Could Life be a Field?

MikeL

Could what we call life be nothing more than a peculiarity in the way matter is interacting with a physical field?

A magnet exerts its effect because it interacts with the magnetic field, which permeates the entire universe, thus a magnet at point A exerts the same effect on the field even if you move it to point B.
Of course to us, we see the local effect of the magnet. Iron filings, attractions and repulsions of other magnets, north and south poles, and not the global field.

In the universe, it seems that atoms adopt one of two identities. They become inanimate objects such as oceans and planets and suns, or they become life filled objects which form much more complex life structures displaying traits such as self-preservation, reproduction, consciousness etc.

Atoms start forming into molecules and enzymes, cycles and systems, seemingly spontaneously. I recently heard a natural enzyme that can digest plastic has emerged - it took less than 50 years. These systems form into increasingly complex living organisms over time. It seems very directed, but not only that, it seems like a repeating process or pattern.

As I grow older and my body grows older, my energy is dropping - nothing too dramatic, but it feels like the life force around me is weakening a little. And so, I have started wondering if perhaps the body is interacting with a field - a life field, much like a magnet. We only see the local effects - the lifeform (magnet) and it's characteristics.

We exist because we bend the field in a local way.

If you can accept that, then here's something else. It would mean that life could not exist outside the field. If the field is the extent of the universe, then life cannot exist outside the universe. Of course, nothing field related could - and everything is field related.

What do you think? Could what we call life be nothing more than the peculiar way matter is interacting with a physical field?

TimeLine

We exist because we bend the field in a local way. — MikeL

I am assuming that you believe all particles are merely the excitations of a field and our existence, which in the physical world is the body, the organs, the cells, the proteins etc, until we are simply electrons, but this misrepresents what a field actually is. At fundamental level, fields themselves are regulated by universal laws and the properties have well defined characteristics, particularly with how matter interacts with one another. If the field is responsible for the excitations, at rest mass the energy required must be an addition quantum to the field in order for the particles to function. Quantum field theory does not really explain why fields exist.

It is interesting particularly when explaining the universe i.e. scalar fields or higgs fields, but it is really an effective field theory that attempts to explain interactions.

MikeL

At fundamental level, fields themselves are regulated by universal laws and the properties have well defined characteristics, particularly with how matter interacts with one another. — TimeLine

The way I look at it, the universe is one big field, teased apart into individual threads we have named as electromagnetic field, gravitational field etc, due to the predictable properties of examining them as such. We call the predictable properties universal laws. But I think that teasing the field into these threads while great for advancing learning, is also stifling to a certain degree or understanding what is actually happening.

I think that we can combine fields (eg electrical and magnetic into electromagnetic) and that the effect is not always summative. It could be a plus one effect. It could be something absolutely bizzare. I'm suggesting that life could be like this.

SnowyChainsaw

In quantum field theory each subatomic particle we have identified exists as an excitement on its own, specific field (Bosons, Leptons, Quarks, Baryons). Therefore, if life is an excitement on its own field, then we need to have identified a specific particle or category of particles separate from the others that we have discovered. A "life particle" if you will.

MikeL

In quantum field theory each subatomic particle we have identified exists as an excitement on its own, specific field — SnowyChainsaw

Hi SnowyChainsaw, we had the 'god particle' so why not the 'life particle', right? As appealing as the thought is, we also know that there are larger fundamental fields such as the electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong interactions - so somewhere along the line, these more fundamental fields you speak of must surely create these larger fields. Based on this prediction I would go one step further to predict that such field creation may fall into the more bizarre category that occurs when fundamental fields combine. How far off base am I?

SnowyChainsaw

↪MikeL

Those were the names of the categories of particles that interact on the various fields. I.e. The Leptons; electron, muon, tau, electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino, all interact on the electromagnetic field. The "God Particle", aka the Higgs Boson, was called that only because it seems to reside in all things. It was merely a nickname of sorts.
However you have touched on something that might be representative of reality: that interactions on the fundamental fields might create something "bigger".

Life as we experience it could be an amalgamation of the interactions of particles and their respective fields, just as it is with everything else.

We are just as much a part of the universe as the universe is a part of us.

Forgottenticket

Hi Mike, welcome back. :) I remember your threads were fairly interesting.
As far as your field hypothesis goes, there is something called a morphogenetic field posited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field but I think you were thinking something more fundamental than some form of 'emergent' causation.

I do wonder how exactly "vitalism" is said to have been debunked from an empirical perspective. It's something I heard repeated a lot in lectures but I never really chased it up. Surely life has not been deconstructed completely into its raw inorganic building blocks and then restructured back together as it was and worked as a machanical thing. Otherwise why is abiogenesis not a regular reocurring thing that people do regularly in labs and then unleash onto the world.

Wayfarer

Could what we call life be nothing more than a peculiarity in the way matter is interacting with a physical field? — MikeL

That would be the view of scientific materialism.

I do wonder how exactly "vitalism" is said to have been debunked from an empirical perspective. It's something I heard repeated a lot in lectures but I never really chased it up. — JupiterJess

'Vitalism' is associated with the philosophy of Henri Bergson, who posited an 'Élan vital' in his book, Creative Evolution. 'It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness – with the intuitive perception of experience and the flow of inner time.' And the reason that empiricism debunked it, is because there is no evidence of there being such a 'vital force', as something over and above the cumulative effects of the processes of all living organisms; it's not something that can be observed or detected.

But I think there is something in it - that there is a subjective aspect of living beings, which is never disclosed to empirical observation for the obvious reason that empirical analysis only deals with objects, the forces that act on them, the relationships between them, and so on. As Thomas Nagel says

'The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.' (The Core of Mind and Cosmos.)

morphogenetic field — JupiterJess

That's Rupert Sheldrake's theory, but Sheldrake is regarded as a maverick (or worse) by the mainstream.

Forgottenticket

And the reason that empiricism debunked it, is because there is no evidence of there being such a 'vital force',as something over and above the cumulative effects of the processes of all living organisms;[/ — Wayfarer

I get that. When I say debunked by empiricism I'm meaning something direct. In order to claim a strong victory for mechanists shouldn't life be reproduced by mechanistic forces? There is the reproduction of urea by non-organic compounds but that's all I can find. That's fine from a scientific perspective but I don't think it would close down the philosophical project in the way the project on the classical four elements (fire, air, earth and water) is now closed.
You don't really see vitalist arguments in the same way we continue to get arguments for idealism or the hard problem of consciousness. Threads like this one seem rare.

That's Rupert Sheldrake's theory, but Sheldrake is regarded as a maverick (or worse) by the mainstream. — Wayfarer

A morphogenetic field is a theory of how organs are formed. The gist of it is that there is a cardiac field for constraining cells to heart tissue or a limb field constraining cells to limb tissue.
As mentioned on its wiki talk page, it appears to be accepted in embryology unlike Sheldrake's which is considered pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morphogenetic_field#Merging_of_the_two_morphogenetic_field_articles_proposed

Wayfarer

In order to claim a strong victory for mechanists shouldn't life be reproduced by mechanistic forces? — JupiterJess

Craig Venter is working on sythesising living things de novo. ‘Vitalism’ is generally regarded has having been definitively shown to be wrong, but I don’t know.....

A morphogenetic field is a theory of how organs are formed. — JupiterJess

Right - my bad. I confused ‘morphogenetic’ with ‘morphic’. The former is strictly biochemical, the latter is said to rely on the idea that ‘nature has memories’ which is generally regarded as magical thinking.

MikeL

As far as your field hypothesis goes, there is something called a morphogenetic field posited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field but I think you were thinking something more fundamental than some form of 'emergent' causation. — JupiterJess

Hi JupiterJess, great to be back. In a sense I am talking about a Morphogenetic field, but not biological in nature. It may have to do more with chemistry. The enzyme that can digest plastic arose and proliferated because there was plastic to be had, and it did it in a very short time window, which has astonished scientists. This has unsettled my thinking.

Perhaps the questions that are most perplexing for me when studying the emergence and formation of life is 'but how did it know to...', 'how did it know there was....' Perhaps this is perplexing for me because there is a fundamental in-baked blindness that occurs when we consider atoms as singular entities independent of a field. It is through this path that we investigate the formation and emergence of life. Somewhere we have gone from physics as particles interacting with their fields, to just particles acting blindly.

I think we need to bring the field back to biology. Humans are fairly intelligent creatures. So many of them brought back to life report an afterlife, so many believe in the idea of an all pervading energy. I have stood on mountain tops and overlooked spectacular views and just wanted to burst and dissolve into them. I think we have all looked at the stars and felt connection. (and if you really want to go out onto a limb - psychics and whatnot- personal opinion withheld)

The point is, I think it is a field that we are sensing. Our bodies are able to warp the field and create life, and consciousness. As they age the ability to warp it diminish, until we become less particle, more field.

I hope I didn't waffle too much. I'm still trying to hone my own thoughts on the matter.

Could Life be a Field?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions