shminux comments on What is life? - Less Wrong

9 Post author: Douglas_Reay 01 April 2012 09:12PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: shminux 01 April 2012 10:53:18PM 2 points [-]

From the link: "If one star burned longer or brighter, that didn't affect the probability distribution of the next star to form." This is false, brighter stars die sooner and emit more stuff in space, including heavier elements, thus affecting both the probability of formation and the makeup of the future stars. You can even take this further, arguing that this amounts to reproduction (with synthesized elements instead of gametes), and that stars are a form of life (they self-replicate). This has been explored in science fiction, of course. In this way, stars also transform the interstellar space into more (or less) conducive to further star life. They also resist entropy, as long as there is some material to make more stars out of.

In fact, I dare you to argue that stars are not alive by your definition.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 April 2012 07:26:23AM 0 points [-]

I'm thinking now of Lee Smolin's hypothesis that universes reproduce via black holes, which is why our universe seems fine-tuned for their production.

Comment author: Raemon 02 April 2012 03:32:09PM 0 points [-]

Huh. Lacking any kind of background to evaluate that critically, but it's a neat concept.

Comment author: shminux 02 April 2012 06:46:32PM 0 points [-]

There is a nice public polemic between Smolin and Susskind, with some accessible parts in it.

Comment author: David_Gerard 02 April 2012 06:46:54PM -1 points [-]

It's in Wikipedia. His original detailed theory was disproved, but many still find the idea of interest.