Wednesday, January 22, 2014

What Is Life - Part 2 of 3

What Is Life Part 2: Life In Our Existential Reality
What Is Life   [1]    [2]    [3]

The Problem With The Scientific Understanding Of Life

The number one problem with the scientific attempt to understand what life is, is that of shortsightedness (i.e. nearsightedness, of not being able to see much beyond the tip of one's nose) and tunnel vision (i.e. of being micro focus and micro fixated, and of losing the forest for the trees, seeing a tree and totally not understanding that he/she is in a forest). This is also one of the most universal problems of all scientific endeavors for the longest time. They focused on what they can see and detect and (implicitly) pronounced and proclaimed that it is all there is because that is all they know, (and because they have not being able to measure, detect or deduce or fantasize them,) that nothing else exist and can exist because they know nothing about anything else so there is no possibility of anything else existing. They know there is nothing else because they already know everything. That type of logic and reasoning, to anyone with even the slightest of sanity and even the slightest of intelligence would be understood as pure and simple pure unadulterated arrogance and stupidity (or as I precisely termed it - ego superfeeding or ego supergorging).

Today it is still the same, mostly (of course there are always a small number who being relatively more sane and are not totally given over to this universal greed and lust of ego supergorging). Now if this is only the very first time they are doing so (implicitly pronouncing that they already know about everything) ever, then we might still excuse them for being so arrogantly stupid because they lack experience and there was nothing before to learn from. But throughout the recorded history they would have learned (or should have learned anyway) that earlier scientists had done the same type of pronouncements and assertions (behaving and conducting themselves in all that they spewed forth from their mouths that implicitly and explicitly convey to all their assertions of being supremely intelligent, already knowing absolutely everything) which they today have learned were erroneous whether by little or much or totally.

Decades ago, when I was in my young schooling days, we were taught that all living things have certain definitive characteristic such as:
1. They must be mobile either explicitly, or implicitly (i.e. mobility through growth).
2. They must be able to grow.
3. They must be able to reproduce.
4. They must be organic.
5. They must respire (undergo respiration).

Much earlier than that (a few thousand years ago before science became the domain owned by super brilliant mega intelligent genius specialist expert and defining authority scientists) the very first definitive attribute of life was that it must be able to move, meaning have functional movement (i.e. meaning that if it does not have a functional ability to move it cannot be life) whether this movement is by some means of propulsion or of growth.

Things were so much simpler then before science became the sole property of ego mega supergorging scientists. But slowly over time those certain definitive characteristic started to change and cease to be definitive. Moving (but without the functional, because science totally refused to believe in purpose), respiring, growing, reproducing and being organic became not enough for something to be classified as living, as life. Life began to be required to do more (as long as no purpose is involved because reality and existence as per scientific definition and requirement, cannot have a purpose). That was because as our scientists had discovered in the last fifty to hundred or so years ago, that many things that are not living or organic are able to do (i.e. perform, carry out or undertake) these definitive things that all living things known to science then, do. There are so called non living things, things without life in them, things that are not alive and never were alive that need to respire (breath air), are able to grow or increase in size from its original size when it first begin (to exist as a separate unit or entity) and are able to reproduce (produce or generate copy or copies of itself whether in form or substance or both).

Today, many scientists are starting to say that some of these properties are not necessarily compulsory any more before something can be defined as life. But they also added a few more compulsory attributes that must be met before something can be classified as life (i.e. a life form) or as of being alive, such as (please note that these listed below are generalization of all the things that today science says about life):

1. Stabilize itself - maintain homeostasis. This is of course something the entire known universe has been doing since it started to grow (or expanded but not exploded) from Absolutely Nothing, increasing in size and giving birth to (or creating) planetary system and galaxies (and numerous other things) that have been as a whole fairly stable, continually stabilizing themselves for millions to billions of years, definitely for much longer than any single unit of life on earth whether single cellular or compound cellular.

2. Change - through natural selection adapt to changes in their environment in successive generations. This of course the entire known universe in its countless parts has been doing since it first began from Absolutely Nothing though it might not be the so called natural selection (i.e. a natural process) of Darwinian (as the supreme defining authority and creator god of all life) evolution but more of a natural cosmic selection (i.e. process).

3. Communicate - through various means internally and externally. Communication is basically a transport or movement of signal or energy. Tell me if the universe has not been doing that all along.

4. Structured - be structurally composed. Is the universe unstructured in total indefinable and indiscernible chaos? Just looking at our very own solar system should have answered that. How about molecules and compounds (of chemical elements) are these totally without structure?

5. Growth - growing in all aspect of its form or body rather than just in accumulation of matter or material as in bulk increase. I have seen fire starting out very small growing and growing in all aspect of its form until it ran out of sustenance. Tell me how much does that differ from a life cycle of birth, growth and death?

6  Etc., as may be added or changed from time to time. This is because they already know everything.

7. But any and all other attributes needed (as may be added and included in the future because scientists expressively already know everything, having absolute infallible knowledge of everything) for something to be classified as life or reality or to exist must not, must never ever have a purpose to it. If it does it cannot possibly be real and it cannot possibly exist because if there should ever be a purpose then it would show conclusively that a greater (and probably supreme) power and intelligence exist. And this would suggest that a CREATOR GOD of all things must exist. Then all these ego supergorging scientists would have to eat crow and humble pie and can no longer go around (implicitly and explicitly) gloating about themselves being the supreme know-it-all and greatest intelligence of the universe. 

Today one of the most crucial characteristic that something has to pass (as defined by NASA) before they can be classified as life (i.e.  a life form) is that they must undergo Darwinian - because he or his system/theory is the supreme defining authority and creator god of all life - evolution. That means that if a living organism or a species of organism refuses to undergo Darwinian evolution and the species stays the same genetically and morphologically for million to billions of years it would meant that the species in its individual unit as well as its collective unit through successive generations, they were never living organism, ever. Every single member of that species never ever was alive and they never ever had life and never ever did live for the millions to billions of years that they existed, reproduce, cooperate and compete for food and space but refused to evolved. Such an amazing discovery of science!

Have they learned anything that matters, that really matters yet? All they have done is defined how life should look like (i.e. appeared as, meaning appearances only) from what they know, asserting that if they do not know it, it just cannot be, it is not possible for it to be living and be alive if it does not function within their defined known parameters. They are defining the symptoms of life not the substance of life, defining the shadow without knowing the substance. This is just as they have defined the universe into Absolute Nothing because that is all that they can discern and then insisting that things can switch from non existence to existence then returning to non existence. They have finally totally lost understanding of the concepts of what ‘exist’ and what ‘not exist’ means (such that the word ‘exist’ and ‘not’ had been twisted so that it becomes a meaningless word having no real conceptual definition).

Without understanding for one nanosecond what being alive or to be living means how can they possibly understand what life is? And they are always insisting (implicitly so that they can deny explicitly that they ever said anything of that sort) that all they already know and assert (in their theories and fantasies) is all there is. For centuries until this very day, they have very plainly being insisting implicitly that if they don't know anything about something, that something just plain and simply cannot possibly exist, cannot be possible, cannot be real.

This is the very reason I railed against science, not because I don't appreciate and admire its discoveries, achievements, accomplishments and contributions, but because of its arrogance. The same ego supergorging arrogance of every children of pride. Pride, ego gorging, ego super feeding, arrogance - whatever you chose to call it - it has been the seed of evil, of all and every evil.

Greed and lust is what it is basically; greed and lust to the extend that a person would willingly, and even willfully, seeks to harm another, and not just another, but anyone and everyone if it comes to that, that they might be satisfied, might get some satisfaction, might get whatever they wanted or feel they are entitled to, have a right to. Greed and lust is, the be all and the end all of evil; and pride (or ego supergorging or superfeeding) is the first and greatest of all greed and lust. They are that which have been sowing, growing and perpetuating evil, every evil in every realm of existence for the longest time since.

Now some rules-based hairsplitters (i.e. another word for the arrogantly stupid) may accuse this author of making blanket statements and over generalization for accusing science of contributing to evil in the human social order by twisting of words and inventing spins to cause confusion so that truth and lies, real and unreal, exist and not exist become meaningless words. Anyone who would not be micro focused and refusing to see the big picture would understand (or should understand anyway) the concept of net effect or resultant effect. No doubt science have made tremendous contribution to advance knowledge and improve the lives of humankind generally, and if only they (science as a whole not the individual scientists some of whom may not be so bent on ego supergorging themselves as the majority) would be truly objective and true to the claims of their discipline to base their findings and assertions on proven facts rather than indulged in spins, twists and wild fantasies and delusion, the human social order would have understood by now the root cause to all the evil that have plagued humankind to this very day.

Other readers may be wondering how does theorizing or asserting that our universe began as Absolute Nothing even if this is totally false be considered to be an evil? We shan't at this time go into discussing how the arrogance of science have been contributing to the growth of evil in the human social order as that would be way off topic. But at the opportune time we shall discuss the great evils of science (even I have touched briefly on them in several of my published posts).

Life In Our Existential Reality

Let us begin our examination and analysis on what is life by looking first at ourselves. Well because obviously, if not for us, the question would never arise in the first place for us. So I think that is where we should start even as I wondered where we should end at, considering how our brilliant super intelligent genius men and women of science had told us and is telling us that it is all from and possibly ultimately towards Absolute Nothing:

So we shall consider:

1. Of life.
2. Of the living.
3. Of being alive

Because though life and living and being alive may seem synonymous they are not always.

Where Is The Life, According To Science

One of the very first things to know about life in our existential realm and reality is that of death. Things that have life can loose its life. Living things (or organism) die eventually either through a degenerative process called ageing, or through predation (being prey to predators or parasites), through starvation (in the lacking of nutrients and sustenance) or through a calamity such as an extinction event. In fact all living things (of our known, fully discernible reality) die eventually in any one of such manner. So if living things dies what it must mean is that the living is not the organic or chemical that composes or forms the living things. If chemical and/or organics is the living and the chemical and organic remains why then would the living thing cease to live. Obvious question, right?

If life is not in the chemical and the organic then where is it in? Is it in the electrical pulses that triggers and powers the motion (internal and/or external) and the appearance of being alive, of living? If it is the electric, then what turns it off to make the life cease? And what turns it on to make the life start? Are we now back to the chemical question, and that the chemical creates the electric? But the chemical is matter (both dark and bright and includes antimatter, so we are told), which according to science is half of the equation constituent of our existential universe (which according to mainstream science is all of existence, meaning everything that exist), with the other equation constituent energy, bright, not so bright and totally dark, of which electricity is a form or expression. And our universe began from Absolutely Nothing (i.e. a quantum vacuum) some 13 to 14 billion earth years ago before there was us, before there was life and before there was earth, before even there was before. So then life must have been from, or came from, Absolute Nothing that becomes everything after before began, right? Is this not logical that if everything (all of existence which is our universe) starts from nothing then anything at all must start from nothing with nothing, Absolutely Nothing? In the final analysis, science tells us that we have all come down to Absolute Nothing, Wonderful science!!!

I am sure glad I didn't know this stuff when I was schooling, if I had insisted to my teacher that everything is Absolute Nothing, I will be in detention everyday.

Imagine what my parents would had said if I had told them that I had aspired and would do everything I could so, spending their hard earned money to study very hard, so that I could one day be Absolute Nothing and to do Absolute Nothing. They would definitely be very upset and said that I was a lazy useless son who will amount to Absolute Nothing. And all these would have been over nothing, Absolutely Nothing. Man, I sure wish I had known this awesome truth and could give it as a valid proven astounding scientific justification every time I didn't do my lesson assignments (which incidentally were very often).

Imagine what you would be reading here if I have written Absolute Nothing.

While all these make no sense to me, I read that for a certain religion this will make complete perfect sense as it would be the absolute ultimate fulfillment of the purpose of life, all lives, to become Absolute Nothing. For once science and a religion appear to agree, and agree absolutely at Absolutely Nothing. Normally when we say we have Absolutely Nothing in common because we are in agreement over Absolutely Nothing it would mean that we are in total disagreement. But with this new scientific discovery and theory it seems that it is the most perfect and most complete of agreement. Wonderful science, now science and religion can finally get along.

But of course Absolute Nothing or quantum vacuum with science is not really absolutely nothing or not really a total quantum vacuum meaning they not absolute or total but just nearly absolute or nearly total, meaning there is still something but just so little that they might as well be nothing (or at least that is what I have surmised from all that they published on this Absolute Nothing of a quantum vacuum). I used to think (a long, long time ago) that science and mathematics deal with precise things, which of course I no longer think so having gain a bit of education from our super brilliant mega intelligent genius scientists that we all should never ever say exactly what we mean so that no one can ever really understand exactly what we are saying. Instead of saying nearly absolute nothing or nearly a quantum vacuum which would be true we must say Absolute Nothing or quantum vacuum which is not true. All this is so that one day we can twist our words to say that exploding is not exploding but expanding, and the smallest indivisible unit of matter the atom is not the smallest indivisible unit of matter, and matter is not matter at all, and reality is not real but virtual, and exist is not exist, truth are just lies in another guise, and whatever else we can come up with to deny something we once said, pretending that we never ever did say them.

I hope you are able to see (meaning, to understand) why I don't want to use the scientific approach, methodology and perspective to understand what life is, because everything goes back to nothing, Absolute Nothing and a twisting of words to not mean what they mean but to mean something else, whatever else other than what they meant. For science that is progress, great scientific progress, but for me being no expert on anything not even on Absolutely Nothing, forgive me my ignorance and serious lack of intelligence, but I can't help but feel that it is going nowhere as Absolute Nothing totally makes absolute no sense to me, and further when you twist your words and change your story (implicitly and/or explicitly saying you never said what you once said) all the time you should never be really trusted.

For science, absolute brilliant genius intelligence means that Absolute Nothing makes absolute perfect sense and perfectly explains everything about our reality (our physical universe). Me, personally, I think these ego gorgers and super feeders have all gone effectively insane. Anyone with even the tiniest bit of sanity would know (should know anyway) that nothing, Absolute Nothing, as a rational and logical reality concept cannot exist (i.e. have a conceptual meaning) without something and everything, because nothing owes its definition to something and something owes its definition (as a reality concept, not a theoretical concept) to everything. Because before nothing can be defined there has to be something to compare it with and likewise with something (i.e. the concept of the word, something) which can only be defined in relation to everything (that is to something else other than itself and consequently everything else has to be there). If something has nothing else to compare with, then something would by default become everything. For example, every word that you are reading here would not exist and be meaningless if we, humankind (or intelligent self aware personages), never existed to speak and understand these elements of communication. This should not be so difficult to understand that one has to be a rocket scientist before one can understand.

Nothing, something and everything. Fact is, Absolute Nothing is in (our discernible) reality a theoretical concept made possible by something and everything. Absolute Nothing (i.e. a quantum vacuum or total emptiness or totally devoid of anything) do not exist as a reality, obviously because it is absolute nothing. Don't get it wrong, here we are not talking about vacuum (as it is defined by science or as understood generally by the contemporary social norm), such as in a vacuum tube or when we suck the air out of a container. Anyone who knows anything at all about science will know that there is a huge difference between a vacuum and a quantum vacuum.

Science totally have no notion of what reality is, they have all along being trying to measure and to measure and to measure, thinking that by measuring they have got everything within their grasp that they will already know everything. Until to day, science still do not really understand the things they call the primary forces (such as gravity, electromagnetic forces, strong and weak forces, and anything else as our scientists may decide to come up with later) or mass or energy or temperature or space, and definitely not time. All they know about these things are from the perspective of dimension (occupying space), displacement and motion. They know how something works but not why they would work at all. They totally don't have a clue what these things really are or why they are there, why they exist that is the reason everything for them must start from Absolute Nothing and of Absolute Nothing because they can't figure out why anything exist at all.

Now they are trying to get us to the point where we will believe that there is really nothing there, Absolutely Nothing there at all. They will tell us that there is nothing real, Absolutely Nothing real, that we are all the figment of the imagination of Absolute Nothing wanting to be something, to be everything. That is what they are now effectively telling us when they theorize, hypothesize and assert that everything started out from nothing, Absolute Nothing.

Their whole premise to everything is that they must be able to measure it, if they can't, it therefore is not real or does not exist. That was in a way the same premise humankind thousand of years ago had which made them assert that the world was flat because they could not see very far. And that was exactly the same with illness and disease, humankind in ages passed, postulating all manner of things which today our great illustrious super brilliant mega intelligent genius scientists ridicule, because they (the ancients) just were then not able to discern the tiny micro organism that caused these illness and diseases. And it was just less than a century ago when scientist (i.e. in the field of medicine) asserted that all humankind needed to be healthy and thriving were proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. We shan't touch on what these scientists (i.e. in the field of medicine) today are asserting on what humankind need to do to be healthy and thriving because it has gotten so confusing that one cannot be faulted for believing that the only way to be healthy and thriving is to be not alive. I wondered will there come a time when our scientists will tell us that life basically is a terminal disease that we are all a walking disease, a walking death?

So have our great illustrious super brilliant mega intelligent genius scientists learned anything from history? Is this simple lesson too difficult and too impossible to learn and understand? Or is it because they like nearly all of humankind are driven by the same greed and lust of ego supergorging that they just plainly refuses to learn anything that does not allow them to go strutting around to present themselves to all and sundry that they are the super brilliant mega intelligent experts and defining authorities on everything, ridiculing anything and everything that they know nothing about, and also anyone and everyone who won't agree to worship (i.e. idolize) them.

Too simple and too plain to be understood: One of the most simple and basic thing to life is that it must be able to response to its environment and that would require that it first must be able to sense its environment. These are the very first causes of life if it is to come to life and to live thus to be alive and to be living. At the end of the day, everything still comes down to movement or displacement whether of life or even of so called non life of the universe starting out from (as what our great super brilliant mega intelligent genius scientists is today telling us) Absolutely Nothing. Crucial to movement are three things: space, time and power (or according to science energy and the primary forces). And if our scientists can be believed the first of all these would have been power (or according to science: energy followed by the primary forces), not the Absolute Nothing that science wants us all to believe and to believe in.

Life, Alive And Living

Let us now look at the differences between life, alive and living.

A man or woman (or child) can be alive and yet not alive. Or at least that is what our doctors have been telling us, that a person can be brain dead. Natural question then is, ‘If a person is brain death, is the person still alive or is the person not alive but dead?’ Or is, not alive and dead not necessarily the same thing, that someone not alive may not necessarily be dead?

Also because of genetic anomaly (i.e. degeneration and not the mutation advanced by Darwinist Evolutionist) or other biological or chemical causes, a baby may be born without a brain as we have occasionally read in the news. The baby doesn't appear dead at birth, at least for awhile. Natural question then, ‘Is a baby born without a brain alive or not alive?’ Now we are not going to touch on the question whether a baby in the womb is alive or not alive (as a human being) and at what point, even as it is relevant. This is because too many people are too eager to go to war and even to kill people over this issue and we really don't want to provoke people to go to war or to kill people over anything, even if they would do so regardless (or irregardless) of whatever we do or don't.

Medically a person who is brain dead can be kept alive for a very long time, but effectively the brain dead person is not really living (as having consciousness and the motivation and impetus functional process of life) even as there may be dispute as to whether the person is dead no longer having life or still alive. Effectively without artificial life support from medical equipment the brain dead person would usually die in a short period of time so without medical intervention the issue of whether the person is alive or dead would only be relevant and valid for this short period of a few minutes to at most a few days (for babies born without brains and other such).

If you have been following the news on the development in science and technology, you may have read about test tube babies, how embryos of human as well as animals are grown (for a while anyway) outside of the body of the mother. That of course should not surprise anyone, as all sort of living things have been doing this for millions to billions of years, the embryos growing in nutrient filled eggs with shells or membranes which totally separates the egg from the egg producer. But recently, it was reported that doctors were able to keep a human organ alive and living for a short period of time in a laboratory environment outside of being attached to a living organism. That it seem was some sort of medical and technological breakthrough. The point to bringing all this up is to identify the issue of defining life when life begins and when life ceases, what is the difference between life in a cell, life in an organ and life in a multi-cellular or multi-organ organism?

An egg and a sperm whether human, animals or plants or others (if there are), are these alive? Are they living? By today scientific definition and standard are both the egg and the sperm, life? Are they alive, certainly they are not living, not in the strictest sense? Do these have life, both by themselves cannot grow or reproduce or anything much? They certainly have the potential but only if they meet and combine and is nurtured (especially true for more advance complex organism) from within or from without.

And medical science can keep them (both the egg and the sperm) viable for years, frozen (i.e. in shutdown or suspended life mode). But are they alive, are they considered as life, they certainly aren't living. Here we are not talking about dormancy, when a living thing shuts down itself (its main living functions) in order to stay alive through harsh and non conducive conditions or while waiting for the conditions to be conducive to begin to function and grow (i.e. come alive, begin to be alive or to return to living activities).

How about a single cell or a group of cells in a multi-cellular organism whether plant or animal? Some examples would be: red blood cells, lymphocytes, etc. How about the leaf of a plant? Does it have life? Is it alive? Is it living? Some leaves can produce new plants or seedlings (or should it be called leaflings), meaning these leaves are able to propagate or produce new plants.

But most plant, when you pluck off the leaves, the leaves eventually dries up and dies. Even if you were to place it in water so they do not dry up, the leaves will still turn yellow or brown and eventually decay. Are these defined as life? Same thing if we cut off our fingers, toes, hands, legs or ears. All these things were they living before we cut them off. In theory if we can continue to sustain them with the needed nutrients they will continue to be 'alive'. But are they? They might have the potential if our science and technology is utilized to manipulate them as our scientists have been experimenting and trying to do which they (the scientists) believe that one day they can take a finger and grow it into a full complete living, alive human being.

Obviously than life, alive and living don't always mean the same thing. Some looking for an excuse to prevent from losing face for not understanding what life is might accused us of playing with words. Our point is that you cannot separate life from being alive and being alive from living, and that if you cannot grasp this simple thing you really have no notion of what you are talking about when you think you understand what life is.

Can you see (i.e. understand) why science struggles so to answer the question of life, what is it, how to define it. Basically and simply because they don't really know what life is. They just made some scientific observation (of things they can measure) and then they made an ‘educated’ guess. That was centuries ago. But it is the same today.

Many (but not all) of the things that science tells us (though not explicitly, meaning implicitly either in deception or in purposeful ignorance I don't know) are scientific facts are basically just mere postulation albeit with some supporting non definitive evidence that could imply any number of things if they were arranged (or stringed together) differently. Things such as: the universe is some primal forces and matter the smallest indivisible unit of which was the atom (which today is no longer so, the passing of the years have changed all that, with new things somehow miraculously appearing from being non existent to exist by ‘some acts’ of some ‘non existence cosmic evolutionary forces’); the Universe beginning with a big explosion (now of course it is no longer an explosion and never was but was all along an expansion, which sometime in the future may have all along been a Darwinian evolutionary growth process) from a tiny (by comparison) super mega compressed dense ball of matter (which today of course is a so call quantum vacuum or in lay man's term absolutely nothing at all, definitely not matter, dense or otherwise); of how life on earth began in a chemical soup (which today may not be but could possibly be from some space rock with life hiding inside crashing into earth eons ago or whatever else they may conjure up next, a few decades or centuries from now).

Now I am not going to answer all those questions I raised above. Well, firstly because I am no expert on anything thus I am not (being in no position to be) challenging these great scientific assertions. Secondly because the concept of life that we are discussing will show (in the next installment of this discussion) that life is not in the organic, not in the chemical or the electric, at all; or in cells or in any of things that science thinks is life. Well firstly what science thought was life was essentially a container, some chemical reactions and electricity, which today we would (or should anyway) understand it as a type of machine, an organic machine, or as in one of the Star Trek movies, the movie producer had us termed as carbon units’ (which of course is not accurate, but then it was just a movie, or make believe) by the near omnipotent machine character that started its existence as a mechanical, exploring satellite created by our scientists.

Would anyone reading this be surprised if our super brilliant, mega intelligent genius scientists were to tell us in a few decades or centuries from now that life exactly just like our universe, just miraculously (or magically, whichever is your preferred word) appeared from out of Absolute Nothing, from non existence into existence just like they are today telling us how this humongously huge universe of ours started out as - Absolutely Nothing (or a quantum vacuum), and just grew and grew (or expanded and expanded but definitely not exploded, not any more and therefore it never did) and how things can come into existence from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, from non existence. If all existence started from non existence of Absolutely Nothing, why would it be impossible for life to start from non existence and Absolutely Nothing to become life? I wouldn't know the answer as I know almost absolutely nothing about science. And everything being Absolute Nothing just doesn't make sense to me.

Some good questions all these super brilliant, mega intelligent genius scientists should be asking themselves if they are still sane enough is what is: non existence and what is existence; what is something and what is nothing; what is real and is not real, are they all the same thing? Are they trying to drive all of humankind effectively insane so that we can no longer know what anything means at all? They are now trying to make everything into meaningless confusion such that everything no long has any real definition (attributes and values) that separate them one from another? If anyone is discerning they should have seen this coming from the trends and directions the social norm the leading developed and intellectually advanced and so called enlightened nations have been advancing and moving the whole social order of humankind towards, being touted as great enlightenment and human social progress.

One thing that I did notice that science totally left out when they try to define life, and that one thing is what science says life totally absolutely cannot ever be, that is way beyond impossible for life to be. And that one thing is that life cannot be something created by an all powerful god who has life and who create everything (all that exist as his creation) including our universe. That should have been science number one criteria for defining life, that it must not, must never ever be something an all power creator god create or impart, meaning that if it is then it cannot be life but something unreal which cannot exist even as Absolutely Nothing can exist as Absolutely Nothing to become absolutely everything so that it can (probably) eventually return to being Absolutely Nothing. However knowing science thus far (i.e. from the track record or past to current behavior), how they are able to redefine words so that they mean the exact opposite of what they meant, either that or to mean something else altogether, we must be prepared for science in some future time to make the concepts and meaning in ‘absolutely cannot be’, ‘beyond impossible’, ‘must not, must never ever’ to be something else either exactly opposite or whatever they may decide to twist it to mean in some future time.

Previous Post: What Is Life Part 1 - Definition And Theory
Next Post: No New Post Since January 2014

Special Note
Please note that all discussion by this author are based on a general non expert assessment of information gathered from material published in the public domain (i,e, readily available to members of the public). All of this author's discussions are presented as material for any and all lay person with no special expertise. Anyone twelve years of age and older, who is not mentally incapacitated in some ways, would (or should anyway) be able to understand any and all the discussions of this author. You do not need to be an expert or a genius to understand the simple and straight forward truths discussed by this author.
All “proclaimed and acclaimed” super mega brilliant supremely intelligent geniuses leading experts, defining master authorities, super holier than GOD man, women, entities and beings of whatever godly glorious illustrative mega holy and reverent titles, please go somewhere else to announce and proclaim your supreme superiority and lowest humility over all other members of humankind.

Last Updated: 2014 10 24
First Posted: 2014 01 22
© Quah 2013 - 2014. All rights reserved.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments relevant to the topics and issues of discussion are welcome from everyone of any view or opinion as long as these are not intended to maliciously malign others without basis or to be purposely offensive. Advertisement and spams will not be accepted.