The Limitations of a Carbon-Centric View: Exploring the Continuum of Life

 Our current science - with all its limitations - generally defines life as biomass based on the element carbon, because carbon is indeed a fundamental to biology on Earth. And if we're taking biology as the fundamental science that defines what life is, then this seems reasonable.   And ultimately, if that's the case, then of course it follows that the reasonable definition of death would be cessation of biological processes.  We currently know, of course, that biological processes do end, and that the law of thermodynamics that explains entropy also applies to those biological systems and processes, so that over any given time period extended far enough into the future, the curve drops to zero.   This is all proven true, and isn't disputable.   But it does assume one thing:  that life is defined as biology, and therefore governed by the same laws.    I want to look at how this carbon-centric view is limiting our exploration of the life continuum and a couple of reasons why we need to expand our thinking on this. 

First of all, as I mentioned in my previous post, not all scientists agree that biological or physical realism is fundamental in the universe.    Max Planck, for instance, declare consciousness as fundamental to the nature of the universe. By fundamental, I mean to say that it's the very foundation of all that is or ever was or ever will be.    In other words, reality as we know it springs from it.   So already, one historically significant figure in science has stated that not biology but consciousness is the axiom from which all  variables must originate. Our carbon-centered view that states life must be defined by its critical elements may be leading us down the wrong path!

Second, our commitment to maintain the carbon-centric view of life has rooted us firmly in the knowledge that it ends. And it does.  Carbon has a shelf life, and it isn't forever. It's destructible, and subject to the decay of processes and time.  There's no escaping that.    If life is based solely on carbon, it is going to end, and there is nothing we can do about it.    

If we define life as only a carbon-based experience, we may be missing out on
the underlying framework of what life really is. 

But what if life isn't really based on carbon?  What if the definition of life is something much broader, much more significant?  What if our view of its most important element, carbon, has hidden from us something much deeper, or much more intrinsic? What if carbon just provides the infrastructure, but life itself is made of something we do not yet understand?   

What if...

What if..

I keep asking these questions.    I am still trying to understand the continuum of life - of what it looks like behind the veil of our physically governed world.     I believe part of understanding biomechanical death (and why it isn't death at all) lies in understanding what life really is, and I don't feel like our science has been able to measure up to this task yet.    I'm hoping these premises change over the next few decades, so that we can begin to move toward an understanding of the life continuum, and move away from our limiting view of life and death as we know it today.