- #1
fuddywook
- 1
- 0
Why is life not included as a separate (fifth) fundamental force of nature? I’ve heard it said that life is more efficient at transforming energy (moving things around) than nuclear energy. This would seem to imply a force that is separate from the other 4. (I’m not necessarily talking about a unifying force, but only a separate one.) If the argument is because other forces are involved in biology, I would debate that basis. The other forces don’t seem to sufficiently explain or make up the force which animates organic matter into life. Besides, the strong nuclear force is involved in the existence of our Earth but that doesn’t mean that another force (gravity) is not also/more present/responsible. If the argument against life being included is that we can’t explain life, then I would also debate that basis. Completely explaining a fundamental force is not required in order to identify it. I believe gravity has yet to be completely explained.
(Gee, I hope this is not a “homework type question”. If so, sorry.)
(Gee, I hope this is not a “homework type question”. If so, sorry.)