[betty boop]

My analogy of fire as a life form is just as valid.

If you say so, Barnacle. There's no sense trying to interest you in a fascinating hypothesis you have already determined is impossible, based on what you already know. Your mind is "made up," sight unseen.

Myself, I find it best to keep an open mind. If the hypothesis is experimentally falsified, well, there's the end of it. The forthcoming Grandpierre article deals with proposed experimental tests. I'm content to let the astrophysicists do the science, and wait to see what they come up with.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree that we must keep an open mind!

Perhaps the concern is that such a hypothesis is a type of mysticism rather than physics. I disagree.

From the Pattee article:

There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models.