what is life, can you define it exactly without any ambiguity?

Answer 1

Perhaps the most compelling reason it is difficult to define life is the lack of objective measuring tools. All of our human methods for defining the undefinable (science, philosophy, religion, metaphysics, etc.) are self-limiting in some way. Unlike other living organisms, human beings seem to be driven to quantify and categorize the world around them. If we can describe a phenomenon such as 'life' well enough, we can bring some order out of chaos. The problem is, once one working definition of life has been created, a previously unknown plant or animal may appear and defy the definition.

Scientists have several qualifications they use to define life, including the ability to reproduce and a reaction to outside stimuli, such as light or heat. But certain computer viruses can use electronics to replicate themselves, and some inorganic materials can be engineered to respond to outside stimuli- plastics which shrink from exposure to heat, for example. Obviously computer viruses and engineered plastics are not living organisms, but they each satisfy at least one of the criteria scientists use to define life. Scientific methods and principles alone cannot adequately describe all of the elements of life.

Just as non-living objects can have similiar qualities as living organisms, living organism may have similar qualities as those not alive. For example, a human child contains a measurable amount of iron, sulfur, zinc, calcium, carbon, water and salt. Coincidentally, a random sampling of gravel and topsoil also contain these elements. Clearly life is not completely defined by a list of elemental ingredients.

Experience tells us that other elements found in our world (minerals, water, metals, etc.) may contribute to life, but are not filled with this undefinable life force. Humans can quantify the objects around us as animal, vegetable or mineral, but we cannot capture and examine the life force which supports the largest tree and the smallest one-celled organism.

From a philosophical or metaphysical point of view, life occurs whether we humans can measure it or not. The fact that we are sentient (capable of self-awareness and thought) tells us that we are indeed filled with a force called life. Plants and animals that share some of our own organic structures are also said to be alive.

Religion has also played a role in our quest to define life. Many religions believe that life is a gift sent by a benevolent Creator who set in motion all of the biological processes needed to sustain this life force. Power of this magnitude and scope is beyond human comprehension, so many people feel compelled for spiritual and philosophical reasons to accept the undefinable qualities of life.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-it-difficult-to-define-life.htm

What is life? Does this sound like a strange question to you? Of course we all know what is meant by the word "life", but how would you define it?

Do all living things move? Do they all eat and breathe? Even though we all seem to know what is meant by saying something is "alive", it's not very easy to describe what "life" is. It's almost as hard as describing where life came from.

Even the biologists (people who study life) have a tough time describing what life is! But after many years of studying living things, from the mold on your old tuna sandwich to monkeys in the rainforest, biologists have determined that all living things do share some things in common:

1) Living things need to take in energy
2) Living things get rid of waste
3) Living things grow and develop
4) Living things respond to their environment
5) Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring
6) Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment

Therefore, in order for something to be considered to "have life" as we know it, it must possess these characteristics.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Life/life1.html

Answer 2

One possible definition of life is this: 'The property that a being will lose as a result of falling five miles from a mysterious, cold, white cave in the sky.' This definition is not a very useful one for two important reasons; a) because it may equally apply to the subjects glasses if he happens to be wearing them and b) because it fails to take into account that the subject may happen to fall on to the... say... the back of an extremely large bird. The first of these is merely due to sloppy thinking, but the second is understandable because the idea is quite clearly utterly ludicrous.

Answer 3

Hmmm it's tricky. Wikipedia has a pretty good go though with seven essential conditions to be met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Answer 4

I would say only that given sufficient relativism, you cannot prove anything without ambiguity.

Answer 5

Life is god's dream. Let's hope god has only a few nightmares.