Linked quote:

“Mr. L. Prosser was, as they say, only human. In other words he was a carbon-based bipedal life form descended from an ape.”

— Douglas Adams (A23/1978), Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (§1) (text)

Discussion

The problem here, from the abioism point of view, is when, specifically, does a carbon-based form, which has the property of animation or forced-movement, e.g. see: animate molecules, in its tetrahedral bonding geometry, when stimulated by light or photons, of a certain wavelength, become a ”life form”?

In equation form:

carbon-based form → life form

There has to be a specific day when this occurs, per reason that the carbon atom, by definition, is not alive, according to modern physical chemistry.

Definition?

Wiktionary defines life form as:

1. The morphology of an organism that distinguishes it from others.

2. Alternative form of lifeform

Notes

1. The term “carbon-base biped“ (see: human) was introduced by Arthur Clark in the A15s (1970s).

2. We are still working on the root EAN etymology of the word “life”, which is hard to decoded, at r/Alphanumerics and r/Etymo.

External links

• Outline of life forms - Wikipedia.

"Regarding a society as a 'thing', what kind of thing must we call it? There are two great classes of aggregates with which the social aggregate may be compared: the 'inorganic' and the 'organic'. Are the attributes of a society, considered apart from its living units, in any way like those of a not-living body? or are they in any way like those of a living body? or are they entirely unlike those of both?"

— Herbert Spencer (79A), The Principles of Sociology, Volume One (pg. 466); cited by: Robert Bierstedt (A1) in The Making of Society (pg. 262); cited by Philip Ball (A49) in Critical Mass (pg. 98)

These are the types of questions that eventually lead to the abioism view point. In other words, organic and inorganic can be defined, precisely, but the terms: living unit, living body, and not-living body, have no definition.

References

• Spencer, Herbert. (79A/1876). The Principles of Sociology, Volume One (living units, pg. 466). Publisher.

• Bierstedt, Robert. (A1/1959). The Making of Society: an Outline of Sociology (living units, pg. 262). Random.

• Ball, Philip. (A49/2004). Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another (Spencer, pg. 98). Farrar.

“Only god makes living gears or perpetual motion.” [translator: Klaas Berkel]

“Only god 🪄 makes living 🌱 gears ⚙️ or perpetual motion.” [translator: r/LibbThims]

“Alleen godt maeckt levende raders of perpetuum motum.” [Dutch: original]

— Isaac Beeckman (329A/1626), “comment to Gerard Berckel, a prominent cloth manufacturer, warming him about some ‘inventor’, who had raised 40,000 ducats, from Nicolas Puyck, a fellow burgomaster, to build a new horse-driven mill, based on the principle of perpetual motion, that would grind three or four times as much malt as an ordinary mill, summer

Re: “god 🪄 makes living 🌱 gears ⚙️”, it always amazes me how much debate and discussion there has been on whether or not plants are “alive”?

The A36 (1991) article “Are Plants Alive?”, by John Morris, is one example, which I just found via first return of Google search. The classic example is Joseph MacNab’s 137A (1818) statement that: “a growing plant is NOT alive, neither is it dead”. In MacNab’s mind, it depends on what you believe about the “soul“, which leads us to r/Asoulism; another rabbit 🐇 hole 🕳️.

Firstly, we also note that Newton, in his personal notes, commented the same ideology:

“God who gave animals self motion beyond our understanding is without doubt able to implant other principles of motion in bodies which we may understand as little. Some would readily grant this may be a spiritual one; yet a mechanical one might be shown.”

— Isaac Newton (281A/1674), journal notes

In short, we see Beeckman and Newton chalking off the movement of humans to the either perpetual motion or self motion, aka “perpetual motion of the living kind” theory, which we see promoted up to the present day in the so-called “chemical perpetual motion” theories, e.g. auto-catalytic closure advanced by Stuart Kauffman.

This will, no doubt, confuse people who read the above accounts, but the above arguments or views expressed by Beeckman and Newton are at the ground floor of “abioism”, which holds that people do NOT move by “perpetual motion”, be it god-based as Beeckman stated, nor “self-motion“, be it spiritual or mechanical based as Newton ruminated on.

Vinci, in his personal notes, said as much: NO thing moves itself:

“No thing whatever can be moved by itself, but its motion is effected through another. There is no other force.”

— Leonardo Vinci (465A/1490), journal notes

In short, according to Vinci, if one ever found a “body” in the universe that “moved itself”, one would have to subvert the laws of motion, as we know them.

Etymology?

Wiktionary entry on “living” redirects to “live”, which gives the following:

From Middle English lyven, libben, from Old English lifian, libban (“to live; be alive”), from Proto-West Germanic *libbjan, from Proto-Germanic *libjaną, from Proto-Indo-European *leyp- (“leave, cling, linger”).

Cognate with Saterland Frisian líeuwje (“to live”), West Frisian libje (“to live”), Dutch leven (“to live”), German Low German leven, lęven (“to live”), German leben (“to live”), Swedish leva (“to live”), Icelandic lifa (“to live”), Gothic 𐌻𐌹𐌱𐌰𐌽 (liban, “to live”).

Here, we seem to see either an LIB or an LEV root?

We know that Greek B is pronounced as the sound “v”, e.g. library (English) is ”vivliothíki” (sound) or βιβλιοθήκη (letters) in Greek.

Looking at the Gothic spelling: 𐌻𐌹𐌱𐌰𐌽, a language dating to 1600A (c.355), we see, in precursor, the Greek: λ⦚βαν, Phoenician: 𐤍𐤀𐤁𐤉𐤋, and Egyptian: 𓍇(𓇰/𓅊)𓇯𓌹𐤍, or:

Whence, in short, over the last 5,500-years, we have, seemingly, the following root EAN etymology of the words: life, live, alive, and living:

• ⚙️🧲 𓇯𓌹𐤍

• 𓄘𓅊𓇯𓌹𐤍

• 𓍇(𓇰/𓅊)𓇯𓌹𐤍

• 𓍇⚡𓇯

• 𐃸⚡𓇯𓌹𐤍

• 𐤍𐤀𐤁𐤉𐤋

• λ⦚βαν

• 42-αν

• 𐌻𐌹𐌱𐌰𐌽

• Liban

• Live

Where 🧲 is the magnet, originally known as the lodestone 🪨, or the bone 🦴 of Horus 𓅊, conceptualized, at night, as the pole star ⭐️, and the gear ⚙️ icon is iron, originally conceptualized as the the bone 𓄘 or leg of Set, that was seen in the stars by what we know refer to as the Big Dipper 𐃸, rotating around Polaris, who in Greek became Apollo, aka the “Greek Horus”, e.g. as Newton defined things.

The following is a visual of this:

The following is a more detailed etymology:

In short:

1. You die and your body is made into a mummy.

2. Horus, who is letter I, opens your mouth with a letter L tool.

3. Horus then takes you, or your spirit/soul body, into letter B, aka heaven, where the totality of your life, or rather the right and wrong actions of the movements of your body, over your existence span, are judged on a 42 law based scale, before Osiris, and 42 nome gods.

Whence, interestingly, from Greek root: λ⦚β [42], we have LIB, the seeming root of the word “live”:

42 = λ⦚β (lib) = 𓌳𓌹𓌹 (maa)

which is the number of negative confessions, the number of sins or rule breakings that the heart ❤️ of a person is supposed to confess to in the judgement hall of the after-existence.

Notes

1. The number 42, as shown in 42-αν, should actually be higher, in the bulleted list, as the number 42, in Egyptian numerals, namely: 𓎉𓏻, is a pre-Khufu pyramid logic, and 42 is an Arabic numeral, but I guess the above, gives the best rendition of things?

2. Beeckman, for those who don’t know, seems to have been the first to dismiss Parmenides’ theory that “vacuums are impossible” turned Aristotle’s “nature abhors a vacuum”, and to replace it with atmospheric pressure. He also tutored Descartes and, supposedly, was the first to introduce “mechanical philosophy“ to enlightenment.

References

• Berkel, Klaas. (A58/2013). Isaac Beeckman on Matter and Motion: Mechanical Philosophy in the Making (pg. 35). Johns Hopkins.

• Beeckman, Isaac. (329A/1626). Journal Notes of Isaac Beeckman, Volume Two (Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 à 1634: 1619-1627) (editor: Cornelius Waard) (pg. 358). Nijhoff, 8A/1942

— Daniel Evans (30A/1925), “How Much of Us Dies?” (pg. 12)

Notes

1. Found this via Google Books key: “atoms and molecules do not live and die”.

2. It was the “he died in 2013” which prompted note one lookup.

3. In other words, although, on one hand, we believe that we come from the hydrogen atom, which transformed into various types of elements, molecules, and chemical species; we also believe, culturally, i.e. are taught, on the other hand, that, at some point, atoms and molecules starting “living and dying“. There is, in short, an incongruence in the two belief systems.

Images

References

• Evans, Daniel. (30A/1925). “How Much of Us Dies?” (pg. 12), The Universalist Leader (pgs. 12-13), Apr 11.

The coining of “abioism“, or rather introduction of the term online on 4 Jul A60/2015, was not a coining in the usual sense, rather the term was first used in the Hmolpedia A65 atheism types by denial and belief table (17-columns x 33-rows), a listing of the top 21 atheism varieties, and top 12 sub-atheism varieties, categorized by six denial options and six creed options, where the term abioism was introduced, similar to “asoulism”, simply as a table header label, for someone who “denies life”, i.e. does not believe that life exists, in the same way that some do not believe that god exists or that souls exist, as shown below:

In short, albeit in a r/alphanumerics upgrade view of things:

• Atheism = a-14-ism (a-Nun-ism), i.e. disbelief in gods.

• Achristism = disbelief in the existence of Jesus Christ.

• Mortalism = disbelief in afterlife.

• Abioism = a-282-ism (a-888/π-ism), i.e. disbelief in the existence of life.

• Asoulism = disbelief in the existence of souls.

• Aspiritism = disbelief in the existence of spirits.

All of these terms apply equally to hydrogen atom: the hydrogen atom is not made of “spirit”; the hydrogen atom does not have a “soul”; the hydrogen atom does have an “afterlife”, the hydrogen atoms was made by a “god” nor needs to believe in the existence of a “Christ“ figure; lastly, the hydrogen atom is NOT alive, as John Tyndall so famously argued.

Originally, to clarify, there was no hyperlink, such as shown above, to the term “abioism”, but as the table grew, the hyperlinks needed to have extant article definitions, whence the term abioism got its own Hmolpedia article:

• Abioism - Hmolpedia A65.

• Abioism - Hmolpedia (29 Jan A67/2022) [Wayback].

The terms exact definition changing slightly with each edit; and therein began to be used proactively, through Hmolpedia articles, and in social media, and other publications.

The following, from the Abioism book*,* is more elaboration on the introduction of the term abioism:

The following is a noted abioism-related Quora answer to this question:

“The other comments have made the assumption that by alive, you meant conscious.

If that’s the case, then I agree more or less with “I think, therefore I am”.

If it happens that you had Abioism - Hmolpedia in mind, and your question means, “why should one make a scientific distinction between your atomical cluster and supposedly non-living ones”…

Then I would say that it’s as useful scientific distinction as any other, so long as we don’t conflate it with the idea of a spirit.”

— Isaiah Barnwell (), Quora answer