Whats wrong with my logic?

Question

What is wrong with my premises or logic. My logic skills are a little rusty, but im tryin to prove that life can not be destroyed. It helps if you took a logic class.
Here are my premises, and my reason for them being true in paranthesis:

If something is alive, then it has mass.
(otherwise it wouldnt exist)
If something has mass, then it has energy.
(E=MC2)
If something has energy, then it cant be destroyed.
(Law of Conservation of Energy)
Something is alive.
(Otherwise, I couldnt be typing on my computer.)

Thank you for your answers. :)

Because I know something is alive, I can use Modus Ponens(M.P) and conclude I have mass. If I have mass, I can conclude I have energy(M.P). If I have energy, I know I cant be destroyed(M.P).

Answer 1

(1) For all x, if x is alive, x has mass.
(2) For all x, if x has mass, then x has energy.
(3) For all x, if x has energy, then it cannot be destroyed.

Premise (3) seems to be the weak link. Energy cannot be destroyed, but something that is composed of energy or "has" energy, and given a name, can be detroyed. My computer is made of energy. If I throw it into a volcano, it will no longer be the composite we call a "computer", but the component energy will still persist in a different form. "Life" is the name we give to a certain set of biological conditions, so by analogy, life can be destroyed or decomposed, but the component energy cannot.

Again, if I build a castle out of lego (energy), I would call the finished product a "lego castle" (life). If it gets dismantled, the lego (energy) will still exist, but the castle, which was a composite would not.

Answer 2

If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium! (Modus tollens and all that...) :P I'm fascinated by logic and intend to study it formally one day - but it seems to me the method cannot be applied to this problem:
Life can easily be destroyed: as soon as something living e.g. a cactus plant, is killed, it becomes *dead*; 'dead' - having no life, not being alive. If it's not alive, it's not a life; no life = life is not present, no *longer* present; gone. Where has it gone to? What could it have been, that makes a thing 'live' and can then cease to be (or go somewhere else)? It cannot have been energy (at least as we know it) since energy can never cease to be, can never become 'gone' - only altered. Ergo, *something* as yet unknown makes a thing 'alive'; and all studies have so far failed to pinpoint what this thing is, what it might look like, etc. It has been called the 'soul' (although this is not usually considered of a plant!).
The 'miracle' of life...is that we (and I) are composed of the same material as a lump of coal...merely an abundance of atoms, just as is in the coal, only in different numbers and formations. Yet I can think to move my arm and the atoms in my arm move. Since the thought unquestionably moves the atoms, which are definitely real, the thought *must* also be real, must also be present. So where is it? How much does it weigh? :) It seems to me (a layman, I must admit) that logic can be used only so far, in the manner you have attempted i.e. you can define life in a manner that fits known concepts e.g. mass and energy, but there seems to be at least one more factor (of which 'thought' is a part) that defies explanation (and thus cannot be equated).

Answer 3

"It has mass otherwise it wouldn't exist."

Can't something exist without having mass? The laws behind the universe such as gravity act on matter and may be a result of matter but these laws themselves do not have mass. Likewise our thoughts result from our brain activity but the thoughts themselves do not have mass.

The reason gravity works or how cells come together to form intelligent life, is not made of mass but acts on mass.

Furthermore, how do we define life? If we define it as activity then can we call robots alive? Or at least call the matter that makes up a robot alive? - Or do we subject life to the cells that make up a living being? Are these cells alive or just the product of them? - Finally, can we say that gravity and such laws are alive in that these laws are part of what make life possible?

These forces use mass and energy to act. Where is the programming of such forces? Can we rearrange the programming to change the laws of physics? Science can manipulate certain variables of a substance and do amazing things but it only happens on a small scale. Reality itself is not changed as a whole. The laws are the same, we can only change the matter/energy to observe how the manipulated substance reacts to the same law. We can't change the law itself but we can push the materials to the extreme to observe how the laws of physics work in these extremes.

The laws exist without mass or energy. Mass and energy are programmed by these laws in how to react. If the laws didn't exist there would be no order, no logic. These laws are alive and constantly working in an unchanging manner. They may not have the intelligence of free choice but they do act on everything an in a way that instructs mass and energy in how to act logically.

p.s. Think of how things would be affected if these laws of logic died. Crazy, huh?

Answer 4

Lol. Nothing is wrong with anyone's logic ;) People will just tell you that because it's different from theirs, and if you havn't noticed, they try to make everyone think the same. JUST LOOK AT SCHOOLS! It's not a conspiracy though....

"life" is not just matter and/or energy. If it was, it would be called "matter" or "energy" or "matter and energy" not life :P.

Yes matter and energy will go on. The pieces of us will still exist, but they are no longer us, or a piece of life. Because we have established several characteristics something MUST have to be considered alive. SOme are to intake energy, expell wastes, and grow. But that certainly isn't all of them.

But you see, this is saying life IS those requirements. You can easily have your own definition of what life is, which could in turn, make you right. :P

Answer 5

Reincarnation,as many believe occurs,would substantiate some of your logic/premises,but most are scientifically unsubstantiated. There are somethings that are not resolvable, or explained..even tho those much more intelligent than we,have argued for eternity..such as evolution..Had a child in Mexico ask me if I believed in God, and if so, was there anything that he could not do???? To which I answered yes to both....She then asked me if ?"God could create a stone so hard that he could not break it"?? Lost a days ration of tortillas and beans to that eight year old genius.....

Answer 6

I'm not certain, but just because the energy that makes up the atoms that make up you cannot be destroyed does not mean that you cannot die. It just means that the atoms will eventually transform bonding and such giving off energy as heat in the process (Law of Entropy). So the energy cannot be destroyed, but atoms can.

I am not sure though.

Answer 7

(Given that existence exists)

Define 'alive':
______If (variable form for all that is considered to be a prerequisite to be alive) = 1; alive = 1

Define 'mass':
______'mass' = (the algorythm used to define the amount of 'existence' per form)

Define 'energy':
______'energy' = (the fundamental existence which existence is based on, including 'mass', simplified to a single unit; could be quantity)

Define 'something':
______Get ExistenceCount()
______If ExistenceCount >= 1; seta 'existence' = 'something'

// no need to define 'destruction' since it is not possible

The bottleneck here is the definition of the state of being 'alive' which in today's version is not consistent (search for 'virus').

Therefore life *can* be destroyed if it is a derivative of a special 'state of being', but it cannot if it simply is 'existence' itself, which on my terms is not.

Problem solved.

Answer 8

You are something more than mass. You have structure. If that physical structure is scrambled, you are physically destroyed. But what about the immaterial part of you? What about that ability to know and understand abstract ideas?Ideas about knowledge, love, truth? Do you have an immaterial force which lives on?

Answer 9

Energy changes form
It is still energy
Bodies may have no animator, (or be dead)
but the energy of the flesh goes back into the ground.
What is your question.?

Answer 10

assuming energy is life is the logic error.

"life –noun 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life