What is Life?

620-750nm

That's because your "point" is fuzzy. Then you are applying a definition of those colors relative to your vision. So yellow is clear? Blue is clear? And green is fuzzy? Can't you also just as easily recognize green? It is defined as well.See, what you are missing is that the reason you recognize any color at all is because it is defined. Sure, I agree with you that there is a continuum of light and colors. But isn't a ruler a continuum also? But can't we define 1mm, 1cm, 1m? Once we define it it is recognizeable.Is there a visible difference in .999m and 1.0m. It's fuzzy at arms length, but is is clear close up, because of the definition. It is green, because it is defined that way. We could argue all we want. But if it is defined, it is defined. Again, that depends on the definition. Again, I agree that light is a continuum. But a continuum can be defined in science. However, You are claiming that "Life" is a continuum. So I ask you to establish that claim. Life is nothing like light. What you have here is a bold claim that needs supporting evidence. As I understand you, you are saying "life' is just a contiuum of chemical reactions. Ok, you need to establish that continuum.For instance. Metabolism. All life has it. All non-life doesn't. It appears digital to me. Please demonstrate that this is a continuum.Reacting to stmuli. This also appears digital to me.Now one might could argue that some pillars are contiuums, but not all. So I ask you to scientifically support your claim that life is a continuum.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : added clarification

Yet another analogy that doesn't work. A dead person is about 99.99999% alive.But we can without a clear definition of life still recognize it and recognize it's absence. Yes, illogical, falacious scientists do argue this way. But the reality is that life is digital. It is on or off. It is alive or not alive. Therefore if you have seven qualities or processes that identify ALIVE!, you must have all seven. It's like having to turn on seven switches in order to open the logic gate for "on". Open six, and it is still off. Yes, I read your circular definition of "evolution" in post # 10. Au contraire! Your circles just lead to equivocations on evolutionary terms. The seven/six pillars is all seven/six in the "on" position (my suggestion is six). No continuum. Not at all like light.

By George, me thinks he's got it! That why it is called green. It is not yellow, and it is not blue. It is green.A virus is indeed an interesting chemical combination. It is not blue, it is not yellow. It is green. It is a virus! You see, with all that arguing, you have now realized your answer. Is a virus alive? No. Is a virus dead? No. What is it? Well it is viral (green).So the only question remains then is, is life a continuum or is it not? I say it is digital. In that case the virus is dead. You seem to think there is a continuum. In your case the virus is not alive and it is not dead. But this is only true if there is a continuum. Yes, I've heard this claim. I understand the claim. I am asking you to establish that "life" is a continuum. The claim relies on that premise. You are going to have to make this more clear. I think you have a non-sequitor here. It would be similar to saying what we eat is dead, but it becomes alive. This is not an OOL issue, because life already exists. Did you read it? The author assumes life is emmergent. That would be a continuum. You just can't arbitrarily assume that. You must establish that, and that is what I am asking you to do. I don't know how you could call this desent. This article has no scientific value. It is merely speculation. And speculation after speculation. Bingo. it is an assumption of philosophical naturalism. If Life exists, then it must have self organized in some progressive way. It is my contention that this must be established rather than assumed. I have aready said that I think the evidence is clear that life is digital. We clarify living things as dead or alive.Now remember, I only agree with six of the seven pillars of life. I think that natural selection uses circular reasoning. However, the other six don't. Yet, the other six are distinct things/processes. A program is a distinct thing which controls the life. Compartmentalization is a distinct thing. You can have both with a RNA molecule inside a lipid bilayer or a capsid, but you don't have life. No one considers a virion alive. We of course need metabolism/energy. Which is another distinctly defined process. So each of the six pillars can be found in non-living substances/processes, but it tales all six to be alive as the things which we call life today.