@mikebell
Active 4 months, 1 week agoForum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
Folks,
In recent discussions about whether or not the universe is living, several of us have focused on the problem with the word “living.” It explains life on Earth but just doesn’t work very well for explaining “life” in the universe. In the course of discussion we have been seeking some kind of common ground. One suggestion has been to focus on the manifestations of life in the universe rather than the word “life” itself.
Last week I discovered that we are in good company. Others have been down this same road before and have arrived at a similar conclusion.
I received my copy of the book “The Systems Views of Life: A Unifying Vision.” It was written by Fritjof Capra, a physicist and systems theorist, and Pier Luigi Luisi, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Rome. I looked over the Table of Contents and was immediately attracted to Section 111 A NEW CONCEPTION OF LIFE: “Chapter 7, What is life? Here is most of the first paragraph.
“It is a common understanding that it is impossible to provide a scientific definition of life which is universally accepted. This stems from the fact that the background of scientists dealing with the questions—biologists, chemists, computer scientists, philosophers, astrobiologists, engineers, theologians, social scientists, ecologists (to name just a few)—differs considerably from one another, depending on one’s conceptual framework. In this book we will not dwell so much on the question of a unique definition of life—a single sentence catching all the various characteristics of life—but rather, we will consider the more general question: what are the essential characteristics of a living system. This task is more amenable to a scientific inquiry and we will show that the systems view of life represents a step forward within the horizon of the life sciences.” (p.129)Could this approach be the basis for the common ground we have been seeking?
-
Jennifer,
The word “love” sometimes evokes the idea that you cannot love a ‘thing”– and of course Earth is not a thing but many people think of it as a “thing out there” . The word “reverence”, though it sometimes suggest “religion” is a bit more general and all-embracing (for me at least) and literally means “awe and wonder”. I think when most people see a beautiful painting or landscape of a natural scene they might say it evokes “reverence” before “love.” I prefer “reverence” but this might just be one of those “de gustibus” things.
-
Jennifer,
Thomas Berry, in his Foreward to Ann Marie Dalton’s book A Theology For the Earth, noted that he was not a theologian and “my intent has been simply to present and to leave to the reader to respond out of whatever background the reader might have. This transformation from his ideas to our situations was what he meant by a functional cosmology—telling the Great Story in our different contexts.This curriculum for teachers is, I think, the best example of a functional cosmology I’ve ever seen. Most of us simply repeat what Thomas said in different language. We fail to make the transition from one context to another context—in this case the classroom context and the minds of students. Further, this project, to use the old term,”has legs.” Training the teacher ensures that this fundamental knowledge will be passed on to succeeding classes of students.
Thanks for organizing this. Great Work
-
Folks,
“Considering all of these arguments, here is my conclusion at this time which is the best “common ground” that I can muster. We must allow science the categories of “living organism” and “non-living matter” for them to do their work. However there is also room for the “big philosophical view” of an interconnected universe where living and non-living matter (in the scientific sense) are inseparable and part of larger phenomena that we are only starting to understand.”
I quite like this summary. It is a step forward. But, though it leads us in the direction of a common ground it still distinguishes between “life” in the universe and life on Earth. I was wondering if we could take our pursuit for a common ground a little further.
Thomas Berry often noted that we need a new language to describe the new realities we are confronting. The problem here is with the word “living.” Perhaps the solution is not to use the term living at all but instead to talk about the manifestations of life that are shared both by the Earth and the universe. This is what Brian Swimme, a mathematical cosmologist, and Berry, a cultural historian, do in Chapter Four of their book The Universe Story.
They start with Einstein’s Cosmological Principle defined in 1931. It states that all places are alike in the Universe. This is an assumption rather than a scientific fact as we define it in the traditional scientific method because no one has ever done any actual testing in the 100 billion galaxies.
From there Swimme and Berry move to what they call the Cosmogenetic Principle. It assumes that every point in the universe is the same as every other point and, additionally, that the dynamics of evolution are the same at every other point in the universe. In a word they are the same on Earth as they are in the universe.
Thus, as they note:
“Cosmogenesis, as well as its micro phase complement epigenesis, refer to structures evolving in time. Comogenesis pertains generally to large scale structures such as galaxies and stellar systems, while epigenesis refers to the development of forms within the life world…The fact that form-producing powers are latent everywhere in the universe is the first feature of the cosmological principle…The second principle is the relationship of such powers through time.”
This Cosmogenetic Principle states that the universe can be characterized by differentiation, autopoiesis, and communion, and these three features are, themselves, features of each other.
Differentiation is the energy to create diverse forms of existence both in the galaxies and in the species of earth. It establishes the unique identities of species and individuals. No two galaxies are the same, no two species are the same, and so forth.
Autopoeisis, the term the borrowed from Maturana and Varela, is applied to the whole universe. It refers to an internal subjectivity or awareness and is manifest in the ability to self-organize. Autopoeisis refers not just to living beings but to self-organizing powers in general.”
Community deals with relationships. “Nothing is itself without everything else.” It refers to the relationship between galaxies as is manifest by the entangled elements in non locality and it is also manifest in the relationships between all species on Earth.
I think the cosmogenisis approach outlined by Swimme and Berry has three benefits.
First it moves us closer to a common ground. It should be noted that it is based upon assumptions rather than scientific tests. But so was Einstein’ Cosmological Principle that the scientific world has accepted as reality. We simply can’t do “scientific tests for life in the universe.” But we can recognize creative energy forces that are similar to what we call ‘life” on Earth.
Second it provides a new context and avoids the problem of two kinds of life. Using the term “Life” analogously inevitably refers to two kinds of “life”
Third, it seems to me more logical to answer the question, “Is the Universe a living system?” by going from the creative force in the universe to the creative force on Earth rather than denying life in the universe because it is not like life on Earth. Earth didn’t create the Universe. The universe created Earth.
Swimme and Berry’s approach seems to allow us to think about our question in a different way. I think it moves us closer to the common ground we are seeking.
-
Folks,
I’m having trouble keeping up with this conversation but here are some thoughts. At first glance Jon’s distinction between methodological reductionism (MR) and philosophical reductionism (PR) would seem to be helpful. It may be that some are using reductionism to deny a holistic approach to science. He may be right. I don’t know anything about this. But his distinction seems to me to imply (and I might be wrong) that PR is not real science. It is actually philosophy or something else.
Never the less I think his distinction is helpful if we turn it around. For me it is actually a distinction between ontology (what actually exists) and epistemology (how we think about what exists). I think those who believe that life exists in the universe are first arguing from an ontological perspective. Life actually exists on earth and in the universe. But we are also arguing the need for an epistemological perspective; we have to think of life on earth and in the rest of the universe in a different way.
What is the different way? We are turning to science but to those scientists who seem to know most about the universe –the quantum physicists. They have continually told us that their science–quantum mechanics–is counter intuitive. It is real but we have to learn to think about the universe in a different way.
I’m reminded of the story of a young couple who get lost while driving down a road in country. . They stop at a gas station to get instructions. The attendant comes out and they tell him where they want to go. The attendant pauses, looks down the road they are on and says to them, “You can’t get there from here.” We can’t get to a discussion of life in the universe by travelling down the road of cellular biology. We need a different way.
I quite like Duane’s distinctions. Double Aliveness and Trans Biological Aliveness are a bit of a mouthful. Deep Aliveness is better. These terms indicate both an ontological reality (life within life) and an new way of thinking about life. But they don’t actually avoid the word “life” which could be problematic.
I prefer the word “consciousness” because it implies life and seem closer to the world of quantum physics which talks not about life but about relationships and awareness. For example in discussing non-locality they describe the awareness or consciousness of spinning entangled particles that may be light years away from one another but still seem conscious of one another. I think “ “consciousness” it is less likely to present problems for those who identify life with cellular biology, but it is t is not without its own problem.
Though I would agree with Ursula that we all have our own definitions of consciousness, a brief Google search of the many article on the web indicates a wide variety of divergent opinions. The scientific community is very uncertain about the nature of consciousness and in particular about the brain as the “cause” of consciousness. I think she discusses this in her article on The Sacred Emergence of Nature. T
hough Ursula considers Thomas Berry’s statement that “human consciousness is the universe reflecting upon itself” as beautiful poetry, I think it is much more than that. I think is an ontological reality. In Ilia Delio critique of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si (referenced in my last posting) she regrets the document’ s failure to embrace the insights of quantum mechanics . She notes that “By framing the human person as integral to, but distinct from creation however, Laudato Si thwarts a true evolutionary discourse on human becoming. For we are not simply in evolution; we are evolution becoming conscious of itself.
-
Folks,
There is no doubt that this discussion—Is the Universe a Living System?—has been quite stimulating. We are indebted to Duane Elgin for starting it. People have been hanging in and expressing their opinions for some seven months. There are those of us who strongly believe that the universe is living and there are those of us who believe just as strongly that it is not living.
Recently, it seems to me that we have been going around in circles. I was wondering if, after seven months of discussion, a common ground may have emerged. I read back over many of the postings but couldn’t find a common ground. Both sides are sticking to their positions, saying the same thing but in different ways. (After reading all those postings I had an image of a Mobius Strip or the osborous eating its own tail.) Neither side—including myself– could move off the dime and find common ground. I wondered why.
Recently I had an “aha” experience. I was reading an article by the theologian, Ilia Delio, entitled Laudato Si and Vatican 111
http://globalsistersreport.org/column/speaking-god/laudato-si-and-vatican-iii-34616
Delio had significant praise for the insights of Pope Francis and his ability to move the relationship between science and religion forward in his discussion about climate change. But she also discussed a limitation of Francis’ approach. He was adopting the traditional geocentric cosmology of the medieval theologians, Bonaventure and Aquinas, that is based in large part on the insights of Aristotle. But Francis has not recognized that, since the early part of the past century, science has been moving into a new cosmological world based upon the insights of quantum mechanics.
Could we be having a similar problem in our discussion of whether the universe is a living system?
Let us imagine a discussion between two scientists—a biologist, an expert in cellular biology, and a physicist, an expert in quantum mechanics.The biologists asks the physicist, “From the point of view of your science, Is the Universe a living system?” The physicist answers, “I can’t answer your question. My discipline does not deal with material substances like yours does. It deals with elemental particles, quanta, waves, entangled energy fields, non-localities and so forth.”
Then the physicist says to the biologist, “Now let me ask you a question about your science. Since Earth is part of the universe, what can you tell me about the relationship between cellular inter-action on the one hand and, on the other hand, waves and particles, energy fields or, say, what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.
”I think the example shows the difficulty we are having in our discussion. It is a logic problem. The question, “Is the Universe a living system”, is a non-sequitur. There is a disconnect between the premise and the conclusion. In terms of the science it’s the old apples and oranges problem.
But is there a question that is true to science and helps us find a common ground? I think there is. It might be this question: Is the Universe Conscious? Neither the biologist nor the physicist can come up with a satisfactory, agreed upon definition of consciousness. But they can both come up with numerous examples that suggest that both the Universe and earth seem to manifest consciousness.
We might start with Thomas Berry’s observation: “Human consciousness is the Universe reflecting upon itself.”
-
Michael I’m not sure what you meant by this statement “Thomas Berry was quite careful, Duane, to only use language that could be embraced by the vast majority of mainstream scientists. You, by contrast, consistently take the opposite approach.” Could you give us some specific examples of how Duane’s language is problematic? On a related matter I think this brief video may be of interest. It seems that though Thomas had the highest regard for science, he had some difficulty with how science tended to use its insights. Science thinks it is also a cosmology but it lacks a cosmology–an ability to use it insights in a way that creates a mutually enhancing relationship between our species and Earth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdw0eoX9gM/
-
Duane, I would certainly agree that the universe is a greater form of life than any particular form of life on earth. We tend to use life in the universe as analogous to life on earth. But I think it is really the other way around. Once we accept the Big Bang as a mysterious reality, life on earth is analogous to life in the Universe-the "Mother of all life." This is a mystery of course, but as you have pointed out we live continually in the realm of mystery and we have to base our understanding of life on numerous logical assumptions. One of them is Ex nihilo nihil fit. Life on Earth cannot come from nothing. We are facing the limitations of language but, as Thomas Berry pointed out to me on one occasion, "Just because something is analogous does not mean it is not real." I quite like the way Thomas Berry has expressed the creative awakening of a life giving force in the Universe. "If the dynamics of the universe from the beginning shaped the course of the heavens, lighted the sun and formed the Earth, if this same dynamism brought forth the continents and seas and atmosphere, if it awakened life in the primordial cell and then brought into being the unnumbered variety of living beings, and finally brought us into being and guided us safely through the turbulent centuries, there is reason to believe that this same guiding process is precisely what has awakened in us our present understanding of ourselves and our relation to this stupendous process. Sensitized to such guidance from the very structure and functioning of the universe, we can have confidence in the future that awaits the human venture. " (The New Story in the Dream of the Earth, p.137.
-
Laura, Thanks for this response. As a sometimes activist myself I keep looking for applications. And today we need them more than ever. AT 76 I’m getting long in the tooth and I, too, am continually seeking a better understanding of science so that I can apply it to my community development work in the community. I only wish I had come across science earlier in life. As you are fully aware, activism can be extremely frustrating at times. It is especially necessary in dealing with the Anthropocene to find sources of hope. We have more losses than wins and we get labelled as “doomers.” I love the famous quotation from St Augustine on Hope. He said, “Hope has two beautiful daughters—anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to make sure they don’t remain the way they are. I agree with your concern for children. We are fortunate in our community that it is the summer nesting ground for the beautiful Trumpeter Swans who come down from the Arctic. A couple of years ago my wife was out in front of our house doing some gardening. A woman with her two children was passing down the street in front of her—an infant in a stroller and a 3-year old child walking along side. At that moment a flock of swans were flying overhead, trumpeting loudly. The child stopped, looked up and yelled, “Hello Trumpeter Swans.” How can we ensure that this child retains this sense of relationship with the Trumpeter Swans as she grows up? I think that Pope Francis ’ Laudto Si is undoubtedly one of the best and most practical publications I’ve ever come across. It really is a guidebook for activists.
-
Duane Your recent post on mystery and your post before it–Mental Universe (Richard Conn Henry) are extremely helpful. But I’m fascinated by the inability of folks who are opposed to the concept of life in the universe to at least acknowledge that there might be a different perspective. One of the things that interests me in this discussion is not who is right and who is wrong but the nature of the dialogue—the assumptions people are making in communicating with one another. I’m reminded of Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shifts in the world of science. In the world of communications I think of the astute observation of a fellow Canadian Marshal McLuhan. He once said “I don’t know who it was that first discovered water but I’m sure it wasn’t a fish.” Anais Nin’s noted “We don’t see the world the way it is. We see the world the way we are.” It is hard for folks on both sides of a discussion to step outside their frames to at least consider other possibilities. Those who believe that the universe is not living are very clear in their position. If it doesn’t meet our scientific criteria for life—cellular biology (reflecting “scientific materialism”) it is wrong. And their observations of the other side are, at times, somewhat harsh (“woo-woo” “silly” pseudo-science, etc. Coming out of my background I’m reminded of the term “heresy”) It is my understanding that the scientific method depends upon hypotheses that are tested by experimentation. To my knowledge (and I may be wrong here) there is no hypothesis. That “there is no life in the universe” is not a hypothesis and has simply been accepted as a fact. And there have not been significant experiments on the moon or in galaxies that demonstrate whether there is or is not cellular life. Given the lack of scientific evidence there cannot be a conclusion that “there is no life in the universe. Rather, the conclusion should be “we just don’t know.” Those of us who think that the universe “might be living” have a harder row to hoe. There is no universal agreement about the nature of life—especially when it might apply to 100+ galaxies. So I think we are saying four things. First, we do not deny the validity of science or the scientific method. Second, we are not saying that life in the universe is identical to cellular life on earth. We suspect that it isn’t. Third we recognize that there is a creative energy force that seems to resemble characteristics of what we call life on Earth. Fourth we are dealing with a mystery. The mystery “bit” flows from where we find some supportive evidence—from quantum mechanics. My knowledge of quantum mechanics is rudimentary in the extreme. But it takes only a bit of reading to recognize that the whole field of quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive. As Richard Feynman has noted, “It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” “It is the classic example of an enigma wrapped in a mystery. But one thing is for sure. If you are trying to apply cellular-life-on-earth-science to life-in- the- universe- of- quantum- mechanics you are going down the rabbit hole. Good luck with that approach. So, in real life, does it make a difference whether the universe is living or not living? It sure does. Much of this discussion seems to be built upon a dichotomy. There is Earth and then there is the universe—two different things. The point seems to be lost that there is no separation between Earth and the universe. Earth is a very small part of the universe. So what is happening in the universe is also happening on Earth. If there is a “creative life force in the universe” there must also be a “creative life force on Earth”—unless, of course, it somehow gets swallowed up in cellular biology and scientific materialism. For me, in terms of this discussion, this is the “difference that makes a difference” to use Gregory Bateson’s famous phrase. As we humans seem intent on going down the road to the Sixth Extension, we need all the help we can get. But, as you have pointed out Duane, much of what we would like to know is a mystery. Among some there may be a tendency to suggest this idea comes not from science but from religion. As I have noted in a previous posting, religion cannot be used to explain science and vice versa. This was the observation of Max Planck the quantum physicist. But he also noted that science and religion are two different dimensions of reality. The key word here is “reality.” Those of us who are members of faith groups, have an internal spirituality or may simply adopt the AA second step belief, “in a power greater than ourselves” have a significant skill we can bring to the party. We are used to dealing with something that you can’t see, touch or feel but is real and a mystery. It adds a significant dimension in our ability to consider life in the universe and on Earth.
-
As I’ve watched this discussion evolve over several months the participants have adopted one of two fixed positions. Either the universe is living or it is not living. It seems there is no third option. But is there? The tenacity of opinions reminded me of the old joke about the day the Mafia was holding interviews to hire an accountant. The first person comes in and is asked, “What is two and two.” The person says “four” and the interviewers say to him, “Well get back to you.” The same thing happens with the next person. But the third person comes in, is asked the same question, and he answers, “What do you want it to be. And the interviewers say, “You’re hired.” The moral of the story is that we are always influenced by our particular frame of reference and our point of view. This, in turn, reminded me of two insights that evolved from quantum mechanics around a question: Does the existence of the Universe depend upon an observer? The insights were a little vague in my mind, so, following Yogi Berra’s advice—“You could always look it up”—I did. In the famous double slit experience scientists shine light—a stream of photons—through two parallel slits that register on a screen behind the slits. First they measure the light with photon detectors. The result is not a surprise. The light passes through one or other of the slits and the screen reveals the photons acting like particles. Then they did the experiment again but removed the photon detector. They looked at the screen and they saw striped patters that suggested waves. The bottom line: the result—particles or waves—depends upon what the observer is looking for and measuring. Then there is Erwin Schrodinger’s famous suggestion. Put a cat in a box with a vial of poison gas, a piece of uranium and a Geiger counter hooked up to a hammer suspended above the gas vial. The uranium may emit a particle, the Geiger counter will notice it and send a signal to the hammer which will break the vile of poison. Thus, in terms of the old science, from outside the box the cat is either dead or alive. (Like our discussion about “life” in the universe it would seem that there are only two options.) But as Schrodinger points out, the particle and the cat now form a quantum system consisting of all possible outcomes—a dead cat or a live one. But neither becomes real until someone opens the box and looks inside. Source http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse Those who insist that the Universe in not living insist on the scientific method based on experiments. We are told that it is only through scientific experiments that this can be determined. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken) no one has conducted “life experiments” on Mars or, say, somewhere within one of the 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe. (They won’t know the answer to living or non-living that one until someone opens the “Universe box” and takes a look. In the mean time the non-living advocates seem to be taking the position that, since there is no scientific evidence to the contrary, there is only “dead stuff” out there. (I don’t know what the recent discovery of water on Mars by Nasa’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter signifies, if anything.) Those who think—but do not insist—that the universe is living know that, if life does exist in the universe, it is not like human or cellular life on earth. If it was we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Those of us who think the universe is living—and I am one of them—are using the term “life” analogously. (But, just because it is analogous does not mean it is not real.) We are saying that there is some creative energy source that seems very similar to life on Earth. To summarize, both sides are facing a mystery. But quantum mechanics reminds us that the concept of “life” is in the eye of the beholder. And, in terms of terms of hard evidence, we exist in the world of emergent possibilities. I’ve found this discussion interesting, particularly about the concept of the Universe as a living system. But I’m wondering about practical applications in this Anthropocene Age. As we continue to shut down Earth’s life-support systems, are we learning anything about how to carry out our work as Earth-system triage workers trying to preserve Earth’s life-giving gifts from the universe? As I’ve watched this discussion evolve over several months the participants have adopted one of two fixed positions. Either the universe is living or it is not living. It seems there is no third option. But is there? The tenacity of opinions reminded me of the old joke about the day the Mafia was holding interviews to hire an accountant. The first person comes in and is asked, “What is two and two.” The person says “four” and the interviewers say to him, “Well get back to you.” The same thing happens with the next person. But the third person comes in, is asked the same question, and he answers, “What do you want it to be. And the interviewers say, “You’re hired.” The moral of the story is that we are always influenced by our particular frame of reference and our point of view. This, in turn, reminded me of two insights that evolved from quantum mechanics around a question: Does the existence of the Universe depend upon an observer? The insights were a little vague in my mind, so, following Yogi Berra’s advice—“You could always look it up”—I did. In the famous double slit experience scientists shine light—a stream of photons—through two parallel slits that register on a screen behind the slits. First they measure the light with photon detectors. The result is not a surprise. The light passes through one or other of the slits and the screen reveals the photons acting like particles. Then they did the experiment again but removed the photon detector. They looked at the screen and they saw striped patters that suggested waves. The bottom line: the result—particles or waves—depends upon what the observer is looking for and measuring. Then there is Erwin Schrodinger’s famous suggestion. Put a cat in a box with a vial of poison gas, a piece of uranium and a Geiger counter hooked up to a hammer suspended above the gas vial. The uranium may emit a particle, the Geiger counter will notice it and send a signal to the hammer which will break the vile of poison. Thus, in terms of the old science, from outside the box the cat is either dead or alive. (Like our discussion about “life” in the universe it would seem that there are only two options.) But as Schrodinger points out, the particle and the cat now form a quantum system consisting of all possible outcomes—a dead cat or a live one. But neither becomes real until someone opens the box and looks inside. Source http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse Those who insist that the Universe in not living insist on the scientific method based on experiments. We are told that it is only through scientific experiments that this can be determined. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken) no one has conducted “life experiments” on Mars or, say, somewhere within one of the 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe. (They won’t know the answer to living or non-living that one until someone opens the “Universe box” and takes a look. In the mean time the non-living advocates seem to be taking the position that, since there is no scientific evidence to the contrary, there is only “dead stuff” out there. (I don’t know what the recent discovery of water on Mars by Nasa’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter signifies, if anything.) Those who think—but do not insist—that the universe is living know that, if life does exist in the universe, it is not like human or cellular life on earth. If it was we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Those of us who think the universe is living—and I am one of them—are using the term “life” analogously. (But, just because it is analogous does not mean it is not real.) We are saying that there is some creative energy source that seems very similar to life on Earth. To summarize, both sides are facing a mystery. But quantum mechanics reminds us that the concept of “life” is in the eye of the beholder. And, in terms of terms of hard evidence, we exist in the world of emergent possibilities. I’ve found this discussion interesting, particularly about the concept of the Universe as a living system. But I’m wondering about practical applications in this Anthropocene Age. As we continue to shut down Earth’s life-support systems, are we learning anything about how to carry out our work as Earth-system triage workers trying to preserve Earth’s life-giving gifts from the universe?
-
-
In reviewing the basic question for this discussion–Is the Universe a living system?—I find the answer hinges on the world “living.” And if “living” is linked to life as we know it on Earth and is based primarily on biological cellular activity, I think the answer to the question is “No”’.
But can we assume that the life in the universe is the same as life on Earth?
The way the original question is phrased assumes that if the universe is living its life must be the same as life on Earth. Life is Life. But we fail to recognize that we are using the term “living” analogously. We are actually saying life in the universe is “something like” what we call “life” on Earth. But just because it is analogous does not mean it is not real.
Why do we say that we are using the term “life” analogously? Because a defining characteristic of all life on Earth is the ability to reproduce. As far as we know, the universe cannot do what every species on Earth can do–reproduce itself. It cannot give birth to another universe (and in this manner it is similar to Earth which cannot create another Earth). Thus, in terms of life, the Universe is sui generis. In a word it is a different kind of life force.
We get much closer to the reality, I think, if we adopt the approach of the New Cosmology instead of a using a biological cellular comparison. This requires us to phrase the question differently. We ask, “Is there a creative life-giving force in the Universe.”
If we adopt a cosmological approach instead of a biological approach, if we rephrase the question from “a living system” to “a “creative life-giving force” we must also change our concept of cellular life to a concept of cosmological life.
According to the New Cosmology there is a cosmogenesis—a continual process of creation and re-creation. The characteristics of this life-force are individuation—the development of individual entities and species on Earth and in the universe (galaxies and stars); autopoeisis—an internal awareness and self-generating systems capacity; and community—a linking of everything on Earth and in the universe to everything else. The universe seems to have these capacities.
Then there is the question of where the living Earth came from. The Greek philosopher Parmenides established a principal that came down to us through Latin philosophers: ex nihilo nihil fit—“nothing can come out of nothing.” If Earth is a product of the Universe through the supernova (the explosion of a star that gave rise to the sun, Earth and the planets surrounding the sun four billion years ago) it would seem logical that life on Earth came from the creative life-giving force of the Universe itself.
Next there is the question of where we came from. The minerals from the supernova are in the crust of Earth and they are also within us. We are earthlings. In a sense, the stars are our ancestors.
Then there is the question of whether the Universe’s creative force still sustains life. I think we need only to look up at the sun and the atmosphere within which we exist to answer that question.
Finally our human history is replete with examples of very intelligent people believing that the universe is a creative life-force—specifically among indigenous people (mother sun, sister moon) but not only among indigenous peoples.
“Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence … a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.” Plato,Timaeus, 29/30; 4th century B.C.
“Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement, and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist; observe too the continuous spinning of the thread and the contexture of the web. “Marcus Aurelius, Stoic Philosopher and Roman Emperor, 2nd Century AD
Plato and Marcus Aurelius were keen observers of the world and universe in which they lived.
In summary, if we answer the question “Is the universe a living system?” by using life on Earth with its defining characteristic of cellular biology as the gold standard for determining life, I think the answer is “no.” It is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. But if we recognize that the universe is a creative life force—a different kind of life—and evaluate it within the context of the New Cosmology, I think the answer is “yes”. This works for me.
-
Duane, Many thanks for this excellent article by Larry Dorsey. It is wonderful. There is no doubt that we are deeply indebted to science. But the physicalism that he describes is a real problem. Dorsey does a great job of indicating how scientists themselves recognized the limits of their expertise and the need to reach out beyond sheer materialism. When I finished the article and sat back to think about what I had read a number of thoughts rushed into my head.
Dorsey’s discussion of physicalism reminded me of a New Yorker cartoon. A man in a business suit is looking down at his cat. The cat is sitting next to a litter box. The man says to the cat, “Never, ever think outside the box.” In a world of “wicked problems” we have to think outside the box.
Oreskes and Conway make the same point in their book The Collapse Of Western Civilizatio: A View From The Future. Scientists continue to demand that nothing is real unless it can be “proven” with 95% certainty. This just won’t work in a world of “wicked problems” and interlocking systems where our ability to predict is limited because reality is continually emerging.
I also thought of Thomas Berry’s observation that “Human consciousness is the universe reflecting upon itself.”
But most of all I thought of Einstein’s statement on consciousness. A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty”
Duane—thanks again.
-
Ed, thanks for your comment. You’ve helped me by your focus on other life forms. I’ve been waiting for something like this for a while.
There is a train of thought that says discussions go where they want to go so “go with the flow” and “don’t push the river.” We seem to have adopted this approach in this discussion.
It started out with the question is the Universe a living system? Since the universe is a “biggie” and quite mysterious it is hard to get a handle on it. So the question seems to have migrated to the question of whether Earth is living which is logical. We are more familiar with earth. (Also, since life may not be able to come out of non-life we might be able to argue that if Earth is living the universe must be living).
But from there in recent discussions it seems to have migrated again to an epistemological (as opposed to an ontological) question of whether intuition or extra sensory perception can be “scientifically validated. Not being a scientist I got lost about here which is why I was happy to see your comment, Ed, about swarms, birds, fish and trees. Along the way the word “system” found in the original question seems to have gotten lost.
It seems to me that if we are going to question whether Earth is a living system it is logical to explore whether there are, or are not, manifestations of life systems in other “life forms” and indeed in Earth itself.
As for “life forms”, because I’m of the opinion that all systems have their origin in or are modeled on systems in nature, it seems logical to explore this question. I think of the work of Gunderson and Bud Hollings – Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Then there is a very interesting one that is quite recent (2013) that I’m trying to read by Eduardo Kohn: How Forests Think; Towards An Anthropology Beyond Human. It is drawing a lot of attention.
Finally I’ve been fascinated by the huge system network of Utah’s Pando, a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and assumed to have one massive underground root system (Wikipedia) . It seems to have survived all kinds of life-threatening hazzards over an 80,000 year history.
In terms of Earth systems the most productive research I’ve come across is related to the Gaia Theory of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. There is a great article just posted on this on this website written by Bruno Latour How to make sure Gaia is not a God of Totality?* with special attention to Toby Tyrrell’s book On Gaia. And for those who want more of Latour you might try his 6 Gifford Lectures Facing Gaia:Six lectures on the political theology of nature; Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Edinburgh, 18th-28th of February 2013. I find the oral version easier to comprehend than the written version. ( PDF)
n conclusion, I don’t want to pretend that I understand everything that I’m reading. But, if we are going to consider whether Earth systems are living, we might consider some other life forms and focus on systems.
Mike Bell
-
