Life, Page 2

Inanimate Becomes Active

The bottom line is, the human form isn't a predetermined blue print, waiting for the right universe to come onto the scene. We are the way we are, because of our surroundings, not the other way around. We are not that special. The four fingered, green eye'd monster could ask exactly the same question, "Why is the universe in the exact way needed for us to take shape?"

In other words, we are definitly not special. For along time, we thought that the earth was the centre of the universe...and then it was the sun. I think we are still in that mentality that humans are the centre of the universe. We aren't. The universe is big and a lot of it is unexplored. We have no basis to believe that we could be the centre of the universe. The universe wasn't made for our benefit, we are products of it.

I think however, that the idea of life itself can't be disputed (lets assume this for now). The difference between a living species and an inanimate one is that a living one eventually dies. It becomes inanimate. But what is the exact difference between something we regard as living and something that we regard as not? We regard human's and animals as living, obviously. We also regard plants as living, because indeed, they do die.

One difference that seems to determine the living from the inanimate is the fact that living things, such as humans, animals and their cells, contain energy. The mind of a creature communicates with its different parts by sending pulses of energy. Cells communicate with other cells by also emitting pulses of energy. I do not think, however, that this is what distinguishes the living from the inanimate. Either this isn't what distinguishes it, or we consider inanimate things to be animate. What I'm talking about is plants. They haven't been seen to emit pulses of energy anywhere. A plant gets its energy from the sun.

The only thing that is common to all living things is water. Plants need water to remain animated, so do humans and animals, as do cells. It seems kind of weird why this might be the case. You'd think with something so 'important' as life, that there'd be something else. Like a life force or something. But it isn't, it's just...water.

Water makes cells active, as does it make humans active, as does it make planets active. There is something missing though. If water is what makes things living, how come water doesn't prevent us from dying? Despite the fact that water brings us life, it doesn't sustain it. So everything animate eventually becomes inanimate.

But, I'll tell you what seems to make more sense. The idea that nothing is animate. Those things that we say are living are simply doing what they can do by law. All we need to do is look back to the human versus star analogy. If a star had legs and something to walk on, do you think it'd use them?

Lets agree right now that the life of human is no more special than the life of a star. Let's also assume that we are the way we are becomes of our degree of evolution and what we've had to adapt too. A star appears 'live' because it does what it is allowed to do by law. It burns fuel in the process of nuclear fussion. Nuclear fussion is feasible by law. Since the star has the means to do so, it will, in acordance to natural law. Now, considering this, it makes sense to note that a 'live' star simply does what it can do by law. Once the means by which to do so dissapear--it runs out of fuel--it can't do it any more. It can't follow law if it doesn't have the means. So the star 'dies'.

Looking at things this way, in this much simplifed version, what happens if we apply this to man? Like I discussed at the beginning, humans evolved a lot quicker then the stars have. We have also had something to adapt to. But you can't deny the fact that both a star and a human can appear 'living' or animate. By every meaning of the word, a star lives and dies (according to our definition). But if we apply the process of logic we took in the above paragraph then 'life' as we know it becomes no more than a simple following of the rules.

Take mosquito's for example. They suck human blood because the have the means to. We don't. We can't do something if we don't have the means too. We have the means to do what we are capable of because of evolution and adaption. So looking at it this way, it helps solve the water problem. I originally wondered why if water gives us life, it doesn't sustain it or prevent us from dying. I think now, water is simply the key to the law which allows us to do what we do.

�Life� and �Death�

Don't get me wrong, it may sound like I'm just redifining the word 'life', but I'm not, I'm distinguishing between it. We see life as something special. Like we are consumed by some special type of force. I always had trouble imagining how this special force could just come into existance how ever long ago it began. If you eliminate the idea of this special force, then you don't have the problem of determining how or why it came into existence in the first place.

'Life', or as I'll call it now, animation, began with algae in the water. Which stands to reason. If water is the thing that gives access to these animation laws, then of course that would be the best place to start.

There is, however, a lot of emphasis on the whole notion of survival. If there was no such thing as 'life' as we define it, then why would animated things strive to remain so? That's a valid question, and something that's very interesting. If we look at life in the way that we are now, then we can see there are two types of object. Inanimate objects, like rocks and dirt, and animate objects, like humans, plants, and stars. The thing that differs between simple objects such as rocks and dirt, with things like humans and plants, is that humans and plants are a lot more complex.

Any atom that is more dense than Uranium becomes unstable. These atoms will decay to become more simpler atoms, because the nucleus is simply too big. Even Uranium decays to simpler, smaller atoms. I think in light of what is discussed above, animated objects need to 'survive' to remain in their largly complex states. If they don't get what they require to do so, then it decay's into much simpler states; humans and animals will turn to bones, plants will wither to dust, stars will grow cold and turn into useless rock.

So, what have we covered thus far? The life of a human is no more special than the life of a star. Both human's and stars are thought to 'live' and 'die'. Then we discovered that life, by definition, is in a sense, a fallacy. It makes a lot more sense to consider 'life' as inanimate objects doing animate things, simply because they have the means too. Finally we've determined that this animated objects require special needs for them to remain in the complex states that they are, or else they decay, much like an atom heavier than Uranium decays (even though cells or bacteria wouldn't be considered as complex as a human or a plant, they are a lot more complex than say, granite rock, or water. They contain things like protein and sometimes a few amino acids, and so forth).

Looking at 'life' in this sense, many problems become a lot more easier to deal with. The original solution to the problem of "why is the universe in that perfect state for us to exist?" is seconded with the above mind map. Dealing with life, not as a special life force, but as complex bunch of atoms doing what it is allowed to do and doing what it needs to do prevent decay, leaves this problem in the gutter.

Don't forget, if there is an infinite plane with countless numbers of bubble universes, then despite the relatively small odds, sooner or later, we will take this form. There is an endless amount of time, and an endless amount of universes to get it right.

The mystery of life after death becomes something a lot easier to work with as well. I find it easier to work with because of my beliefs (or lack there of). I won't share what life after death might become in light of the above discussion. I don't want to intrude on beliefs that I am sure a lot of you hold deeply. You can make up your own mind as to what happens to us after death. I'll keep this one to myself.

We are now brought to one of the most debated and worked problem or mystery we know of. What is the meaning of Life? What if I were to tell you there was no deep and meaningful answer for this one? Would that solve the mystery and put your mind at ease? Basically, this question is another example of human selfishness and a great example of the problems of a biased view on the world. In other words, there is no special reason we are here. If there was a special reason, I don't think destroying an entire plant with our collective forces would be part of it. I don't think that destroying the earth would even be happening. So, the reason we are here is simply because of evolution, entropy, chaos theory, what ever you want to call it. We are here because the means for us to be here have been met. We don't have a purpose. But if your looking for one, then our only purpose is to survive decay, and possibly reproduce. Let's not make a big deal out of something that needs not be treated as such.

Conclusion

The biggest problem with the way we look at the world is the fact that we look at it through our eyes. I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it. The world looks a lot different from out of space than it does from under water. Many problems or mysteries in the world tend to pop-up because of how we look at it. We see something and we interpret it in our own particular ways. Whether it is right or wrong is relative to each individual. It's like how some women treat the husband taking out the garbage as an act of love, whilst men treat it as just another chore. It's all in the perspective.

Looking at the world from different perspectives is very peculiar. A lot of things seem illogical, and they challenge that which we hold dear to our heart, and that with which we are used to, simply because that's the way it's always been in our life. However, if we are open to viewing things in different ways, no matter how illogical they may seem within us, sometimes it turns mysteries and problems into mince meat. An atemporal perspective becomes an unbiased one.