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·阿达米（Christopher Adami）给出了this生命的定义： [“生命是一组单位的属性，这些单位共享在物理基质中编码的信息，并且这些单位在噪声的存在，使其时标比（信息承载的）基底衰减的“自然”时标高出许多数量级，从而设法使其熵大大低于集合的最大熵。 //youtu.be/F17_KiAZOxg?t=250)。我认为这是对生活的一种精确而务实的定义，值得深入了解它，并理解其中每个单词的含义。这是生活的模拟，阐明了定义：demo。
在一条河流中，液体本身就在缝隙上流动，它本身并不是活着的，因为它的“自然衰减”（⇡）并不显着（数量级many不多），而依赖于它与其他人交换信息。单位。我们之所以不能称其为“丝绸之路”，是因为人们使用它来移动货物并影响生态系统，但是，“丝绸之路”（作为一种途径）可能在使某些事物变得生动时起着重要的作用，就像太阳（作为能源）一样。
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.
[+]
“生命的定义是基于过程并将信息存储在物理子句中的。” 〜C.阿达米
根据您分享的C. Adami视频，它是关于技术背景下的“生命”的，我想知道如果我们看到它“活着”，我们与技术的关系将如何改变？也许我们会更故意。
"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.
在我看来，根据“观点”，可能会有“各种生活定义”。
我们是从生物学的角度来看吗？物理？数学？经济观点？哲学的？精神层面？
我很好奇地在此线程中讨论所有这些观点。
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.
一种观点来自系统思想家Fritjof Capra。他问道：“在生物学层面**，生命的基本特征是什么？生命系统的定义特征是什么？”然后他指向细胞（膜+代谢）和 Networks 和 Self-Generation （在自己的边界内）作为所有生命系统组织的基本模式。”
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，从数学的角度来看，定义是有用的，如果它提供了等价类，换句话说，如果它提供必要条件和充分条件表示为“ it”。
充分条件的问题是：“我们需要在其中看到什么才能将其视为'生命'？”
必要条件的问题是：“我们可以从中删除哪些所有东西，以便我们仍然将其视为'生命'，而从中删除其他任何内容将使其视为'生命'？”
充分条件和必要条件的交集通常是必不可少的定义特征。因此，我建议寻找他们，并在查看某人的特征时，尝试找出这些充分和必要的条件。
有人说整个宇宙因为我们而活着，而我们就是它的眼睛。我认为这是过度矫正，具有一些实用的功能（例如，在定义existential risk时使用），但否则几乎没有解释力来解释使“生命”成为“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'.