Life in the sun

[m_the0ry]

The metabolism first thread reminded me of some old thoughts. Here - in this post - the sun is just one example of an extrema.

Even though the sun is closer to us than many of the well-known planets, our understanding is lacking. Due to noise and extreme heat probes can't see very far into the sun, only a limited extent of its surface. We do however know that there are complex reaction cycles inside stars, and that all heavy elements are conceived inside of stars. In fact, some theories claim there exists at least one reaction cycle per known element inside of the sun.

With so many cyclic reactions on such a massive scale difference (atomic compared to the size of the sun; many many orders of magnitude) is it unreasonable to consider that sentience could exist *inside* of the sun? This 'life' would look like nothing we are used to, and no simulation has predicted a 'memory' element inside the sun that seems to be necessary for complex life to evolve.

Admittedly, this scenario is unlikely. But what about other scenarios where sentient life does exist, but its main medium is not the carbon-hydrogen bond? Is there really anything preventing gaseous or liquid life in the atmosphere of venus or the methane pools of titan? This possibility becomes far more realistic when we consider the vast array of environments existing outside of our own solar system.

How ironic would it be if - while SETI looks for signs of intelligence (water, carbon, things we hold commonplace) - the beings inside the sun are attempting to communicate with us via solar flares?

just something fun to think about.

[SNOWBALL]

how are we defining life:
replicators with a cycle of birth and death?

[Phil153]

Under the known laws of physics, what you suggest seems unlikely if not impossible. There are a two main reason:

- Things tend to decay towards disorder and greater entropy by the simple properties of diffusion, radioactive decay, thermodynamics, and so on.

- It is assumed that all "sentient" life will need an extremely complex type of processor based on the known laws of physics. All known processing techniques to date are based on local interaction between adjacent computational elements. Due to the complexity of such a processor, it's also necessarily delicate, and requires building blocks that can form manifold states - without intelligent machining, this generally requires the almost infinite variety provided by changeable structures such as proteins and a relatively stable, localized environment in which to develop.

There may well be yet undiscovered laws that allow complex, information containing structures to exist and develop in another dimension or under subatomic rules which we are currently aware of, and somehow interact with what we know. However, there's no evidence for this at this stage, and given the complete lack of anomalies detected so far, I'd say it's unlikely.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, some theories claim there exists at least one reaction cycle per known element inside of the sun.


[/ QUOTE ]

What does this even mean? If you are implying that someone claims that all elements are capable of being formed within our Sun, that's certainly not a mainstream accepted theory. Please point me to a theory that says this is possible. As far as I know, it's not. The sun is capable of producing carbon and then it stops. Period. Unless you want to talk about the red giant phase, which the sun is clearly not in.

In any case, what in the hell are you talking about?

[thylacine]

I get this image of the Sun, waking up to its first dawning of sentience, and going

``hmmmm. huh? OW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] wha? OO! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OUCH! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] what the? OW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] YEEOUCH! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] what is this? OO! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] YOUCH! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] what the dickens? YOW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] HO-O-O-TTT!!! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] HOT! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] HOT! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] HOT! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OO! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OO! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OUCH! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] YOW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] OW! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] YEEEEOOOOOWOWOWOUCH!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I'M OUTA HERE!! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] ''

and then running off and jumping into a pond.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
All known processing techniques to date are based on local interaction between adjacent computational elements. Due to the complexity of such a processor, it's also necessarily delicate and requires building blocks that can form manifold states - without intelligent machining, this generally requires the almost infinite variety provided by changeable structures such as proteins and a relatively stable, localized environment in which to develop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you lost me somewhere. I agree we can model intelligence as the result of a finite state machine but to generalize it as such is an unfair assumption. Stability is a statement about equilibrium over timescales, and the timescales involved in nuclear cycles are much smaller than those we are used to in chemical pathways.

Stop me if I am putting words in your mouth, but I don't think you would claim that the reactions inside a star cannot be classified as emergent complexity. They would not be expected in other environments and are difficult to predict without a great deal of insight. My point in making the OP is that there is a great deal of emergent complexity in our universe and only a small fraction of it is well understood by us.


@MrMon -

As stated in the first paragraph I use the sun as an example. All heavy elements come from stars and this most certainly is a mainstream accepted theory. Most or have their own reaction cycles (nuclear not chemical) and the implication was that there are equivalent to 'metabolic pathways' in environments we assume to be too extreme to host emergent complexity. Our sun was an example. Lose the inflammatory tone, this isn't the politics forum.

[MrMon]

Yes, all heavy elements come from stars, and this is accepted theory, but they most assuredly do NOT come stars like the sun, and this is also accepted theory.

Stop abusing science.

[Metric]

I like these sorts of thoughts -- I know you realize it's an extreme longshot, but it's certainly original and an interesting exercise.

Here's my argument that it won't work: There is no such thing as "nuclear" molecules -- that is, you can't build up large, complex structures using nuclear binding energy to hook nucleus to nucleus (and of course chemical binding energy is dwarfed by thermal energy inside the sun so it's useless in this regard). At least, not at the temperatures and pressures inside the sun. Your building blocks will never fit together to form stable structures more complex than a single nucleus. So a proper analogy would be trying to build life in our world without molecular bonds -- let's say roughly like trying to build life out of a cocktail of noble gasses only, at room temperature (possibly with time-dependent concentrations of the relative elements, representing fusion or fission within the sun).

If you've got a counter-argument, I'd love to hear it. This seems pretty insurmountable to me, though.

[SNOWBALL]

Anything sufficiently complex might be capable of sentience, regardless of what it is made out of. Maybe the sentience only lasts a fraction of a second during the time that every part of it is properly aligned. Maybe the whole universe has been sentient at one time. All the particles take turns arranging themselves into grand configurations and conjuring up souls and whatnot. The vastness is an ego- brewing cauldron.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Anything sufficiently complex might be capable of sentience, regardless of what it is made out of. Maybe the sentience only lasts a fraction of a second during the time that every part of it is properly aligned. Maybe the whole universe has been sentient at one time. All the particles take turns arranging themselves into grand configurations and conjuring up souls and whatnot. The vastness is an ego- brewing cauldron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should point out that when I say sentience, I'm talking about it ina very loose sense. Like imagine what we have as 100% sentience. I'm talking about like 1% or w/e of that. 100% sentience is probably too complex to seriously discuss as coming together by pure chance.

Also, some of you might recognize my paraphrase "Anything sufficiently complex might be capable of sentience". I think that's from Dennett.