News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy eleme... by vasco on Saturday July 11, 2026 @03:23AM (#48869617)
> and still nobody has gone beyond Aristotle and Kant in giving anything close to a rigorous definition of life as such

You stopped reading after the 1800's? Schrödinger told us life is what feeds on negative entropy and that is pretty good.

Re:Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy eleme... by DiscourseFan on Saturday July 11, 2026 @04:01AM (#48869847)
I guess that is true, but it isn't much. But my basic point was that before you can have "life" you have to have a theory of life which ultimately requires metaphysics, and there hasn't been much of an update to our understanding of what would ground a definition of life beyond Aristotle and Kant, and even their work is not determinative by any means.
Re:Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy eleme... by vasco on Sunday July 12, 2026 @03:09AM (#48879036)
Just because you picked 2 guys it doesn't mean nobody else had any different ideas. What a weird position to have, unless you literally read everything. There's so many theories. You didn't even include religions
Re:Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy eleme... by inigyou on Saturday July 11, 2026 @05:54AM (#48870474)
Freezing water is life?
Re:Einstein's relativity rules chemical bonds in heavy eleme... by applicative on Saturday July 11, 2026 @08:24AM (#48871435)
Look into Aristotle and Kant on ‘the organized /and self-organizing/ being’; apply a couple thermodynamic abstractions known to adolescents ; be named Erwin Schrödinger ; hackernews will respond accordingly.