I had a thought, that life actually kills. Weird, right?
Does Life Kill?
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@keithprosser
That's only for one case. In many other cases life kills. For example, humans. In any case a being is mortal, than their life kills
-->
@Club
Life can kill.
A does would better represented in a life does die statement because from what we know life does have an end so that would entail they will die.
Life doesn't always is what I have a problem is if I am understanding your secret definition of kill.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you aren't alive you can't die.
NSS.
I think what kills you is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I meant that life dies... yes, but the things in life can kill life.
-->
@keithprosser
Yes.If you aren't alive you can't die.
NSS.
What?
I think what kills you is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I don't know. Just remember it when theists use it as an argument for God when it isn't. Hardly see them use it now.
-->
@Club
Okay then. No problem here.I meant that life dies... yes, but the things in life can kill life.
I mean it's still strange, considering the thing that creates also destroys.
-->
@Club
Yes life dies and can kill other life.I mean it's still strange, considering the thing that creates also destroys.
-->
@Club
Humans kill humans. Object promote humans to kill
-->
@Club
If you knew life kills would you still be here?
It is necessary for the past state to die in order for the present state to exist.
Wow. So deep.
-->
@Outplayz
If I knew it wouldn't I just know it? If I knew life skills wouldn't be dead, but that all depends on your definition of life. Which i turn relates to the most stereotypical philosophical question of them all, What is life?
-->
@Vader
Object like guns.Object promote humans to kill
-->
@WaterPhoenix
It's a question that i can't answer for you. You define what life is to you. If you want my definition, i think life is an experience within the framework and structures of this reality.If I knew it wouldn't I just know it? If I knew life skills wouldn't be dead, but that all depends on your definition of life. Which i turn relates to the most stereotypical philosophical question of them all, What is life?
-->
@Outplayz
So that means that according to you if there are different meanings of life then sometimes life kills and sometimes life doesn't?
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Well, a couple ways of looking at that... yes, sometimes it kills, sometimes it doesn't... but overall, life kills. Will that always be the case however, it's hard to tell. We can be working towards a reality where death is not a thing. I can get into how that's possible, but as of right now, death is a part of living. But what you individually define life to be until you await death is up to you. That's the part i can't define.So that means that according to you if there are different meanings of life then sometimes life kills and sometimes life doesn't?
-->
@Club
Only you can never die. To have life in this realm there must be "physical" death, but your conscious soul never experiences non-existence so life never kills literally, it just experiences life in phases.
-->
@Club
There exists no direct evidence of biological life ever being created anywhere in Universe.I mean it's still strange, considering the thing that creates also destroys
Entropy has it limits as defined by the 1st law of thermodynamics i.e. occupied space as our reality of Observed Time, cannot be destroyed nor created and at best or worst, it can only be dis-integrated to it least energetic configuration, ---ex heat death of Universe scenarios--- and that is the one single photon of lowest frequency { longest wave } ergo almost a flat line approximating a finite 2D area.
If we consider a 3D tetrahedron ---4 vertexial points { . . . . } along with its 6 chords { /\/\/\ | LINK as the minimal { photonic } volumetric space, and we then take one of its vertexes and move that vertex towards its opposite triangular opening we eventually get to the place where the 3D tetrahedron becomes subdivided 2D triangle { \Y/ } LINK
However, we have to also consider spherical { O } geodesics of occupied space as Gravity..
I believe, that at the approximated heat death { flat lined area } of our finite configuration of occupied space Universe we have a tetrahedron as photon with a gravitational spherical geodesic on each side of that seemingly subidivided 2D triangle.
O|O = heat death Universe as 2D tetrahedron { view on edge } with gravitational geodesic on each side.
This above is the simple scenario explanation.
The more complex scenario involves ideas of geodesic black holes having all the coding for all occupied space as Observed Time existence coded inside ergo on the event horizion surface of black holes and when they evaporate those codings via EMradiation are dispersed into a outward into a galaxy.
To further understand the relationship between 3D tetrahedron, and evaporating of 3D black hole see this LINK and this graphic is identified as 2nd way that a tetrahedron goes to zero-volume but maintains the existence of its four triangular planes. Again this is simple version that is not expressed in a geodesic configuration.
-->
@Outplayz
Your saying death is part of living but does that suggest that life would kill life? Because I agree that life will die but your scientific explanations are for the future and I think we are focusing on the present. So overall, I think your answer is flawed as in my interpretation of your answer you are saying that life goes into death but life doesn't kill life.
-->
@keithprosser
I think what kills you is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Naw. This is belied by babies. Babies demonstrate that it is possible to generate any part of a human, good as new, from a single cell. There is no reason in principle why you could not regenerate your entire body every few years and live forever.
It used to be that people thought aging and death was evolution's way of making room for the next generation. More recently, however, another explanation has gained traction. In nature, most organisms die before they reach old age. That means most members of a species are youthful. Evolution is not very efficient at filtering out mutations that are harmful in the old, because mutations that are harmful in the old do not much matter when so few members of the species are old. So mutations that are harmful to the old tend to accumulate.
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I'm sorry i wasn't more clear, i thought the conclusion can be drawn from what i was saying. Overall, death being a part of living includes life killing life as well. That's just one way death is a part of living. So yes, life kills life too (i don't think i ever disagreed with that point). There are many ways you can die... life taking life being one way. My OP in this thread was suggesting an overall picture, that's why i'm not sure from which angle i needed to start with especially since my OP has a metaphysical meaning to it too.Your saying death is part of living but does that suggest that life would kill life?
-->
@Outplayz
okey dokey
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I don't understand why you were thinking i wouldn't think life kills life... that was a bit random. "Okey dokie" is appropriate for how i'm feeling too.
-->
@Outplayz
Wait but I think life doesn't kill life...
-->
@Outplayz
Not indefinitely at least
-->
@WaterPhoenix
It depends on how you are defining life. I'm a living being... if that is a life, then... i have the ability to kill. People do kill people, animals kill animals, viruses kill... etc., if you are defining life as living entities... life def. kills.Wait but I think life doesn't kill life...
-->
@WaterPhoenix
I should ask... how are you defining life? Or, what do you mean by "i think life doesn't kill life?"