Definition of Life
What is the universal definition of a Living System?
–
Understanding the definition of life is important because it shapes human decisions on a macro and micro scale.
Let me give you a simplified example, so that we understand my question. For example, if we view only some things as alive (like a baby) and other things as dead (like a river). Then, I may spill the poo from my WC to the river. If I don't know that the river is alive and how it is connected to the ecosystem, I won't know that I'll be drinking my poo at some stage, because the same water from the river will enter my water well. This is already happening with plastic in the ocean and micro-plastics eaten by the fish, and the fish eaten by humans. Ha!
So, how do we define "life" and "alive"?
克里斯托弗·阿達米（Christopher Adami）給出了this生命的定義： [“生命是一組單位的屬性，這些單位共享在物理基質中編碼的信息，並且這些單位在噪聲的存在，使其時標比（信息承載的）基底衰減的“自然”時標高出許多數量級，從而設法使其熵大大低於集合的最大熵。 //youtu.be/F17_KiAZOxg?t=250)。我認爲這是對生活的一種精確而務實的定義，值得深入瞭解它，並理解其中每個單詞的含義。這是生活的模擬，闡明瞭定義：demo。
在一條河流中，液體本身就在縫隙上流動，它本身並不是活着的，因爲它的“自然衰減”（⇡）並不顯着（數量級many不多），而依賴於它與其他人交換信息。單位。我們之所以不能稱其爲“絲綢之路”，是因爲人們使用它來移動貨物並影響生態系統，但是，“絲綢之路”（作爲一種途徑）可能在使某些事物變得生動時起着重要的作用，就像太陽（作爲能源）一樣。
Christopher Adami has given this definition of life: "Life is a property of an ensemble of units that share information coded in a physical substrate and which, in the presence of noise, manages to keep its entropy significantly lower than the maximal entropy of the ensemble, on timescales exceeding the "natural" timescale of the decay of the (information-bearing) substrate by many orders of magnitude.". I think it is a rather precise and pragmatic definition of life, worth looking deeper into it, and understanding every the meaning of every word in it. Here is a simulation of life, illustrating the definition: demo.
In the context of a river as the flow of liquid over crevices per se, it is not alive by itself, because its "natural decay" (⇡) is not significantly (not many orders of magnitude ⇡) dependent on it exchanging information with other units. We don't call "Silk Road" alive, just because people use it to move goods through it, and it affects the ecosystem, however, the "Silk Road" (as pathway) may be playing an important role in making something alive, like the Sun (as energy source) does.
[+]
“生命的定義是基於過程並將信息存儲在物理子句中的。” 〜C.阿達米
根據您分享的C. Adami視頻，它是關於技術背景下的“生命”的，我想知道如果我們看到它“活着”，我們與技術的關係將如何改變？也許我們會更故意。
"Definition of life is based on processes and storing information within physical subtrates." ~ C. Adami
Based on C. Adami video you shared, which is about "life" in the context of technology, I wonder how our relationship to technology change if we see it "alive"? Perhaps we would be more intentional.
在我看來，根據“觀點”，可能會有“各種生活定義”。
我們是從生物學的角度來看嗎？物理？數學？經濟觀點？哲學的？精神層面？
我很好奇地在此線程中討論所有這些觀點。
It seems to me that there may be a variety of Life definitions based on the point of view.
Are we looking from a biological point of view? Physics? Math? Economical point of view? Philosophical? Spiritual dimension?
I'm curious to discuss all such points of views here in this thread.
一種觀點來自系統思想家Fritjof Capra。他問道：“在生物學層面**，生命的基本特徵是什麼？生命系統的定義特徵是什麼？”然後他指向細胞（膜+代謝）和 Networks 和 Self-Generation （在自己的邊界內）作爲所有生命系統組織的基本模式。”
唔。
One of point of views comes from a system thinker Fritjof Capra. He asks asks "What are the essential characteristics of life at the biological level? What are the defining characteristics of living systems?" and then he points to cells (membrane + metabolism) and Networks and Self-Generation (within a boundary of its own making) as the basic pattern of organization of all living systems."
Hmm.
好吧，從數學的角度來看，定義是有用的，如果它提供了等價類，換句話說，如果它提供必要條件和充分條件表示爲“ it”。
充分條件的問題是：“我們需要在其中看到什麼才能將其視爲'生命'？”
必要條件的問題是：“我們可以從中刪除哪些所有東西，以便我們仍然將其視爲'生命'，而從中刪除其他任何內容將使其視爲'生命'？”
充分條件和必要條件的交集通常是必不可少的定義特徵。因此，我建議尋找他們，並在查看某人的特徵時，嘗試找出這些充分和必要的條件。
有人說整個宇宙因爲我們而活着，而我們就是它的眼睛。我認爲這是過度矯正，具有一些實用的功能（例如，在定義existential risk時使用），但否則幾乎沒有解釋力來解釋使“生命”成爲“活着”。
Well, a definition is useful from the mathematical point of view, is if it provides an equivalence class, in other words, if it provides necessary conditions and sufficient conditions for something to be "it".
Sufficient conditions question: "What do we need to see in it that we would consider it to be 'life'?"
Necessary conditions question: "What are all the things that we can remove from it, so that we still consider it to be 'life', yet removing anything else from it would make it considered not to be 'life'?"
The intersection of sufficient conditions and necessary conditions usually is the defining characteristics, that are essential. So, I'd suggest seeking for them and when looking at someone's characteristics, trying to figure out what are these sufficient and necessary conditions.
Some say that entire Universe had become alive because of us, and we are its eyes. I think this is over-holistification, with some pratical utility (for example, in defining existential risk), but otherwise with little explanatory power to explain what makes 'life' be 'alive'.