What observation about living things can be only be explained by the introduction of a new fundamental entity?

We have been over this already- the difference between living organisms and non-living matter.

We have observed that differences exist and have gone about cataloging those differences.

Biologists make a living because of those differences.

And it cannot be explained by calling on matter, energy, information, chance and necessity.

What specific differences cannot be explained by your (new and expanded!) list? I am looking for something a bit more specific than “life lives, and non-life doesn’t”. Can you cite an example?

And BTW I am not introducing a fundamental new entity-

It has existed for quite a long, long time.

I agree. You did not create life. Or the idea of “life”. Or the Game of LIFE (TM).

But you also haven’t got past the “life is alive” step in explaining this fundamental thing. I’ve asked you previously for an example of two objects, one living, one dead, which have exactly the same arrangement of matter and energy.

I can measure matter in grams, energy in joules, information in bits. What is life measured in? The ‘vit’? How many vits in a rock? A fire? A computer (off)? A computer (running a CA like Evoloops)? A flower? A baby? A pregnant woman? A mosquito full of malaria? How do you know?

It has existed for quite a long, long time.

All I am doing is pointing it out.

If you don’t want to look that is understandable. Your position just cannot allow for such an entity so it cannot exist.

Got it.

Of COURSE they are reducible to chemicals — from where do you think we learned about those chemicals in the first place?

Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

Of COURSE studying biology isn’t the same as understanding its origins.

Tom MH:

What observation about living things can be only be explained by the introduction of a new fundamental entity?

We have been over this already- the difference between living organisms and non-living matter.

We have observed that differences exist and have gone about cataloging those differences.

Biologists make a living because of those differences.

And it cannot be explained by calling on matter, energy, information, chance and necessity.

joseph: You don’t have any evidence to support your claim but you know my claim is wrong.

I didn’t say your claim was wrong, I said it was supported by neither logic nor data. I’ve invited you to offer one or the other, or both. Your argument seems to be summarized in the following:

Yet no one can demonstrate they are reducible to chemicals- water and lipids and proteins and enzymes (which are proteins) and nucleic acids.

Of COURSE they are reducible to chemicals — from where do you think we learned about those chemicals in the first place?

That tells me there is something else required.

Required for what? What observation about living things can be only be explained by the introduction of a new fundamental entity?

Clive Hayden: Are you saying that “life” is a quality and not itself a physical object?

My answer would be yes. There is no need to invoke an additional fundamental entity (“life” particles”?) and no evidence for its existence.

are you saying that life is an emergent quality, as you think cognition is an emergent quality of an arrangement of brain material?

Not everything that is alive has a brain — most of the biomass of Earth consists of bacteria.

Living things are comprised of water and lipids and proteins and enzymes and nucleic acids and other stuff – chemicals.

Yet no one can demonstrate they are reducible to chemicals- water and lipids and proteins and enzymes (which are proteins) and nucleic acids.

That tells me there is something else required.

The difference bewteen a living thing and an inanimate thing can be explained by the arrangenment of matter, energy and information.

So your “evidence” is just to keep repeating that bit of unsupported tripe?

You don’t have any evidence to support your claim but you know my claim is wrong.

Got it.

BTW biochemists cannot demonstrate that living organisms are reducible to matter, energy and information.

Yes, I think you understand my position correctly. What we call life is an emergent property of some complex arrangements of matter and energy. These arrangements are far from equilibrium, and stay far from equilibrium over extended periods of time by processing matter and energy available in the environment. That’s my thumbnail definition.

I don’t think there a special property called ‘life’ which is a substance (elan vital) that is inside living bodies and not present elsewhere in the universe.
In addition, the category itself is fuzzy, with edge cases which are not clear (either due to our current ignorance, or because the category is inherently fuzzy). Some examples:
A dormant seed or spore. When is it clear that it is alive or dead?
A virus. Sure a virus needs a very specific environment, but so do I.
A bacterial cell that has just died. What is the change that just happened at the moment of death?
Abiogenesis. I remember reading an essay on abiogenesis that made the point that near the beginning of life’s development, the boundary between molecules occaisionally interacting and consistent packages of molecules could have wavered back and forth – life could have sputtered for a while before catching hold.

As an emergent property, it does imply that there is some gradation across this fuzzy boundary. You could say that a fire, or an avalance of rocks rolling downhill, fit the definition. The fire and the avalanche are way over on one side of the spectrum, and mice, flowers, and bacteria are way over on the other. In the middle are the kind of things I gave examples of earlier. What does it mean for the definition of life that there are viruses that are larger than bacteria? Personally, I do accept this fuzziness as inherent in the category – life cannot be defined crisply and precisely.