Again, where does this "scientific basis" come from — without you having to invoke metaphysics by way of explanation???
From where I sit, the life principle is "at war" with the so-called "entropic principle" as articulated by "science."
Which is hardly to say that I hold "science" worthless, to be held in contempt.
I am only saying — or trying to say — that science can only get at problems that can be "measured."
It turns out that any such notion as "life principle" is immeasurable in scientific methodological terms.
Does this mean that there really is "no Life" in the universe of human experience, existentially discerned by human souls?
Oh, I forget. There are people nowadays who tend to argue that human beings are just machines anyway. And so have no possible "use" for "souls."
Still that answer doesn't "answer," as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, even if human beings were only "machines," they would still need a "program" in order to function in any kind of productive, beneficial way.
It all boils back to the seemingly eerie fact that the cosmos is indeed ordered; but not in such a way as to preclude the human search for understanding of its order.
Somehow Man seems to be the "free agent" of all the splendor and chaos of our present time....
Any chemical reaction can only proceed if entropy increase exceeds zero. We are chemical beings, fuelled by chemical processes. None of our processes may violate the laws of thermodynamics. I don't know where you may be, but my body and all of its physical processes are firmly ensconced in the physical world.
It all boils back to the seemingly eerie fact that the cosmos is indeed ordered; but not in such a way as to preclude the human search for understanding of its order.
Gonna throw thermodynamic laws out the cosmic window?
Mark: What we are talking about is that life, like every other process, produces entropy — from a scientific basis.
Spirited: We know entropy exists by its’ discernable effects, yet we cannot see entropy itself anymore than we can see gravity. We know life exists because we “live,” as do animals and plant life. We know life exists but we cannot see life. We know that light exists, yet we cannot empirically prove its’ existence. We might try pointing to a light bulb, but light bulbs are not light. They are conveyers of light. Processes exist. We know they do by their effects, yet we cannot see processes anymore than we can see power. If Mark was required to empirically demonstrate that he dreams, he could not do so even though he knows he dreams.