I was wondering why the definition of life has always been so abstract and so I was thinking It's because there is so many things that are considered to be alive. (Although not much is sentient)
Example: Humans are alive and a virus is alive and germs are alive and so on. And in the future there will be living machines aswell.
A physicist would say that: all living things is a made up out structures of atoms and molecules. However its not quite correct because livings things change their structure all the time, as they grow, as they reproduce, as they move.
I think that a simplistic and more general definition of life would be a Changing Pattern trying to survive. That would include all current living lifeforms aswell as the living machines in the future, and also "living" computer viruses or AI's. Ofcourse we only change within certain evolutionary limits.
I Google'd this and found nothing "Life is a Changing Pattern trying to survive". So my initial thought is that I must be making some kind of logical thinking mistake, because someone must have thought of this before me.
My question is: Do you agree with my definition of life? That Lifeforms is a Changing Pattern trying to survive. That we are all changing patterns. Would love to hear peoples counter arguments. No religion please. Only Science.
I'd like to find a single sentance that can define life fairly accuratly.