I think most of your discussion was directed to Tony (Balanced Maintained) I'd like to hear his thoughts. Note the bold of his statement.

Tony: The greater organism would likely contain a correspondingly greater intelligence. This should be evident by a greater degree of agency, in some form or fashion. We do not know what form this greater agency would be.

If the planet is a living organism, how can we detect it? By what measure does the bacteria judge the human? As to whether the universe is quantum computing, that is unknown and unknowable. We would first need to establish whether a) the universe could think, or b)there were some 'mechanical' function that was constantly crunching numbers.

David: The universe is said to have 10^80 particles, which follow quantum mechanics laws. The realm of Quantum Reality undergirds the physical reality of the universe.

Tony: Of that there is no doubt. My comments are in regard to the idea that a) the universe is 'quantum computing'. This implies action, either intelligent or mechanical. I am curious as to which he means, because the answer defines whether he sees the universe as a 'living' thing, or a machine.

Tony: Scaling

If quanta communities form quarks, and quark communities form atoms, and atom communities form molecules, and molecular communities form cells, then cell communities form multi-cellular life. This brings us to humanity, plants and animals, but what beyond that? Communities, towns, cities, states, etc? What about the next step up from us?

The logical answer is that multi-cellular life is to a planetary host what bateria are to humans. In turn, the planets to the solar systems, solar systems to the galaxy, galaxy to the universe, and we have no clue what lies beyond that. It could very well be that our universe has the universal equivalent of a cellular membrane (background radiation) that prevents us from seeing out beyond it. It is entirely possible that it regresses infinitely in either direction. We will likely not know in our lifetime, if humanity ever learns the answer.

David: If spacetime is expanding from a Big Bang, it must have a boundary with the nothingness into which is is enlarging. But we cannot reach it if the theory is correct that spacetime curves back on itself.

Tony: Again correct. However, there is no way of knowing if there are more than four dimensions, ones that can only be observed at particular scales.

David: Multiple dimensions are math games in my view. I don't think string theory is going anywhere along with Woit and Smolin.

X,Y,Z and Time are not math games, and quantum physics offers some interesting possibilities through superposition and entanglement. If time and space have no meaning to entangled particles, since changes can happen instantly between two particles regardless of spatial difference, how do we describe the path of communication between them? How is the informational change getting from point A to B?

I am not interested in string theory, nor am I talking about it. However, it is scientifically observable that we humans are not capable of what electrons are. Why is it such a stretch to think that at a similar differences of scale (electrons are to humans as humans are to the universe) that there might be options available at one end of the scale that are not available or accessible to objects at the other end of the scale?

Gatekeeper: Maybe its a bit of both.

There are volumes of the universe that are processing and learning. Isn't the universe quantum computing right now?

Its the "aliveness" of me that creates the proteins in me. I, indeed all humans, are just complex proteins. I know I can learn and apply knowledge but I have very little control of the cells life cycle in my body past eating right and exercising.

You are describing the property of life in the emergent system of homeostasis that makes life living from the organic materials that make us up, even though when we look closely, all we see are automatic organic molecular reactions. Definition from Britannica:

"Homeostasis, any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail."

Life is more than the sum of its material parts.

exactly right. let me focus on the biosphere being treated as an organism for practical reasons. One, for obvious reason's, the connection to something bigger for some people. two, for our future. We are in a mass extinction event. I feel treating the planet in a holistic fashion just makes sense.

As you know, conclusions that offer an explanation, a mechanism, and make predictions are more valid than conclusions that don't have all three. And there can be more than one valid conclusion.

I think what many theist and spiritual people are experiencing is the connection to the biosphere. Due our size, it seems infinite to many people just like the surface of the earth seems flat.

Ok, so how do we classify the biosphere? life, non-life, or tweener, like a virus. For me a calculation and measurement would be helpful. If we can calculate it and/or measure it that would help us anchor a statement of belief in something real.

The calculation I use is complexity versus volume ratio. In a cell, there are millions of interactions involving thousands of different proteins, plus organics/inorganic stuff. Using single celled organism as base reference the complexity/volume for the biosphere matches a cell more than a virus and even the most advanced computer isn't even close.

a measurement. This is crude, but it is valid. standing in your backyard. Put a cell, a virus, and a computer on a meter stick. Slide the meter stick back and forth until it you feel the interactions in the biosphere match the register marks. Then, have as many people as you can do the same thing and record the results.

Like you said, I am not sure. But these to two pieces of evidence certainly make treating the biosphere as an organism a very reasonable approach. It makes sense in trying to treat the planet's illness, since you called us a parasite, and makes sense that a complex protein like a human, can sense the biosphere.

I don't call it "god". For me, there is no story line linking all the data that would lead me to a god thing as taught by many religions(like plate tectonics links earthquakes, volcanoes and continental drift) . But "life"? I don't see the problem with saying that's what it looks like.

why do the hard core, reject everything, sect of atheism reject the notion out of hand? I don't get it.