To sum up the cosmology arguments: The simplest models of the Universe consistent with our best current data say that the Universe is infinite, but there are also models which are only slightly more complex that say that it’s finite, so we can’t really say one way or the other. If it’s infinite in size, then it contains an infinite amount of matter, and it has always been infinite in size and contained an infinite amount of matter. In any event, it’s sufficiently huge that even the most pessimistic estimates of the Drake factors indicate that there is almost certainly other life out there, albeit possibly at an inconveniently large distance from us. And if there is other life out there which isn’t related to terrestrial life, then it probably doesn’t have DNA itself, though it may well have some other molecule which serves the same purpose and works the same basic way.
Several of these posts about cosmology seem to require answers, and yet I don’t mean to hijack a thread about DNA.
Chronos’s summary seems reasonable and is consistent with what I remember reading and studying. More to the point, it supports the view that “there is almost certainly other life out there”, which I think is hard to doubt, and which is very relevant to the OP. This seems an excellent time to accept that conclusion for what it is worth in light of the OP. Thanks, Chronos.
My own view is that life in physical form uses cellular structures that have DNA, but are spiritual beings and that being continues past the death of the physical body, other such beings such as angels do not contain physical matter but are very much alive.
Could you say
“All living things have DNA, but not all things with DNA are alive?”
Somewhere in in the binary version of PI is the code for every computer program that will ever exist, every movie, every book, and song, plus books, songs, stories, and movies of such beauty they’d move armies to lay down their weapons and nations to tears of joy. But they will never be made because no one will ever think of them. And we will never know them.
Not necessarily.
Something can be infinitely large, but not be full.
I tried to edit in the following, but missed my deadline.
ETA: There are 4 possibilities. (I won’t go into the specifics of each theory, just the overall basics of what they are.)
A1. A2. B1. B2.
A) The universe is of infinite size.
B) The universe is of finite size.
-
The universe contains an infinite amount of matter.
-
The universe contains a finite amount of matter.
A1: This is internally consistent, though difficult for me to believe, mathematically speaking.
A2: This is internally consistent as well, and would lead to a ‘big rip,’ eventually. Because we do know that the universe is – or has so far been --expanding (See: The Metric Expansion of Space).
B1: This is internally inconsistent and difficult for me to believe, because for an infinite amount of material of material to reside in a finite space, it would have to be infinitely dense… and… that’s just not how the universe seems to me.
B2. This is the theory I lean towards, because it’s internally consistent and it seems to account, best, for what we observe in the universe. The universe has a finite, if undefined, size, and a finite, if undefined amount of matter.
[Moderating]
This is GQ. Since it is impossible to factually demonstrate that non-physical entities are alive, this isn’t an appropriate response to the OP. Please confine religious and spiritual speculation to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
This is GQ. Unless you can point to an angel or other spiritual being, preferably one on display under glass at a major museum, keep your unverifiable personal beliefs out of the discussion.
[Moderator Note]
I realized you simulposted, but please leave the moderating of this forum to the moderators. Thanks.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The thing is, the density of the Universe seems to be more or less uniform. If the Universe is infinite in size but contains a finite amount of matter, then the average density must be zero, and we living in a region where it’s not would have to be a very special region of the Universe indeed. The assumption that we occupy a special place in the Universe has had a very bad history, and it seems to go against everything that we can observe now.
And such a universe would not, incidentally, undergo a Big Rip. It (like our apparently uniform-density Universe) would expand forever at an ever-increasing rate, but the expansion would be exponential, with a fixed doubling time. A Big Rip depends not on any of the properties of the normal matter in the Universe, but on the dark energy: In a Big Rip model, the dark energy gets stronger with time, such that the doubling time of the size of the universe gets shorter and shorter without limit. In a normal Cosmological Constant universe (as ours appears to probably be), the expansion of space is never significant on the scale of people, planets, or even galactic clusters, while in a Big Rip universe, eventually even atoms and subatomic particles are torn apart by the expansion.
This is getting rather far afield of the OP, though. If you want to discuss it further, perhaps you could start a new thread.
I would think that would be a good idea. I don’t want to cut off the discussion, but it isn’t directly related to the OP. A new thread linked to this one for those who are interested in pursuing this discussion would be the best option.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I’m sure you are misrembering the criteria. Obviously #1 is wrong, since plants and other sessile organisms don’t move. You are probably thinking of “respond to stimuli.” Likewise “produces its own energy” should be “consumes and uses energy” since organisms don’t produce their own energy. Having a cellular nucleus is also wrong, since bacteria lack one.
The only real plural of virus in English is viruses; the original Latin term did not have a plural.
Just out of curiosity, did you ever graduate from Med School? 
When I was back there in medical school
There was a person there
Who put forth the proposition
That “life” was determined by 4 criterions
“life” was determined by 4 criterions
“life” was determined by 4 criterions
Life is not determined by these four criterions!
…
When all else fails
We can whip Ed Zotti’s eyes
And make him leap
And scry.
Your post reminded me of this article from the old Brunching Shuttlecocks site:
The part about Pi is incredibly wrong. Pi is not in any way high information content. It is quite low which is why there are such simple algorithms to compute it. What you state is completely against well known theorems in computability and complexity theory.
Good point.
Good lord, no. I didn’t even finish the first year - the competitive nastiness of students was wayyy over my threshold. I’m a lazy bum, too, so there’s that 
Yes, but it’s very long.
Pi-Search Result:
search string = "obama"
25-bit binary equivalent = 0111100010000010110100001
search string found at binary index = 2302530316
binary pi : 0111001001111000100000101101000010000000111010101100001110101011
binary string: 0111100010000010110100001
character pi : .agshvn,alspqsrobama_gjxnuuf.utjpv,u,w
character string: obama
The first first four billion binary digits of Pi contain every five letter word.
It is conjectured (though not yet proven) that pi is a normal number. If true, then any digital string you’d care to name, of any length, is encoded in it. This doesn’t mean, of course, that calculating the digits of pi is the best way to get a copy of Raphael’s Portrait of a Young Man or a DVD of Spinal Tap 2: Derek’s Revenge; merely that in principle, it could be done.