Thread: Why is the following thought incorrect? "We must have opposites in this life for life to exist".

If you were wondering where I got this, it was from one of my previous threads. I had a thought (Not a theory) on how life could have been started. At any rate I can see opposites in everything and am still not convinced that this sentence, "We must have opposites in this life for life to exist", is incorrect. I had someone on the last thread say a chicken sandwich does not have an opposite. I entertained this thought for a brief moment but in all actuality the chicken sandwich was what a human created with what the world provided. Unlike the rock which is dead/non-living, v/s the tree which is living/alive. At one point someone proceeded to tell me that simple thought or existence of opposites is what mankind had created.

You have things that live and things that die. You have up and you have down. You have wet and you have dry. You have cold and you have hot. You have positive and you have negative. You have happiness and you have sadness. I

I like to think I am intelligent in many different ways, but the more I live the more I find out just how much I don't know. Which may in fact be the only intelligent part about me.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

still not convinced that this sentence, "We must have opposites in this life for life to exist", is incorrect.

Not so much "incorrect" as "unsupported".

I entertained this thought for a brief moment but in all actuality the chicken sandwich was what a human created with what the world provided

Okey doke: let's break it down.
What's the opposite of "chicken" (for the filling)? Of "wheat" (for the bread)? How about the margarine: margarine is made from plant oils and may also contain milk - what's the opposite of "oils" (plant or otherwise), of "milk"?

Unlike the rock which is dead/non-living, v/s the tree which is living/alive.

Okay, what's the opposite of "tree"?
"Fruit"?
"Water"?

You have wet and you have dry. You have cold and you have hot.

"Dry" is the absence of "wet", likewise "cold" is the absence of "heat" ¹.
What's the opposite of 373 kelvin?

You have happiness and you have sadness

Maybe. But are "happiness and sadness" requirements for life?
Do trees get happy?


1 And both of those "absences" are merely relative rather than absolute in the vast majority of cases. (Look at the temperature on a "hot" day and that on a "cold" day. In kelvin there's not a great deal of difference - hardly "opposites").

The definition of opposite.

1. having a position on the other or further side of something; facing something, esp. something of the same type.

2.
diametrically different; of a contrary kind.



A chicken represents life as does wheat. Rock represents lifelessness. You talk about plant oils and milk but what do you need to create these things? You need something living. The opposite of living is non-living. I will admit that there are things that humans have made or things that have been produced that do not have an opposite (Such as a chicken sandwhich, margarine, etc.), but if we break those things down to beginning of how they came to be, we will eventually come to something that is part of an opposite. Such as living and non-living.

So you are right when you say that happiness and sadness are requirements of life. Which means that the "life" is living. Which is the opposite of non-living.

In order for fruit to have become (It is a product of something living, which again is the opposite of non-living) it must have been part of something that was living.

Water deals with the opposites of wet and dry. You said dry is the absence of wet. Which I take to mean has no moisture/water. Where there is water there is wetness and it is definitely not dry. Well I guess you could say wet is dry with some water/moisture mixed together. Since dry is not the same as wet then it can be concluded that wet and dry are opposites.

We do base hot and cold off of ourselves, but not only do we do so but so does the things around us. 33 degrees Fahrenheit to water is not the same as 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Absolute zero is not the same to water as 32 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the observation you can gain from looking at water, any temperature that is not the exact same as the other can be considered an opposite.

Now I will allow you once more to show me what I got wrong.lol I like conversations like these.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

The definition of opposite.
1. having a position on the other or further side of something; facing something, esp. something of the same type.
2. diametrically different; of a contrary kind.

And so far you haven't given any "diametrically different" examples.
(And don't forget that "diametrically different" is, once again, a purely human convention. Unless you can show otherwise).

A chicken represents life as does wheat. Rock represents lifelessness. You talk about plant oils and milk but what do you need to create these things? You need something living. The opposite of living is non-living.

Okay so you're claiming, apparently, that life arises from opposites (and not what results from life ¹).
So what are the "opposites" that give rise to life?

I will admit that there are things that humans have made or things that have been produced that do not have an opposite (Such as a chicken sandwhich, margarine, etc.)

Wait!
You STILL haven't given opposites for ANY of the non-human-produced examples I've named.

we will eventually come to something that is part of an opposite. Such as living and non-living.

So, essentially, all you've got is "living and non-living" are the "opposites" that MUST exist for life to exist?
It's a bit... um, thin, isn't it?

So you are right when you say that happiness and sadness are requirements of life.

Let's take a look at what I DID write:

Originally Posted by Me

But are "happiness and sadness" requirements for life?

So, actually, I didn't say that. I asked a question.

Which means that the "life" is living. Which is the opposite of non-living.

And your "response" comes down to, again, "living and non-living" are the "opposites" that MUST exist for life to exist.

In order for fruit to have become (It is a product of something living, which again is the opposite of non-living) it must have been part of something that was living.

Which avoids the question I asked altogether.

Water deals with the opposites of wet and dry. You said dry is the absence of wet. Which I take to mean has no moisture/water. Where there is water there is wetness and it is definitely not dry. Well I guess you could say wet is dry with some water/moisture mixed together. Since dry is not the same as wet then it can be concluded that wet and dry are opposites.

And, one more time: Wet and dry are NOT absolutes. Something we call dry very likely (almost certainly) contains some water. Ergo Dry is not "no water" it's "water below a certain threshold".

We do base hot and cold off of ourselves, but not only do we do so but so does the things around us. 33 degrees Fahrenheit to water is not the same as 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Absolute zero is not the same to water as 32 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the observation you can gain from looking at water, any temperature that is not the exact same as the other can be considered an opposite.

Oh good. So 32 degrees is the opposite of 33. As is 35, 107, -50 etc.
So glad we cleared that up.

1 Which also appears to be a move of the goalposts. Again. But... meh.

Ok let's break it down a little further shall we. lol

Anything in life is either living or non-living. Can we agree to that?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Anything in life is either living or non-living. Can we agree to that?

Nope.
Where do viruses fall on your scale for example?
At some point in Earth's history (unless you go for the "goddidit" claim) something non-alive "gave birth" to something alive.
The cross-over is very iffy.
Where does "hot" switch over to "cold"?
Tall switch over to "short"?

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

I am coming to a thought that something non-living did in fact give birth to something living. I think it has a lot to do with opposites. That's why I have been trying to figure out all this. What are your reasons you say "NOPE"? Tall and short are words that humans created. The switching from hot to cold depends on the thing (Living or not) being introduced to the temperature.

Take something that is living. We humans can take and transform this living thing into a non-living thing. So there is a switch.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

If you were wondering where I got this, it was from one of my previous threads. I had a thought (Not a theory) on how life could have been started. At any rate I can see opposites in everything and am still not convinced that this sentence, "We must have opposites in this life for life to exist", is incorrect. I had someone on the last thread say a chicken sandwich does not have an opposite. I entertained this thought for a brief moment but in all actuality the chicken sandwich was what a human created with what the world provided. Unlike the rock which is dead/non-living, v/s the tree which is living/alive. At one point someone proceeded to tell me that simple thought or existence of opposites is what mankind had created.

You have things that live and things that die. You have up and you have down. You have wet and you have dry. You have cold and you have hot. You have positive and you have negative. You have happiness and you have sadness. I

I like to think I am intelligent in many different ways, but the more I live the more I find out just how much I don't know. Which may in fact be the only intelligent part about me.

I get what you are saying. Even for synapses to connect you need opposites. We need to drink, eat,and absorb sun light to move forward in each new moment against the pull of gravity. Opposites exist in all entities or are in a balance between the two. This is simple a concept, once accepted fully it is much easier to piece this puzzle together. Life is able take advantage of time as it moves into the past, present, and the future.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

The statement that viruses are non-living entities, is a statement I can agree with.
However, I wish to refer to this recent thread, where other users disagree with us for good reasons.


PS: I am actually confused by your idea of opposites and its relevance to the origin of life. It is not an idea that I have encountered in the field of abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by YangYin

Life is able take advantage of time as it moves into the past, present, and the future.

I like Doctor Who too, but it would be best not to use it in your arguments.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Viruses are not living things.

Oh good.
Now all we have to do is let everyone else know.

I think it has a lot to do with opposites.

Why?

What are your reasons you say "NOPE"?

Um, did you look at the link?
Viruses aren't exactly alive, but neither are they exactly non-living.
You did see the words "Viruses straddle the definition of life" didn't you?

Tall and short are words that humans created.

Even worse, they're concepts that humans created.
Ergo: tall is only the "opposite" of short as far as humans are concerned.

The switching from hot to cold depends on the thing (Living or not) being introduced to the temperature.

Which doesn't answer, or even address, my question: Where does "hot" switch over to "cold"?

Take something that is living. We humans can take and transform this living thing into a non-living thing. So there is a switch.

And that switch would be... what?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

At any rate I can see opposites in everything...

What is the opposite of a rock?
Is everything living the opposite of a rock?
Is a camel the opposite of a rock?

Opposites exist in all entities or are in a balance between the two. That's exactly what I have been trying to prove. Thanks for this post. It just makes since.

Lets say that in the very beginning there was nothing. No planets, stars, or life. I am saying that this "nothingness" is where the balance of things were. There was nothing around to have an opposite. And since there was nothing around to have an opposite this caused the two sides, which are typically opposite from one another, to reside within this nothingness. Intertwining much like our DNA does.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

At any rate I can see opposites in everything

Yet you skirted (well) away from this view with the words "I will admit that there are things that humans have made or things that have been produced that do not have an opposite" and later with "According to the observation you can gain from looking at water, any temperature that is not the exact same as the other can be considered an opposite" given that the definition of "opposite" that YOU provided was "1. having a position on the other or further side of something; facing something, esp. something of the same type. 2. diametrically different; of a contrary kind" (neither of which is fulfilled by simply "not the exact same thing").

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

At any rate I can see opposites in everything...

What is the opposite of a rock?
Is everything living the opposite of a rock?
Is a camel the opposite of a rock?

You would need to look into the atomic and subatomic structure of a rock to find its opposites.

The fact YangYin agrees with you is not a good thing. He has yet to post anything that isn't made up nonsense. Edit to add, the above post is a good example.

If you are saying that typed what you have in red then you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Opposites exist in all entities or are in a balance between the two. That's exactly what I have been trying to prove. Thanks for this post. It just makes since.

Except that it is STILL an unsupported claim.
You haven't even managed to give illustrative examples.

Lets say that in the very beginning there was nothing. No planets, stars, or life. I am saying that this "nothingness" is where the balance of things were. There was nothing around to have an opposite. And since there was nothing around to have an opposite this caused the two sides, which are typically opposite from one another, to reside within this nothingness. Intertwining much like our DNA does.

This is word salad.
If there's nothing, specifically "nothing around to have an opposite", then by definition there CANNOT be "two sides, which are typically opposite from one another".

For anything to be or exist in this world it but first be based upon these two oposites. Living or non-living.

Virus's are not living. I suggest you go re-read your link. It needs a host to spread itself. At any rate I did not skirt away from anything. Just because you say that I did does not make that so. I said that a chicken sandwich may not have an opposite but that does not mean that its existence was not based on the following two opposites. Living and non-living. The chicken sandwich's existence relies on the opposites of living and non-living. The question of how did we get here is also based upon these opposites. Living and non-living.

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

At any rate I can see opposites in everything...

What is the opposite of a rock?
Is everything living the opposite of a rock?
Is a camel the opposite of a rock?

You would need to look into the atomic and subatomic structure of a rock to find its opposites.

Well, think of a rock and tell me what the opposite of it is.

I see it more than word salad. We either came from something living or something non-living.

Just because there is nothing around, does not mean that this "law of opposites" does not apply. If we came from something living you say, who or what made it. You continue on that path until you find something that is non-living or you find the answer is nothing. This should not stop the questioning. I am suggesting that opposites would apply outside of this nothingness and since there is nothing, then the "law of opposites" reside within the nothingness.

Ok a rock is non-living and therefore anything that is living is opposite from it. Thoughts, concerns, comments?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Opposites exist in all entities or are in a balance between the two. That's exactly what I have been trying to prove. Thanks for this post. It just makes since.

Lets say that in the very beginning there was nothing. No planets, stars, or life. I am saying that this "nothingness" is where the balance of things were. There was nothing around to have an opposite. And since there was nothing around to have an opposite this caused the two sides, which are typically opposite from one another, to reside within this nothingness. Intertwining much like our DNA does.

I believe modern physics believes you can create something from nothing whereas I do not. Nothing from nothing is always nothing. The laws of conservation, implies infinity an infinity of something. DNA I think is a good example as perpetual motion incorporates ninety degree angles. In the DNA strand 36 degrees will be the argument but does not take in account the curvature of time and space.

Agreed

I am not aware of the curvature of time and space. I will have to look into that and post my thoughts on that.

yes. Because it is living, and the rock is non-living.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

At any rate I can see opposites in everything...

What is the opposite of a rock?
Is everything living the opposite of a rock?
Is a camel the opposite of a rock?

You would need to look into the atomic and subatomic structure of a rock to find its opposites.

Well, think of a rock and tell me what the opposite of it is.

Electrons and protons, up and down quarks.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Ok a rock is non-living and therefore anything that is living is opposite from it. Thoughts, concerns, comments?

Which is what I first asked: "Is a camel the opposite of a rock?"
So your answer is: "Yes - a camel is the opposite of a rock."
And what does that have to do with the atomic/sub-atomic structure of the rock?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

For anything to be or exist in this world it but first be based upon these two oposites. Living or non-living.

Support required.

Virus's are not living. I suggest you go re-read your link.

The one that states:
There is no precise definition of what separates the living from the non-living.
Although there is no definitive resolution to the question of whether viruses can be considered living entities
viruses out number all other life forms
That one?

At any rate I did not skirt away from anything. Just because you say that I did does not make that so.

So when you wrote (and I quote) I can see opposites in everything and then you also state there are things that ... do not have an opposite you weren't skirting.
Okay.
You were directly contradicting yourself. Or talking bullshit. (I.e. how can you see opposites in EVERYTHING when you openly admit there things that don't have opposites?).
My bad.

The chicken sandwich's existence relies on the opposites of living and non-living. The question of how did we get here is also based upon these opposites. Living and non-living.

Unsupported claim.
Repeating the same claim does NOT make it true.

But not only that but it is a non-living thing. Non-living things are opposites of living things.

Originally Posted by YangYin

I believe modern physics believes you can create something from nothing whereas I do not. Nothing from nothing is always nothing. The laws of conservation, implies infinity an infinity of something. DNA I think is a good example as perpetual motion incorporates ninety degree angles. In the DNA strand 36 degrees will be the argument but does not take in account the curvature of time and space.

This post spreads the unpleasant odor of bovine excrement.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

If you are saying that typed what you have in red then you are mistaken.

Are you referring to post #9?

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Well, think of a rock and tell me what the opposite of it is.

Electrons and protons, up and down quarks.

So, the opposite of a rock (which is made of electrons and protons) is electron and protons.
You are not very successful at making sense.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Ok a rock is non-living and therefore anything that is living is opposite from it.

Nonsense.
That makes everything alive the "opposite" of everything that is not alive. Collectively AND individually.
Which does not fulfil the definition that YOU provided.

Just because there is nothing around, does not mean that this "law of opposites" does not apply

Except this "law of opposites" appears to exist solely in your mind.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

But not only that but it is a non-living thing. Non-living things are opposites of living things.

But you agree that a camel is the opposite of a rock, yes?

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by YangYin

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Well, think of a rock and tell me what the opposite of it is.

Electrons and protons, up and down quarks.

So, the opposite of a rock (which is made of electrons and protons) is electron and protons.
You are not very successful at making sense.

Or you are not very successful at understanding

Originally Posted by YangYin

Or you are not very successful at understanding

Nope. It's definitely you that doesn't make sense - as my reply pointed out.
And it is not the first time you've posted nonsense, and it's not the first time someone has pointed that out to you.

But sure - if you want to think it is everyone else and not you, then you carry on with your delusion.
It is not my job to make you rational.

Now this is getting quite rediculous. If you re-post something I wrote please include the entire sentence.

I will admit that there are things that humans have made or things that have been produced that do not have an opposite (Such as a chicken sandwhich, margarine, etc.), but if we break those things down to beginning of how they came to be, we will eventually come to something that is part of an opposite. Such as living and non-living.

You want me to explain why these two opposites (Living and non-living) must exist if we are to exist? Ask me a question so I can prove it.

Is a virus living or dead? Here's my link since we are posting them. Are Viruses Living?

I can tell you how I see opposites in everything.

Let's take the damn chicken sandwich. In order for that to exist it must, it must have came from other things. Chicken sandwiches dont just grow. If you look at what they chicken sandwich consist of you will then know these things were once living before they was made to be used in a chicken sandwich. Living things are the complete opposite of non-living things. No contradictions. Just an inability to see through a thread post that was poorly written. I will do better to make it clearer.

Yes. Say it with me now. Because it is living and the rock is non-living.

I will get more into the great nothingness once you can clearly see, understand, and admit that living and non-0living things are the complete opposite of one another. Are you different then a rock? What makes you different than a rock? Your living right?

Are you different than a rock? What makes you different than a rock? You simply living?

I see what you were saying now. My apologies for the previous reply. So are you not in agreement that non-living things and living things are opposites? Everything we can see fits into one of those two categories.

Everything like rocks,plants,trees, sand, dirt,etc. fits into one of two categories. Living and non-living.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I will admit that there are things that humans have made or things that have been produced that do not have an opposite (Such as a chicken sandwhich, margarine, etc.), but if we break those things down to beginning of how they came to be, we will eventually come to something that is part of an opposite. Such as living and non-living.

But if a chicken sandwich is non-living, then the opposite of a chicken sandwich is a camel, yes?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Yes. Say it with me now. Because it is living and the rock is non-living.

Could you quote which post you are replying to please.

If you put them both in the appropriate category (living or non-living) than yes. It sounds weird if you don't consider these two opposites.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Are you different than a rock? What makes you different than a rock? You simply living?

Many many things make me different to a rock, not simply living.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

If you put them both in the appropriate category (living or non-living) than yes. It sounds weird if you don't consider these two opposites.

But you agree that the opposite of a chicken sandwich is a camel, yes?

This is post #34

But you agree that a camel is the opposite of a rock, yes?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I see what you were saying now. My apologies for the previous reply. So are you not in agreement that non-living things and living things are opposites? Everything we can see fits into one of those two categories.

Apart from viruses.

You would be correct RedPanda. That is what I am saying. Ask yourself that question what is your answer? And reason for that answer please. Thanks

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

This is post #34

But you agree that a camel is the opposite of a rock, yes?

I don't think you understand how quoting works and what its purpose is.

You quote the message you are replying to IN the message you are replying with.
That way we know what you are actually responding to.

As I said to one of the other members.

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

Thoughts, concerns, comments?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

You would be correct RedPanda. That is what I am saying. Ask yourself that question what is your answer? And reason for that answer please. Thanks

Please quote the post you are replying to - INSIDE your reply.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

But not only that but it is a non-living thing. Non-living things are opposites of living things.

It is useful to seek a definition to what constitutes living versus non-living things. I tend to favour the notion that the definition of whether something is living or non living is linked to entropy. Schrodinger invested a lot of his time on this question. Life appears to create order by harvesting negentropy until their usefulness is over, contrary to inanimate things (which simply blithely obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Biological systems tend to operate far from equilibrium unlike inanimate things that ultimately progress towards this state. Living things harvest internal order from energy taken their surroundings and return an equivalent amount of energy to the surroundings as heat and entropy.

Interestingly from the physics perspective, entropy is invariant and cannot be transformed away through symmetrical operations, gives a necessary asymmetry to provide a causal factor to emergent theories and appears to be a useful concept for abiogenetic questions given the relationship between entropy and information theory. :-))

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Thoughts, concerns, comments?

Yes - I have a comment: quote the post you are replying to!

I am learning how this site runs. I am still quite new to this. Anyways POST #34 is the one I was replying to.

To which statement I made

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

You would be correct RedPanda. That is what I am saying. Ask yourself that question what is your answer? And reason for that answer please. Thanks

What is correct?
What are you saying?
Ask myself which question?

Do you know what would help?
QUOTES!!

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I am learning how this site runs. I am still quite new to this.

There's a button on the bottom right of each message.
It is labelled "Quote".
Click it.

Or you can simply copy and paste the original message and put quotes around it.

But the quote button is not difficult to use.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

As I said to one of the other members.

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

Thoughts, concerns, comments?

See post #9.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

Interestingly from the physics perspective, entropy is one of the few invariants that cannot be transformed away through symmetrical operations, gives a necessary asymmetry to provide a causal factor to emergent theories and appears to be a useful concept for abiogenetic questions given the relationship between entropy and information theory. :-))

What does that mean in layman's terms?

Post #47

but you agree that the opposite of a chicken sandwich is a camel, yes?

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Now this is getting quite rediculous. If you re-post something I wrote please include the entire sentence.

Why?
The sense doesn't alter.
You claimed:
1) to be able see opposites to everything.
2) that some things don't have opposites.
One of those two has to be wrong - they're mutually exclusive statements.

You want me to explain why these two opposites (Living and non-living) must exist if we are to exist? Ask me a question so I can prove it.

You have been asked to support this more than once.
And now you claim you can prove it?
Please do so.

Is a virus living or dead? Here's my link since we are posting them. Are Viruses Living?

Okay.
According to that particular definition viruses aren't living. ¹

I can tell you how I see opposites in everything.

And you also admit that some things don't have opposites. So I have to assume you're confessing to hallucinating.

Let's take the damn chicken sandwich. In order for that to exist it must, it must have came from other things. Chicken sandwiches dont just grow. If you look at what they chicken sandwich consist of you will then know these things were once living before they was made to be used in a chicken sandwich. Living things are the complete opposite of non-living things. No contradictions. Just an inability to see through a thread post that was poorly written. I will do better to make it clearer.

Category error: see below.

So are you not in agreement that non-living things and living things are opposites? Everything we can see fits into one of those two categories.

Simply because things fit into one or the other category does not make the individual items the opposite of each individual item the other category.
Do you see your error now or not?

1 Addendum: all your link does is contradict mine: which simply reinforces the point - that we cannot categorise things as simply as you want to.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

As I said to one of the other members.

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

Thoughts, concerns, comments?

I tend to favour the notion of viruses as a form of life given a broad definition. During part of their life-cycle they most certainly are alive and can replicate and are prone to selection pressures. Yes they use the hosts internal machinery but that machinery itself does not constitute a living thing. They can be likened to other forms of parasite that can lie dormant for significant periods of time. :-))

I am unsure what that paragraph is talking about. I will have to learn some new words and meanings.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Post #47

but you agree that the opposite of a chicken sandwich is a camel, yes?

No.
You quote the post you are replying to INSIDE your reply, not several posts later.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I am unsure what that paragraph is talking about. I will have to learn some new words and meanings.

And I am unsure which paragraph you are talking about.

Do you know what would help? Go on - have a guess.

Based upon how you chose to view them then that would mean they are in the "living category" and not in the "non-living" category. I think the reason the other user brought that to the table was to say that there is something that does not fit into either category.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Based upon how you chose to view them then that would mean they are in the "living category" and not in the "non-living" category. I think the reason the other user brought that to the table was to say that there is something that does not fit into either category.

...

Originally Posted by RedPanda

There's a button on the bottom right of each message.
It is labelled "Quote".
Click it.

Or you can simply copy and paste the original message and put quotes around it.

But the quote button is not difficult to use.

And I am unsure which paragraph you are talking about.

Do you know what would help? Go on - have a guess.

I was refering to POST #60

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

Interestingly from the physics perspective, entropy is one of the few invariants that cannot be transformed away through symmetrical operations, gives a necessary asymmetry to provide a causal factor to emergent theories and appears to be a useful concept for abiogenetic questions given the relationship between entropy and information theory. :-))



\

lol thank you for that

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Based upon how you chose to view them then that would mean they are in the "living category" and not in the "non-living" category. I think the reason the other user brought that to the table was to say that there is something that does not fit into either category.

Then you missed the point.
I'm not claiming it doesn't fit in either so much as I'm claiming that YOUR categorisation is far too simplistic.
Since we can't decide if viruses classify as living or non-living, and, as previously noted, given abiogenesis there "must" have been a switch somewhere along the line from "clearly definable as non-living" to "clearly definable as living" there must also be the intermediate category "we haven't got a f*cking clue".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Now this is getting quite rediculous. If you re-post something I wrote please include the entire sentence.

Why?
The sense doesn't alter.
You claimed:
1) to be able see opposites to everything.
2) that some things don't have opposites.
One of those two has to be wrong - they're mutually exclusive statements.

You want me to explain why these two opposites (Living and non-living) must exist if we are to exist? Ask me a question so I can prove it.

You have been asked to support this more than once.
And now you claim you can prove it?
Please do so.

Is a virus living or dead? Here's my link since we are posting them. Are Viruses Living?

Okay.
According to that particular definition viruses aren't living. ¹

I can tell you how I see opposites in everything.

And you also admit that some things don't have opposites. So I have to assume you're confessing to hallucinating.

Let's take the damn chicken sandwich. In order for that to exist it must, it must have came from other things. Chicken sandwiches dont just grow. If you look at what they chicken sandwich consist of you will then know these things were once living before they was made to be used in a chicken sandwich. Living things are the complete opposite of non-living things. No contradictions. Just an inability to see through a thread post that was poorly written. I will do better to make it clearer.

Category error: see below.

So are you not in agreement that non-living things and living things are opposites? Everything we can see fits into one of those two categories.

Simply because things fit into one or the other category does not make the individual items the opposite of each individual item the other category.
Do you see your error now or not?

1 Addendum: all your link does is contradict mine: which simply reinforces the point - that we cannot categorise things as simply as you want to.

I dont see how you can not agree that living things are the complete opposite of things that are non-living.

I can prove it and have been. You was asked to supply one question which you did not. It is simple.

Everything is either terran or non-terran.
Therefore, the opposite of Saturn is a camel.
But a rock is not the opposite of a camel - unless the rock is a meteorite.

Everything in the universe is either owned by me or it is not owned by me.
Therefore, the opposite of my dog is my neighbours car.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Based upon how you chose to view them then that would mean they are in the "living category" and not in the "non-living" category. I think the reason the other user brought that to the table was to say that there is something that does not fit into either category.

Then you missed the point.
I'm not claiming it doesn't fit in either so much as I'm claiming that YOUR categorisation is far too simplistic.
Since we can't decide if viruses classify as living or non-living, and, as previously noted, given abiogenesis there "must" have been a switch somewhere along the line from "clearly definable as non-living" to "clearly definable as living" there must also be the intermediate category "we haven't got a f*cking clue".

LOL. How funny.

What switch are you talking about? The virus's switch or the switch from "nothingness" to creating the entire universe?

Everything in the universe is either white or non-white.
Therefore, the opposite of a snowball is a digestive biscuit.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Everything in the universe is either owned by me or it is not owned by me.
Therefore, the opposite of my dog is my neighbours car.

I see what you are saying. Anyone can create two categories and place things in them based upon the categories themselves. But the reason I am using the OPPOSITES living and non-living is because I think that opposites played a role in our creation.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Everything in the universe is either white or non-white.
Therefore, the opposite of a snowball is a digestive biscuit.

lol. Gotta love the example.

Opposites:
Chinese - Indian.
23 - 4.
Pizza - kebab.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Choices of which restaurant to eat in after a night at the pub
On my street anyway.
Failing going for a sit-down meal after the pub these are options for a takeaway after copious amounts of beer

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Everything in the universe is either owned by me or it is not owned by me.
Therefore, the opposite of my dog is my neighbours car.

And the reason we are even talking about living and non-living being in two categories is because of a thought I have.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

What switch are you talking about? The virus's switch or the switch from "nothingness" to creating the entire universe?

Er:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

there "must" have been a switch somewhere along the line from "clearly definable as non-living" to "clearly definable as living"

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

But the reason I am using the OPPOSITES living and non-living is because I think that opposites played a role in our creation.

1) You persist in saying this. You consistently fail to support it.
2) If you're talking about our "creation" i.e. before we were alive, then where do "living" and "non-living" enter into it as a factor in that creation?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Opposites:
Chinese - Indian.
23 - 4.
Pizza - kebab.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Choices of which restaurant to eat in after a night at the pub
On my street anyway.
Failing going for a sit-down meal after the pub these are options for a takeaway after copious amounts of beer

Opposites.

Tree/Rock
Living/Non-living.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

But the reason I am using the OPPOSITES living and non-living is because I think that opposites played a role in our creation.

But both living AND non-living things played a role in our creation.
And both terran AND non-terran things played a role in our creation.
And both white AND non-white things played a role in our creation.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Opposites.
Tree/Rock
Living/Non-living.

There could be a case made for the second of your examples, but the first is no more rational (and very probably less so) than the ones I gave.
At the very least I pointed out HOW they can be considered "opposites" - something you haven't done (and that I doubt you can do) with tree/ rock.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

But the reason I am using the OPPOSITES living and non-living is because I think that opposites played a role in our creation.

But both non-living AND living things played a role in our creation.
And both terran AND non-terran things played a role in our creation.
And both white AND non-white things played a role in our creation.

I know quite a number of people that inherited the intellectual capabilities of one of their forebears: a tea cosy. (Non-white thing).

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

What does that mean in layman's terms?

When seeking notions of 'first causes' in physics it is useful to seperate out 'perceived' causes attributed to simply an effect that is really just part of a broader symmetry group, to those effects that are fundamentally invariant. Nature is full of symmetries which has the ability to 'trick' the theorist into assuming that some cause is fundamental whereas the deeper reality is that multiple causes may actually just be different expressions of the same underlying symmetry. In searching for a fundamental 'causal effect' in nature to distinguish between living and non-living things it is necessary to choose an invariant physical law as opposed to some symmetrical attribute, otherwise in certain possible frames of reference, a common definition of life would not be possible.

Given the ubiquitous nature of entropy in our universe this may be a useful law to consider for the purposes of defining life. A systems perspective is a necessary consideration in dealing with living systems and the notion of closed and open systems is an important factor to consider when trying to fathom why 'living systems' appear to pay little respect to, and run counter to, some physical processes such as entropy. Furthermore, the relationship between information theory and entropy is particularly useful in the context of living things given the apparent emergent nature and emerging complexity of living systems. Not much attentiion has been placed on seeking to unite important biological theories with physics which is strange in my mind considering that biological systems at their heart must obey the laws of physics. Some of the important biological theories, particularly those regarding systems evolution may have a very pre-eminent role to take in explaining our universe such as the principles of natural selection that may not simply be restricted to the 'living world'. :-))

But the reason I am using the OPPOSITES living and non-living is because I think that opposites played a role in our creation.

I think you might be walking blind-folded straight into a non-mathematical version of Russell's Paradox.

What is Russell's paradox? : Scientific American

Think about the sorts of things you try to fit into your idea and see what I mean.

(I also think you're letting a commonly taught approach to language/ vocabulary have too much influence on ideas about physical reality.)

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

What switch are you talking about? The virus's switch or the switch from "nothingness" to creating the entire universe?

Er:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

there "must" have been a switch somewhere along the line from "clearly definable as non-living" to "clearly definable as living"

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

But the reason I am using the OPPOSITES living and non-living is because I think that opposites played a role in our creation.

1) You persist in saying this. You consistently fail to support it.
2) If you're talking about our "creation" i.e. before we were alive, then where do "living" and "non-living" enter into it as a factor in that creation?

I am talking about our creation. In the beginning there was only the "law of opposites". I am suggesting that the "law of opposites" has always existed and is the "nothingness"(I know it is something, but when nothing is around it is nothing) that created everything you see. I am saying it may be possible that this "law of opposites" was around (Both Possitive and negative.) and considered the darkness a negative, and then the positive created us as an opposite to the darkness. This is still just thoughts and are quick ones. I just wanted you to agree with me that things are either living or non-living. Not just agree with me but see where I was coming from and if I was wrong correct me. I love to learn. Thanks everyone for posting on this thread. I am just trying to learn and think.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

What does that mean in layman's terms?

When seeking notions of 'first causes' in physics it is useful to seperate out 'perceived' causes attributed to simply an effect that is really just part of a broader symmetry group, to those effects that are fundamentally invariant. Nature is full of symmetries which has the ability to 'trick' the theorist into assuming that some cause is fundamental whereas the deeper reality is that multiple causes may actually just be different expressions of the same underlying symmetry. In searching for a fundamental 'causal effect' in nature to distinguish between living and non-living things it is necessary to choose an invariant physical law as opposed to some symmetrical law, otherwise in certain possible frames of reference, a common definition of life would not be possible.

Given the ubiquitous nature of entropy in our universe this may be a useful law to consider for the purposes of defining life. A systems perspective is a necessary consideration in dealing with living systems and the notion of closed and open systems is an important factor to consider when trying to fathom why 'living systems' appear to pay little respect to, and run counter to, some physical processes such as entropy. Furthermore, the relationship between information theory and entropy is particularly useful in the context of living things given the apparent emergent nature and emerging complexity of living systems. Not much attentiion has been placed on seeking to unite important biological theories with physics which is strange in my mind considering that biological systems at their heart must obey the laws of physics. Some of the important biological theories, particularly those regarding systems evolution may have a very pre-eminent role to take in explaining our universe such as the principles of natural selection that may not simply be restricted to the 'living world'. :-))

Thank you for that post and it makes sense. That was actually really smart. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I am talking about our creation.

But you're NOT supporting anything you say.

In the beginning there was only the "law of opposites".

Double supposition: that there is such a law and that it existed "in the beginning".

I am suggesting that the "law of opposites" has always existed and is the "nothingness"(I know it is something, but when nothing is around it is nothing) that created everything you see. I am saying it may be possible that this "law of opposites" was around (Both Possitive and negative.) and considered the darkness a negative, and then the positive created us as an opposite to the darkness.

Again, this unsupported speculation, not philosophy.

I just wanted you to agree with me that things are either living or non-living.

But they're not.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I am talking about our creation.

But you're NOT supporting anything you say.

In the beginning there was only the "law of opposites".

Double supposition: that there is such a law and that it existed "in the beginning".

I am suggesting that the "law of opposites" has always existed and is the "nothingness"(I know it is something, but when nothing is around it is nothing) that created everything you see. I am saying it may be possible that this "law of opposites" was around (Both Possitive and negative.) and considered the darkness a negative, and then the positive created us as an opposite to the darkness.

Again, this unsupported speculation, not philosophy.

I just wanted you to agree with me that things are either living or non-living.

But they're not.

Well my good friend the chicken breast have to be cooked by someone. I appreciate you input as always. Thanks for taking the time and I will look into everything everyone of you said and come back with a new thought on life. I am thankful we have a site like this.

Thank you everyone for your post. It is definitely something wonderful that we have the ability to have questions answered in this manner. Thanks again.

End thread.

Stop thread

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

Well my good friend the chicken breast have to be cooked by someone.

That would be me.
Because the bloody cat won't do it, even though he expects to get a share.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

I am talking about our creation. In the beginning there was only the "law of opposites". I am suggesting that the "law of opposites" has always existed and is the "nothingness"(I know it is something, but when nothing is around it is nothing) that created everything you see. I am saying it may be possible that this "law of opposites" was around (Both Possitive and negative.) and considered the darkness a negative, and then the positive created us as an opposite to the darkness. This is still just thoughts and are quick ones. I just wanted you to agree with me that things are either living or non-living. Not just agree with me but see where I was coming from and if I was wrong correct me. I love to learn. Thanks everyone for posting on this thread. I am just trying to learn and think.

But when the universe first expanded, there was no life.
Our own planet Earth existed for a billion years before life began.
Life was not created from "nothingness" or "darkness" - it was created from an existing solar system.
Our solar system was not created from "nothingness" or "darkness" either.

And even if everything can be split into two groups, that doesn't mean anything.
You can see from my examples that we can easily make up criteria to split the universe into 2 categories.
But that doesn't show that opposites play an important role in anything.
It just shows that we can create arbitary binary categories.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

What does that mean in layman's terms?

When seeking notions of 'first causes' in physics it is useful to seperate out 'perceived' causes attributed to simply an effect that is really just part of a broader symmetry group, to those effects that are fundamentally invariant. Nature is full of symmetries which has the ability to 'trick' the theorist into assuming that some cause is fundamental whereas the deeper reality is that multiple causes may actually just be different expressions of the same underlying symmetry. In searching for a fundamental 'causal effect' in nature to distinguish between living and non-living things it is necessary to choose an invariant physical law as opposed to some symmetrical attribute, otherwise in certain possible frames of reference, a common definition of life would not be possible.

Given the ubiquitous nature of entropy in our universe this may be a useful law to consider for the purposes of defining life. A systems perspective is a necessary consideration in dealing with living systems and the notion of closed and open systems is an important factor to consider when trying to fathom why 'living systems' appear to pay little respect to, and run counter to, some physical processes such as entropy. Furthermore, the relationship between information theory and entropy is particularly useful in the context of living things given the apparent emergent nature and emerging complexity of living systems. Not much attentiion has been placed on seeking to unite important biological theories with physics which is strange in my mind considering that biological systems at their heart must obey the laws of physics. Some of the important biological theories, particularly those regarding systems evolution may have a very pre-eminent role to take in explaining our universe such as the principles of natural selection that may not simply be restricted to the 'living world'. :-))

More on Schrodinger's concept of negentropy here and for more detail and some possible explanations from studies of open systems and dissipative structures across all biological scales here.

Originally Posted by confusedasyou

You have things that live and things that die. You have up and you have down. You have wet and you have dry. You have cold and you have hot. You have positive and you have negative. You have happiness and you have sadness.

The trouble is, you invent a number of pairs (some of which can be considered opposite in some ways) and then use this as the basis for saying opposites are important. But it is completely arbitrary. We could say that things come in threes (latitude, longitude, altitude). Or sixes (left, right, up, down, forward, back). And so on. There is nothing "real" about this. People just seem to like to divide things into twos or threes (yes, no, don't know).

Originally Posted by Strange

We could say that things come in threes (latitude, longitude, altitude).

FIVES!
Latitude, longitude, altitude, attitude and decrepitude.

And, of course, Newton thought that 7 was the magic number and so he invented seven colours in the spectrum.