Not if you use the appropriate level of description - see my post on emergence.
I read it. My statement stands.
There are problems defining life on Earth - are viruses alive?
Yes. That was my point. But why are there problems with it? My proposed reason is that the definitions are post hoc. People choose things they perceive as alive and then try to fit a definition to them without really addressing why they thought it was alive in the first place. Were we to simply define the term and the tests for fulfilling that term, it seems the problem would largely disappear.
So back to one of my earlier questions - is there really a scientific purpose for the word 'life'? Or is it merely a classifying term for people who learn about a specific group of chemical reactions since it's too hard to learn about every chemical reaction? If we're going to acknowledge that leaves some 'edge cases' (as you called it) unexplainable, are we then defining a limit to science? Or, do we need a new term to expand into those edge cases? Maybe ... intent?
Objections to using such words intrigue me because, in times past, adopting words such as 'force' or 'reaction' was to appropriate words that were traditionally associated with mystical beliefs - still are. But now they have scientific meanings apart from the original mystical belief.
Upvote
0