I was thinking in a similar way @gentleshaid commented. So I apologize not referring directly to your topic but indirectly.

If the world could be explained absolutely physically, we could predict the weather exactly. However, we cannot do this in this absoluteness, since we do not know the exact starting point or state of the factors influencing the weather. This weakens predictability.

Quantum physics gives us answers that raise new questions and as far as I have read, those who deal with quantum mechanics say that there is no possibility of measurement because the measurement itself affects quantum motion and therefore makes it unpredictable and can only rely on probabilities.

Newton's view of the world has left us with a way of looking at things that sees everything as matter and thus all entities as material, i.e. physical. Some say that there is nothing but matter, therefore any explanatory model that refers to immaterial processes must either be irrelevant or wrong. Since there can be no such thing as immateriality.

If one understands the universe as a space where all processes are based on the physical laws known to us, then one inevitably has to assume a determinism that needs a starting point, like the Big Bang that set all things in motion. There is no intelligence or beauty integrated in this game of movement, everything is an unbroken chain of causal connections. The universe is perceived as inanimate, mechanical, not organic.

If one compares the quanta with humans in the universe, these quanta would probably also "say" that the surrounding universe follows its determination without knowing, for example, that a human organism encompasses them. This organism does not seem to behave intelligently, nor does it behave intelligently in relation to its quanta, but when viewed from the outside and as a whole, it does behave intelligently.

Now there are people who do not like the totality of physical events as "laws" and ask whether the laws could not also be "habits", which appear to us to be legitimate. In fact, the time scales we can capture from a human perspective are so great that we cannot really know if a law is not a universal habit. Which can also change. For example, a system of bodies moving in space could create a new habit through chaotic events that represent a radical novelty.

"Law" is a linguistic, i.e. human concept and means that something has always been the way we can measure and calculate it at present. But since we can't really really define the term "always" and "everywhere" with certainty, it seems interesting to also approach the concept of "habit" and see how this aspect could change the view of the universe and what we call "living".

So, how would you call the universe? Would you say "it lives"?

I am not so much interested in proof as in a changed view of the living. It is more sympathetic to me not to regard our universe as a mechanism that once set in motion, stubbornly follows the determined pathways. I flirt with the idea that there are influences that could exceed our understanding, measurement and calculation framework.

Why do I do this? Because I believe that this influences the human psyche and Newton's view led us to a more presumptuous attitude of controlling and predicting everything. However, a physically objective world has an influence on the subjective perception of us humans. My guess is that if we include less determinism and more unpredictability in our considerations, we will have more respect for the unresolved questions.