Talk:Life/Draft: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Disambiguation, or whatever: have begin the disambig)
 
(889 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Formating decisions==
{{subpages}}
Citation style as per [[Help:Citation style]] [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 01:25, 5 February 2007 (CST)


Other style standards? 
==Approval==
OK, I've updated the version number, and don't see any dissent from approval, so at the end of today, this article will be approved unless there is a last minute objection.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


----
:Thank you, Gareth. In the new version number, I still see a typo or two, and a few wikilinks needed, but I will not edit the current version, so you will not have to update the version number again today. I understand an editor can make minor copyedits to an approved version, but I'll check policy on that if I decide such edits necessary after today's (hopefully) approval.  The curse of the perfectionist.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:20, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
==General copy discussion==
In response to Larry Sanger's request, let's go about rewriting this article. For the purposes of the article, I suggest that we take the meaning of life to be equivalent to living things, and the opposite of death, and also of inanimate things or objects. Some points to cover: (1) features of living things v. inanimate things,(2) definition of death - when is something alive no longer alive? (3) which organic molecule collections have life? which don't? why? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 17:38, 30 December 2006 (CST)


*I note David Tribe working on this article.  I added a subsection "Linguistic Considerations Relating to the Definition of Life".  I may presume too much in this case, but it does speak to Nancy Sculerati's suggestion to "...take the meaning of life to be equivalent to living things...".  Happy to delete or put somewhere else in article or elsewhere.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:49, 3 February 2007 (CST)
::Anthony, if you want to go ahead and make the changes that you see I will incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight as long as they are not 'content' edits.  Spelling and linking are definitely allowed.  I'll just make a note of them on the Approval page.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 15:09, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


*I also re-wrote the first paragraph of the Introduction, to provide a generalization that could set the stage for describing what we know about the common characteristics of living things. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:11, 3 February 2007 (CST)
:::Thanks, Matt. I made five history-page-recorded edit series since 21:00, after Gareth updated the version number for approval; all corrections of typos or additions of wikilinks.  I appreciate your offer to "incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight", but if that means your inserting the edits yourself manually, that seems too much.  I'm happy to edit the re-approved version after its up, tomorrow say, assuming I have authorization to do such a thing, and assuming an approved version once up is editable by an editor.  If so, you can monitor my edits afterwards.  Save you the work. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:35, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


==Thermodynamics==
::::Hi Anthony, [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life%2FDraft&diff=100284752&oldid=100284190 those edits] are all copyedits, so I will just copy the current draft page over to the approved version with those edits with it.  That is no harder than copying the other version, so no problem. You can still make copyedits afterward, too, as the nominating editor. And as always, I look out for anyone changing the approved versions, as you pay me to do ;-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 17:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
The intro is massive and should probably be much smaller. I usually consider them more like an abstact than an intro commmonly seen in academic papers. One way around this is to move most of the thermodynamic perspectives into a new section. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 02:01, 5 February 2007 (CST)


*Chris: Will take your suggestion and try additional tacks to shorten Intro. Thanks. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:25, 5 February 2007 (CST)
:::::Thanks again, Matt. I'll stop worrying (and copyediting). I always learn something communicating with you. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 17:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


:*Chris: Shortened Intro, moved thermodynamic perspective to separate section. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:34, 13 February 2007 (CST)
==APPROVED Version 1.2==


== Re-writing per Larry's Request ==
It appears that we have 3 to 4 approving editors with no significant outstanding issues that were not handled.  This approval can move forward.
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Life/Draft&oldid=100284752 Version 1.2] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div>


I have undertaken to re-write this article from the beginning, responding to suggestions along the way.  I have re-written the following sections/subsections:
Looking better every version!  I created a third archive as well.  If you need to bring anything back, just cut and paste.  --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:11, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


*Introduction
== looks beautiful.  ==
*Shared Characteristics of Living Things: Systems and Thermodynamic Perspectives
*Some Definitions of Life Resonating with the Preceding Exposition
*Other Shared Characteristics of Living Things
*Life Further Characterized (partial)


I will try to come to an intermediate closure soon, so the workgroup can consider the article for approval--with the idea that, like [[Biology]], refinements and amplifications will find their way in.
wow.  I really enjoy the layout. [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 00:37, 11 March 2008 (CDT)


--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 17:43, 12 February 2007 (CST)
== Article of the Week - March 11, 2008 ==
This article was voted "Article of the Week" on March 11, 2008.  Congratulations to all of the authors and editors for hashing out this fine article. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:50, 11 March 2008 (CDT)


== Seeking opinions on what to change or further develop in this article ==
== old pictures ==


Taking this article in its current draft, what would others, in particular the Biology Group, like to see further developed or modified.  I have much more in mind for this article, but would like to consider the practicality of getting out a draft that qualifies for consideration of approval. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:31, 13 February 2007 (CST)
There are some images from older versions that are not in the current version.  Do you think we could put the images in to a gallery subpage so that we can still easily find the images.  The one that comes to mind was a picture of a man holding his hands out, I think he was an "evolutionist." [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 21:52, 1 June 2008 (CDT)


== Tiny typo ==


I struggled a bit with this article. I had several reservations, but I think my biggest problem was that this article has this exciting theme and somehow seems to reduce the grand question to almost pedantic considerations of definition.I really only saw the point at all when I came to Mayr's words.
This paragraph in the Molecules paragraph contains a weird fragment: "For the possibility of extraterrestrial life based on inorganic matter see novel proposal of physicists Tsytovich et al. A mass of charged particles — like a swarm of bees — exhibiting features similar to Earth-type living systems". Is this the right way to bring attention to this? [[User:Joshua Choi|Joshua Choi]] 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


*Gareth: I agree about the impact of Mayr's words.  I will move that section up front.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
== Approved? ==


*Gareth: In moving the Mayr Section up front, we make the point Mayr makes about terminology, echo it with other luminaries, then go on to the science.  I feel we really need to educate about the misguided and misleading practice of turning processes and activities into 'things'.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:38, 18 February 2007 (CST)
Citation 35 seems improperly formatted, it shows up as
:"<nowiki>Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named darwin1859</nowiki>"


I think the point is that the simplest living biological system is incredibly complicated, and explaining why they have to be so complicated (machinery for all the processes of living; sensing the environment, feeding, reproduction etc) and what that entails (simplest cell needs ? can't remember, is it 8000 genes?). I guess the question that that begs is how did life originate? It seems to me that is one possible direction for this article.
It is from the section titled "Evolutionary aspects of 'living'". [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 11:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


*Genes can't serve, because genes don't code for interactions, much less co-ordinated dynamical and hierarchical interactions.  Hence need a systems science.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
Thanks, fixed[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Another possible direction would be to talk of the diversity of life, and to explain those elements that were so important for diversification.
== Definition discussion ==
I think you need to carefully check the text, not all cells have the machinery to reproduce themselves for example (think red blood cells).


*Yes. I had not got that far in editing the article. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
An article on definitions of life. [http://www.jbsdonline.com/product-p18287.html] [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


I have the flu now, I guess I was expecting some discussion of viruses and life, and a discussion that persuaded me that the question of what counts as living is an interesting question, not a dictionary question. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:17, 14 February 2007 (CST)
:Great find, Sandy. I found the 20 comments on the Trifonov article even more interesting.


OK, I think each of these statements is false:
:What thoughts do you have re 'defining life'?


*all cells have an inherited "blueprint" for constructing its components, and mechanisms for carrying out the construction;
:Intriguing: "Living entities can be viewed as bounded, informed autocatalytic cycles feeding off matter/energy gradients, exhibiting agency, capable of growth, reproduction, and evolution." (Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2010 Apr;40(2):221-9. Epub 2010 Feb 19. What is life? Defining life in the context of emergent complexity. Weber BH.)
No. Red blood cells dont have a nucleus or DNA. Sperm and ova don't have a full blueprint. Many differentiated cells are not able to reproduce themselves.
*all cells have the capability to assemble and organize themselves from more rudimentary states;
No, just not true, animal cells need a multicellular environment in order to express their developmental fate
*all cells and multicellular systems exist interdependently with other cells and multicellular systems;
does this mean anything?
*all cells and multicellular systems eventually die. I'm not sure that there is any (non trivial) reason why many organisms (fungal organisms) ''must'' die[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:02, 14 February 2007 (CST)


**Yes. Needs work.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
:I keep thinking: Because living systems hasten the pace to maximizing the entropy of the universe, whenever/wherever energy-matter conditions permit, living systems perforce will emerge. Systems that generate more disorder in the system plus surroundings than the order they generate in themselves.  The universe longs for its 'heat death'.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


**Re flu: get well soon.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:33, 14 February 2007 (CST)
::Also see ref 35 in the current [[Life/Draft]].  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Fascinating work so far, but don't you think there are rather too many lists to be maximally readable? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:13, 15 February 2007 (CST)
== Disambiguation, or whatever ==


:*Larry: Will consider. Off the top: lists sem to make otherwise paragraphed complex topics ''more'' readable.  But will re-examine. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:02, 16 February 2007 (CST)
This is obviously the primary topic for this title, but I was wondering how to deal with the game. Then I can't find an article here under Games, Mathematics or Computers. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 06:01, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
:*Larry: Moved one section with a long list to an Appendix.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:32, 18 February 2007 (CST)
===Opening===
Anthony, I think the article could gain from a simpler opening few sentences. cheers [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 03:49, 27 February 2007 (CST)


==Title==
:Yes, there needs to be a disambiguation page--but, what to name this one? I'll look at Wikipedia and mull options.  Any ideas? [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 08:29, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
Just a passing comment, very probably not a new thought here.  I think this article should be re-titled [[life (biology)]] to distinguish from any future article such as [[life (philosophy)]](?) and [[Life (magazine)]]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 16:10, 1 March 2007 (CST)


:Stephen: Yes, 'life' has many senses.  But everyone will take unqualified 'life' in its biological sense.  Typically, as new 'life' articles appear, a header will announce the present article as distinguishable from [[Life (magazine)]] etc.  I think the other 'life' articles should qualify 'life' in ''their'' titles, leaving biological 'life' unqualified.  If qualification deemed necessary, I'd suggest 'Life, or Living Systems' as title.  Not sure how to format.  Thanks for the thought.  Hopefully others will comment.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:04, 1 March 2007 (CST)
::I have begun [[Life (disambiguation)]]; it needs a lot of work.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 09:02, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
 
::When I saw the article title in recent changes for the first time, my first impression was its philosophical sense - why, how, meaning, mystery, etc. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 23:41, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 
Anthony, this article is very erudite and becoming very interesting. I've tried to simplify the text in places, I hope without losing anything, but please revert anything without hesitation.
 
I think I would favour changing some of the lists into prose.
 
The scope of the topic is of course vast and you have to select some path through, and I can see many possible very different articles on this theme. I think things that come to mind are, in chemistry, the division between organic and inorganic, and in biology, the concept of a vital spark - and maybe Frankenstein.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
I cut this out: "Interestingly, in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb 'to live' preceded usage of the noun 'life' by some 300 years." not because I don't find it interesting, it's the kind of aside I always like, but because this is about the written use of the word, we know nothing of its spoken use. ???[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:59, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
:Gareth: Thank you for 'erudite'. I trust you refer to the content as scholarly. I have tried hard to keep the text as unambiguous as possible, to facilitate its accessibility.  I appreciate you help in 'simplifying' the text, especially the consolidations.
 
:I would like you to know some things about my writing style:
:*Whenever possible, I try to avoid using the verb 'to be' and its declensions (e.g., is, are, was, etc.). I do that mainly because I consider them weak verbs that give the sentences no force, or dynamism, or strength--the result of taking the easy way out.  I prefer to find an active verb, a legitimate one or sometimes a coined one whose meaning the context makes clear.  The more active verbs in a piece, the more dynamic the text gets, as I see it.  In many instances, you change the verbs I used to the weaker 'to be' versions, and I don't quite see why.  I think 'to simplify'.  But if so, I feel we should not support that mode of 'simplicity', which one might interpret as 'dumbing down'.
:*Another reason I try to avoid 'to be' forms: They often seem dogmatic and at the same time in reality only state a partial truth.  For example: "Plants are living things". But if one posits what plants 'are', one must have a longer list of the identities of plants, much longer. Depending on context, one can write more specifically.  For example, in the context of the discussion of 'semantic primes', I would write: "Plants define as living things".  In a context of exemplifying living things, I would write: "Plants qualify as living things". Of course, 'are' works both places, but then you lose the richer and more specifying 'define' and 'qualify'.
:*Another reason I try to avoid 'to be' forms: They often encourage using the passive voice, which often submerges the subject or agent, and tends to dull the writing.
 
:I do not follow that standard as a 'purist' would. "To be"s have their place in my writing, but I use them sparingly.  Nevertheless, I would not try to dissuade you from re-writing my sentences with 'to be' verbs, as it often forces me to rethink the sentence to find an active verb that will strike you as apposite.
 
:Regarding your suggestion to convert lists to prose: I prefer to use lists to reduce the density of the prose. They encapsulate the messages, making it easier for the reader to get the messages and take them home with her. I plan to write a short essay: "Ten reasons for using lists in CZ articles."  As time permits.
 
:Regarding your: "I cut this out: "Interestingly, in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb 'to live' preceded usage of the noun 'life' by some 300 years." not because I don't find it interesting, it's the kind of aside I always like, but because this is about the written use of the word, we know nothing of its spoken use."
 
:Indisputable. I have read two histories of the making of the OED. It would surprise me if English speakers spoke the word 'life' during the 300 years in which we can feel certain they spoke 'live', yet 'live' but not 'life' found its way into writings.  Knowing how OED combed the literature, not finding 'life' suggests the English didn't use the word.  Still, I only try to justify, and have no real problem bdropping the sentence. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:49, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
:Regarding your: "The scope of the topic is of course vast and you have to select some path through, and I can see many possible very different articles on this theme. I think things that come to mind are, in chemistry, the division between organic and inorganic, and in biology, the concept of a vital spark - and maybe Frankenstein."
 
::I totally agree. Right now I focus my thinking on the various perspectives scientists have on what fundamentally constitutes a living system--hoping in the end to generate a synthesis.  That accomplished, much else needs consideration.--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:58, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 
==Ambiguity==
"Species populations tend to grow as resources and other factors permit." Do you mean increase here or growth in body mass?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:07, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
:Thanks, Gareth, for catching that ambiguity.  I changed the sentence to read"
:::"Species tend to grow in numbers of individuals as resources and other factors permit."
--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:57, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
== Pictures ==
 
This section is designed to discuss if / which pictures should go in this article.  [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 18:26, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 
:Tom, I hope several.  Suggestions?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:58, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 08:02, 1 November 2022

This article has a Citable Version.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
Signed Articles [?]
Addendum [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Living systems, of which biologists seek the commonalities distinguishing them from non-living systems. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Biology [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive:  1, 2, 3  English language variant:  American English

Approval

OK, I've updated the version number, and don't see any dissent from approval, so at the end of today, this article will be approved unless there is a last minute objection.Gareth Leng 06:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Thank you, Gareth. In the new version number, I still see a typo or two, and a few wikilinks needed, but I will not edit the current version, so you will not have to update the version number again today. I understand an editor can make minor copyedits to an approved version, but I'll check policy on that if I decide such edits necessary after today's (hopefully) approval. The curse of the perfectionist. --Anthony.Sebastian 14:20, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Anthony, if you want to go ahead and make the changes that you see I will incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight as long as they are not 'content' edits. Spelling and linking are definitely allowed. I'll just make a note of them on the Approval page. --D. Matt Innis 15:09, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Thanks, Matt. I made five history-page-recorded edit series since 21:00, after Gareth updated the version number for approval; all corrections of typos or additions of wikilinks. I appreciate your offer to "incorporate them into the re-approved version tonight", but if that means your inserting the edits yourself manually, that seems too much. I'm happy to edit the re-approved version after its up, tomorrow say, assuming I have authorization to do such a thing, and assuming an approved version once up is editable by an editor. If so, you can monitor my edits afterwards. Save you the work. --Anthony.Sebastian 16:35, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Hi Anthony, those edits are all copyedits, so I will just copy the current draft page over to the approved version with those edits with it. That is no harder than copying the other version, so no problem. You can still make copyedits afterward, too, as the nominating editor. And as always, I look out for anyone changing the approved versions, as you pay me to do ;-) --D. Matt Innis 17:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Thanks again, Matt. I'll stop worrying (and copyediting). I always learn something communicating with you. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:05, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.2

It appears that we have 3 to 4 approving editors with no significant outstanding issues that were not handled. This approval can move forward.

Discussion for Version 1.2 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Looking better every version! I created a third archive as well. If you need to bring anything back, just cut and paste. --D. Matt Innis 22:11, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

looks beautiful.

wow. I really enjoy the layout. Tom Kelly 00:37, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Article of the Week - March 11, 2008

This article was voted "Article of the Week" on March 11, 2008. Congratulations to all of the authors and editors for hashing out this fine article. David E. Volk 13:50, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

old pictures

There are some images from older versions that are not in the current version. Do you think we could put the images in to a gallery subpage so that we can still easily find the images. The one that comes to mind was a picture of a man holding his hands out, I think he was an "evolutionist." Tom Kelly 21:52, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Tiny typo

This paragraph in the Molecules paragraph contains a weird fragment: "For the possibility of extraterrestrial life based on inorganic matter see novel proposal of physicists Tsytovich et al. A mass of charged particles — like a swarm of bees — exhibiting features similar to Earth-type living systems". Is this the right way to bring attention to this? Joshua Choi 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Approved?

Citation 35 seems improperly formatted, it shows up as

"Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named darwin1859"

It is from the section titled "Evolutionary aspects of 'living'". David Finn 11:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixedGareth Leng 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition discussion

An article on definitions of life. [1] Sandy Harris 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Great find, Sandy. I found the 20 comments on the Trifonov article even more interesting.
What thoughts do you have re 'defining life'?
Intriguing: "Living entities can be viewed as bounded, informed autocatalytic cycles feeding off matter/energy gradients, exhibiting agency, capable of growth, reproduction, and evolution." (Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2010 Apr;40(2):221-9. Epub 2010 Feb 19. What is life? Defining life in the context of emergent complexity. Weber BH.)
I keep thinking: Because living systems hasten the pace to maximizing the entropy of the universe, whenever/wherever energy-matter conditions permit, living systems perforce will emerge. Systems that generate more disorder in the system plus surroundings than the order they generate in themselves. The universe longs for its 'heat death'. Anthony.Sebastian 04:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Also see ref 35 in the current Life/Draft. Anthony.Sebastian 04:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation, or whatever

This is obviously the primary topic for this title, but I was wondering how to deal with the game. Then I can't find an article here under Games, Mathematics or Computers. Peter Jackson (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2022 (CDT)

Yes, there needs to be a disambiguation page--but, what to name this one? I'll look at Wikipedia and mull options. Any ideas? Pat Palmer (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
I have begun Life (disambiguation); it needs a lot of work.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2022 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Life/Draft&oldid=873966"