04 Dec '07 03:14>1 edit
Originally posted by amanniontoo am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.
No, I agree. It's almost as if we're required to question, isn't it?
I too am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.
But in the end, t don't think there's a terribly strong case to suggest that life is 'for' anything.
"Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."
(Newton's First Law of Motion)
Is it proper to use Newton's law of inertia with respect to the origins of life? I don't know.
But in the end, the wonder and beauty and mystery doesn't have to have a reason for being. I'm interested in the why and how, but the question that you seem to be heading towards is the what for, and I don't think there's a terribly strong case to suggest that life is 'for' anything.
It is not my intention to move towards any significant conclusion either way (you have no idea how difficult it is to stifle my own personal bias on this issue). Whether life ultimately has a purpose or not, it is still a fascinating question to ponder. Perhaps because I'm pressing the issue it seems that I am intentionally framing the debate, but the truth is I'm simply asking a question which science has not yet adequately answered. As vistesd has pointed out before, the question itself, "what is life for," carries with it its own preconceptions. Whether those preconceptions are misconceptions is something science has not yet touched upon, as science is not prepared to address the origin of all life. And until science has rightly understood why and how life began in the first place, nobody can legitimately make any sweeping statements about whether life has a purpose or not.
People like Dawkins, for instance, are perfectly comfortable with a vague notion of the origin of life; dealing primarily with large numbers and off-hand estimates as to the probability of living creatures spontaneously coalescing within the primordial soup, and never coming close to tackling the issue head on. While scientists working on the human genome have admitted candidly that the probability of the spontaneous self-assembly of DNA is inconceivably small and that the origin of life remains a mystery. Essentially what origin of life research has been able to conclude thus far is that life must come only from life (if anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know).