Life does not exist

From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In hmolscience, life does not exist (TR:112) (LH:8) (TL:120) refers to the view that “life” is a non-existent thing; that life is a myth-based anthropism passed along through the millennia, deriving from ancient astro-theology and or religio-mythology beliefs, mostly sun god based, ingrained and embedded in cultural, albeit not real. The term "abioism" is the belief that life does not exist.


The following are quotes:

“Every biologist has at some time asked ‘what is life?’ and none has ever given a satisfactory answer. Science is built on the premise that nature answers intelligent questions intelligently; so if no answer exists, there must be something wrong with the question. Life, as such, does not exist. What we can see and measure are material systems which have the wonderful quality of ‘being alive’. What we can ask more hopefully is ‘what are the properties which bring matter to life? Though I do not know what life is, I have no doubt as to whether my dog is alive or dead. Life is a paradox. It is easy to understand why man always divided his world into ‘animate’ and ‘inanimate’, anima meaning soul, the presence of which had to explain queer behavior. The most basic rule of inanimate nature is that it tends toward equilibrium which is at the maximum of entropy and the minimum of free energy. As shown so delightfully by Schrodinger in his little book What is Life? (1945), the main characteristic of life is that it tends to decrease its entropy. It also tends to increase its free energy.”
Albert Gyorgyi (1972), The Living State (pgs. 1-2) [1]
Life does not exist in the sense that ‘life’ is not absolutely different from ‘non-life’. The difference between life and non-life is like the difference between plants and animals. A recent article in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that bacteria locked in Antarctic ice for 100,000 to 8-million years resumed growing when given warmth and nutrients. Could they have been alive for all that time? Could any life processes been going on for that period? If not, can a living thing spend an intermittent part of its life as a non-living thing? I think this is incongruous with life and non-life being absolutely different. During the frozen period all the conditions for life, including the DNA existed, but life did not exist. More commonly many seeds remain viable for many years under certain conditions. They go through a life cycle in part of which they are not alive. Can a living thing be not alive during part of its life?”
Alfred Rogers (2012), “Life Does Not Exist” [2]
Life is a property [that] does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.”
— Ferris Jabr (2013), “Why Life Does Not Really Exist” [3]
“Precisely what do we mean by the very nature of the question of the ‘emergence of life’? Stated most acutely, if a fully reductionist account is sufficient, and life is completely describable as the nothing other than very complicated sets of chemical reactions, what then can we say originated? Taken to the extreme, the ‘all life is just chemistry’ viewpoint advocates in a very real sense that life does not exist and as such that there is no transition to be defined. While this may very well be the case, when cast in these terms, even the avid reductionist might be unwilling, or at least hesitant, to accept such an extreme viewpoint.”
— Sara Walker (2015), “Is Life Fundamental” (pgs. 259-60)[4]
“Here is the thing - organisms are by definition ‘living’ things and whether viruses are alive or not is a matter of debate. What do you mean? How is this possible that we do not know if something is alive? Quite simple. Our definition of being alive is not derived from first principles. What is the conclusion from all that? That we do not really know what it means to be ‘alive’. Maybe viruses cause us so much problems because they prove that the thing that we are looking for does not exist in the first place. We assumed that the state of ‘alive’ is a given, that’s our axiom. What if it was wrong all this time? Being alive is a lie. How could we miss that? No thing is alive. Being alive does not exist. Wait just a moment! - the crowd shouts. This is all BS. You are presenting no evidence, this is just pure speculation, totally unscientific! The angry mob would be right. This is not a scientific theory. Here is the thing - neither is the current theory of ‘alive’. No magical moment happened in evolution at which the spark of god came upon us. I exist. I feel. If I’m unlucky, one day I will stop. We are the same as everything else, just further up the scale.”
— FreakyBit (2020), “I’m Less Alive than Elon Musk” [5]

End matter

See also


  1. Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert. (1972). The Living State: with Observations on Cancer (pgs. 1-2). Elsevier.
  2. (2013-2020) – Internet Archive.
  3. Jabr, Ferris. (2013). “Why Life Does Not Really Exist”, Scientific American, Brainwaves Blog, Dec 2.
  4. Walker, Sara. (2015). “Is Life Fundamental”, in: Questioning the Foundations of Physics (editors: Anthony Aguirre, Brendan Foster, Zeeya Merali) (pdf) (§19:259-68). Springer.
  5. FreakBit. (2020). “I’m Less Alive than Elon Musk” (Ѻ),, Apr 10.

External links

Theta Delta ics T2.jpg