Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

The trick lies in the fact that life forms have no obvious boundary. The fact that two creatures are two creatures, and not just a single creature is something that is just endowed to them by us humans. If one of the creatures dies, does it really die, or does the combination of the two creatures just loses half of its brain cells? That second view is just as valid. Hence, in that second view, nothing really ever dies; we (i.e., the universe) just lose brain cells. And, of course, we gain them as well.

View on HN

This way we could say the entire universe is just a big chemical reaction. It wouldn't even be an incorrect view. It just wouldn't be useful for anything.

This is the real value of models and concepts we use - not their grand philosophical sense, but how useful they are. We set up boundaries between creatures, define concepts like life and death because they allow us to understand and predict the world better. It's usually more useful to treat two creatures as two creatures instead of one, but sometimes it's the reverse - for instance, it's often more useful to treat an entire colony of ants as a single being, individual ants becoming just cells / organelles.

"It just wouldn't be useful for anything."

It is useful for something. It's just not useful for problems that require a high degree of specificity. And not all problems do; in fact, some are hindered by it. (For instance, focussing on individual atoms won't really help you do politics.)

single atoms no, but splitting atoms.. maybe

>This way we could say the entire universe is just a big chemical reaction. It wouldn't even be an incorrect view. It just wouldn't be useful for anything.

It's a world view, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's useless. Religions are world views, and they have certainly been put to use.

If it's true, does it even matter if it's useful? Maybe truth is more important than utility.

There is no meaning in asking whether it's true or not, because "chemical reaction" is a model we create, a map describing territory. In no way is the "universe is a big chemical reaction" more 'true' than "universe is composed of stars, stars have planets around, at least one planet has life on it" than Pale Blue Dot is more 'true' than Google Maps. Different maps, same territory, and the only thing that matters is which one is more useful for given purpose.

We set up boundaries between creatures, define concepts like life and death because they allow us to understand and predict the world better.

I think that's what "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge" means. If the universe is unity, when you die, the universe is still here. As Christians put it, "One with God". If you see yourself as separate to the universe, when you die, you're dead. And Hell = consumed by ego, which likes comparing you and others.

That's going into philosophy, and it's useful in so far it helps people feel content.

What you're saying is not unique to lifeforms. It can apply to inanimate objects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Although, there's no known mechanism by which ships get all their parts replaced while preserving their function without some life forms involved.

That is closer to the heart of what makes life unique, in that life can (and does, as a matter of existence) decrease entropy. At least locally. Life will rebuild a ship instead of watch it rot.

All sorts of processes locally reduce entropy - any solidifying liquid will meet that benchmark.

Conservation of energy: you can only become something else. Death is the opposite of birth, not of life.

And indeed, we are the cosmos contemplating its own existence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com