Life's vast diversity defies easy definition
quantamagazine.org
quantamagazine.org
Indeed, most of what we perceive as 'alive' does self-reproduce. But that might be just a consequence of the fact that a bulk of autonomous material is complex and can rarely occur on its own.
There have probably been some forms of life that could self-reproduce, as well as species that you would really call alive but could not self-reproduce. However, only the self-reproducing ones did grow in numbers and that is almost all we see today.
Self reproduction might be necessary but not sufficient to define life. Crystals reproduce, for example, but we wouldn't likely call that life?
So i guess fractals are alive on that view.
For the article in general. I kind of agree and disagree. I agree stressing too much about it is kind of futile, and the real world is full of shades of grey. But i disagree that throwing our hands up and hiving up is the right approach. Its still important to have some rough definition so we have shared understanding what we are talking about. Asking if something borderline is alive or not is not the interesting question, but it doesn't follow that we should have no definitions at all.
I dont think fractals are alive as they need you to execute them.
When I think about this I see there is a difference between the equation of a fractal which is like a description of it and the actual fractal which exists after somewhere the equation is executed.
Here the equation is like DNA and fractal itself like a cell.
Self replication in this case would be a property of the fractal itself.
Self reproducing means they can execute the reproduction part themselves or at least this is how I see it.
There is a theory that our world is a simulation. Would that make us all not alive?
Using such code to implement a fractal-creating program is an interesting concept...
1) Self-reproduction
2) Simulation of a Turing machine
I have seen other summaries of this description as replacing step 2 with "mutation" or using simulation of a Turing machine as being synonymous with mutation
I am not a fan of this analysis, I think two rules is too many. Really there should be only one rule: no rules.
Plus, I think the second rule necessarily implies the first, since the theory of the universal Turing machine sufficiently allows for self-reproduction which later outlined the sketches for cellular automata and subsequent models such as Conway's Game of Life.
Oftentimes philosophers wonder about the origin of meaning, how semantics come from syntax. Meaning comes from the need for life, even seemingly unrelated values derive from life affirming values.
Might the definition change, as biologists encounter new stuff and develop an interest? Sure. Does that make the old definition wrong? No.
The boundary between life and not-life is exactly where biologists' interest fades. If you wonder why something is not alive, just ask any biologist why it is not interesting. Different biologists may give you different answers, but all their answers are useful.
If you don't care much, then you aren't a biologist, and don't need an answer.
Additionally, scientists do not actually divide themselves into neat little boxes. A Biochemist does chemistry. A Quantum biologist does quantum physics. A Computation biologists does compute science.
Did you mean prions?
A biochemist decides whether a chemical is interesting according to whether it is made by or affects something alive. And so on.
Computers, bikes, music and pizza
I almost forgot money from grants... silly me