Is Life Fundamental? by Sara Imari Walker

Hi Sara, thanks for your reply and clarifying a few points.

The characteristics of living things pertain to groups of organisms and not necessarily any one individual. So whereas in an ant colony there is only one reproducing female the non fertile females are still considered living things because they are the same type of organism.Viruses on the other hand can never reproduce themselves independently because they lack the "machinery" to do so. I wouldn't regard mitochondria as living things either, though they may have long ago been independent unicellular organisms. They now lack the necessary completeness to be regarded as living in their own right.

There is perhaps a subtle but -useful- difference between the concept of an organism and a living thing. While living things are organisms, there is also the possibility of other natural forms that might be regarded as organisms but not necessarily life. I would put the viruses and mitochondria in that category, (between living and non living). The chemistry is not mere chemistry but organised giving function. That does tie in with your point about information content because what does it take to be an organism? Information that builds the structure enabling function.

The other important feature, for me, of all (Earth) life is that it shares the same code. Whether fungus, plant, microbe or animal. The exception being the recently artificially created organisms with extra base pairs. Which I regard as "alien" and potentially dangerous to all natural Earth life, if it ever escaped and became a competitor. Organisms on other planets, descended from Earth life perhaps by panspermia, or from a common ancestor from which Earth life also developed could be regarded as part of or an addition to the "kingdoms of life". However if it has a very different information base then it is not part of that, even though it is an autonomous organism. That could be regarded as a kind of prejudice but it is stemming from a deep appreciation that all of the Earth's life forms are related and possibly unique in the universe.

Dear Sara,

Thanks for the detailed response! Regarding the possibility that life may be inherently quantum-mechanical, I expect at least that this is the case with consciousness. This is principally because of the need to escape determinism on self-referential grounds. In particular, I am not much a believer in classical digital strong AI.

With regard to the causal efficacy of information in fundamental physics, I realize now that I was probably using the word "information" in a different sense than you. What I was referring to was the prevalence in the field of quantum gravity of models involving a fundamental scale with irreducible, indistinguishable elements. The usual distinction between "information" and the physical system used to encode it is no longer clear at this level. Ordinarily, this distinction is justified by the fact that there are many different ways to encode information physically, with no particular method preferable to the others. At the fundamental scale, however, there is a unique "preferred" physical encoding of the "information" in a system: namely the system itself.

This is related to entropy; you've probably heard the example involving a deck of playing cards: you can associated an entropy to the deck ignoring everything except that there are 52 distinguishable objects. However, if you consider the thermodynamic entropy of all the molecules in the deck, it is vastly greater. Relating entropy to information, the point is that the existence of a fundamental scale would provide a bottom to this kind of consideration; you could associate a measure called THE entropy to any system. Mathematically, this is related to things like compression and Kolmogorov complexity. Maybe this justifies the "it-from-bit" view in a sense. Take care,

Ben

Sara,

The 50% comes from beliefs that I posted in my last essay. Our concious thought is believed centered in the critical strip of Reimann Zeta analytic space, implying, our modeled thoughts may be centered between two information surfaces (as per the visual double Mirror model I had shown). Because I believe that the entire physical universe represents a "life of the 1st kind," every other thing (human life included) would resemble a scaled space and time measure of it ... like brain neurons representing galaxies, stars etc., in a duel representation, etc. This implies that life information is centralized between two reflective surfaces, one converging (quantum surface - reductionist) and one diverging (edge of universe - Holistic). Life measure is believed at the very middle when it comes to our measuring anything at all. Each measure depends on BOTH surfaces.

This also fits the half advanced and half retarded bill set forth by Feynman for relaying causal information (emitter/absorber theory - Feynman-Wheeler theory)

Regards,

Tony DiCarlo

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Sara, I thoroughly enjoyed the clear thinking and concise language in your essay. You addressed extremely important questions, gave a good review of current literature on the subject and lead the reader to your points. Your background positions you carry out important work in your field. I was motivated by your essay to complete some work that I carried out some time ago. I just posted a new paper on my thread entitled "Information networks inherent in life molecules". I would be pleased if you would download it and give me your thoughts.

Hi, Sara

Thank you for your well-considered essay, very germane because it challenges the mechanist paradigm where it is most vulnerable.

I offer a few comments:

In your opening paragraph, you say "The central challenge is that we don't know whether life is 'just' very complex chemistry, or if there is something fundamentally distinct about living matter." This frames the issue in ontological terms. It might be more productive to frame it in terms of research strategies or epistemology: what other approaches than mechanism might be appropriate?

On the second page you say "It is widely appreciated that the known laws of physics and chemistry do not necessitate that life should exist." This could be taken to mean that such laws are incomplete or inadequate. A proper theory would at least make life probable.

Also on p2: "The problem is that the Darwinian criteria [are] simply too general, applying to any system (alive or not) capable of reproduction..." Life is not only self-replicating but also self-maintaining and self-defining, which memes, computer programs, and other artifacts are not.

p3: "We routinely use terminology such as 'signaling'... [etc] implying that the informational narrative is aptly applied in the biological context". I believe care must be taken in transfering ideas about human communication to other living systems, let alone to non-living matter. What is needed is a careful re-consideration and expansion of the notion of agency. This should take into account the sort of psychological transference challenged by Hume and Piaget. (we learn a notion of causal agency, for instance, form early personal experience then project this onto impersonal objects, so that one thing is held to influence another in the way that we, as agents, make things happen.) This sort of consideration should be applied to the concept of information, which is also human based and implies a communicating agent. Specifically, while the organism is a molar agent, some clear notion of internal agency needs to be developed in order to clarify the role and nature of information in biological systems. As it stands, information, while objectified in physics, is implicitly information for human observers and agents.

p5: "this state of affairs potentially hints as something fundamentally different about how living systems process information..." Further to the above point, does any natural system "process information", or is this a way of speaking derived from the computational metaphor? Also {bottom of page5]: "the peculiar nature of biological information..." Perhaps it is the physical notion of information that is peculiar!

p7: "For the latter, information is passive, whereas for the former information plays an active role and is therefore causally efficacious." It might be more appropriate to say that non-living systems have no use for information, which is rather a human projection. The active role of information in organisms might alternatively described in terms of agency within the organism.

p7: "This forces new thinking in how life might have arisen on a lifeless planet, by shifting emphasis to the origins of information control..." I think you have identified a key point for future research.

Best of wishes in your research and in the contest.

Dan

I hope this is help

Dear Sara:

I enjoyed reading your well-written and deeply intuitive essay addressing the most fundamental question - "Is Life Fundamental?" Whether this question is ill-posed and the ensuing questions related to the reductionist or top-down approach can be answered by a comprehensive, consistent, and non-paradoxical understanding of the Cosmos as described in my paper - -" From Absurd to Elegant Universe" as discussed below:

"Is (biological) Life Fundamental?" appears to be a well-posed question only within the mainstream reductionist thinking of an absolute cosmic time that began with a Big Bang. However, such mainstream thinking is invalidated by the fact that 96% of the universe remains unexplained by the mainstream approach (QM and GR, biology, chemistry etc.) that is also marred with singularities, inconsistencies, and irresolvable paradoxes. These paralyzing deficiencies make the mainstream definition of Life as "Biological, Chemical, or Material Life" entirely ill-posed from fundamentality point of view. However, as described in my paper, the Cosmic Life or Cosmic Consciousness or Free Will evidenced by the Zero-point kinetic energy state of the universe that exists as fully dilated space (omnipresent), fully dilated time (eternal), and fully dilated mass is shown to the ultimate fundamental state of the universe. Matter and biological life are born out of and decay into this fundamental eternal state according to the universal laws of conservation modeled by the GNM in my paper.

Your paper rightly suggests the "Top-down Causation" approach to answer this question but the operational framework of such an approach, especially Emergence, remains absent and unachievable at this time. The main reason for this problem is that the "Top" has not been defined or described scientifically as yet. My paper describes both the "Top" as well as "Bottom" states to be synonymous with the fundamental "Source" - the Zero-point state of the universe from which everything emanates and into which everything merges. The mainstream linearization - Top-down or Bottom-up Causation is invalid because the wholesome Cosmos does not have an absolute time/space needed for causation. My paper shows that the observed universe, quantum as well as classical behavior of matter can all be predicted without any explicit time parameter. Hence, the question of the Origin of Life implying an absolute moment of its beginning becomes senseless in cosmic terms and has no universal validity, in spite of its stubborn illusion in worldly (Newtonian or Classical) terms.

You may be interested to read my paper and I would greatly appreciate your comments/ratings with regard to whether it answers many of the important and crucial questions you have raised.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

I read the Strulson experiment with cell-like structure, but I have a problem.

It is necessary the presence of two structure interacting in the same time: dextran and polyethylene glycol; but in a fluid dynamic environment these component must be self-replicant, and if it is complex to obtain a life form, then is more complex to obtain two self-replicating life.

I think that it is more simple that the self-replicating rna acquire some characteristic in the terminal part, like an helical capsid that is connected with the rna (a single structure that compartmentalize the rna, a junk gene that give tertiary structure).

Saluti

Domenico

Is virus life?

I think that is possible to try to make a continuing mixing culture broth equal to the cytoplasm, containing all the types of twenty common amino acid, if there is replication then the virus is life (it is not a infectious agent with the right environment to obtain nutrients).

The inner part of the cells have circulating flow (Goldstein-Woodhouse observation is equal to hydrothermal flow), and the Vaidya-Manapat-Chen-Xulvi-Hayden-Lehman experiment can be the test that the rna is able to self-replicating in a right culture broth.

If this is true, since the last ancestor must be the simplest living organism, and since one of the smallest virus have 359 nucleotides (potato spindle tuber virus), and if it is capable of self-replicating (I think that the more simple virus can be an algae virus; so that ebola virus can be a plant virus like anthrax bacterium for algae), then first virus can have a similar form.

If this is true, then exist a simple method to treat each viral infection: a simple culture broth (temperature, pression and nutrient concentrations constant) where the viruses after a while loses the characteristics to infecting cells (complex rna is not more necessary in a simple environment): these neutralized viruses can be injected in an organism to obtain an immune defense, this can be true for each viral infection (it is similar to Pasteur method, if this work).

Saluti

Domenico

Dear Sara,

I completely enjoyed your essay. It is a refreshing point of view onto an old question. I feel that you are into something by the way the question is frame at a higher level but more fundamental elements need to be added.

IN the whole skim of cosmic evolution it is not a coincidence that the life transition occurs at the mid scale of the universe. There is also the question that is not mentioned of the collective/cooperative character of life. So information is also collectively collected and exchanged. At all level of realities, relations among entities are importants. Life gradually defines the environment for life. Life implicitly embodies some of these relations (culture) in evolving new mechanisms to detect and act on them.

Great essay.

- Louis

Pentcho and whoever else that is trying to find cats where there are none,

I think you are missing the basic math. If someone is not yet ranked, for example because they just submitted their paper, and they get a single good mark from someone, it will jump to the top. Say a single member liked it and marked with 10, it will reach the very top. Then things don't get sorted out by any administrator, simply the paper starts converging to its final average over time.

You are right about that, anonymous. At that time I thought that votes were summed up, not averaged.

Pentcho Valev

What speculations-provoking essay! Perhaps it indicates the direction for the next essay contest. Of course, Sara Walker's essay does not answer the question which of our basic assumptions is wrong. In that it resembles the essay by George Ellis.

Certainly, there is a considerable gap between the largely stochastic approach to the half-life of postulated particles and the transfer of self-reproductive genes in biology. Fortunately I feel not forced by vanity to pretend having a bridging solution.

The only related intention of mine is to clarify that not just in biology but also in the praxis of computing causality in its original and sound meaning is still tacitly assumed.

Eckard

Interesting thesis. I can see why the Discovery Institute is jumping on this with glee. Here's yet another yawning gap into which the Abrahamaic God of the Gaps can be stuffed. There is undeniably something very weird about Quantum mechanics, and so far we've not gotten very much closer to a testable hypothesis along the lines of Einstein's underlying laws of reality beneath QM. I'm still holding out hope for an underlying layer of reality involving objective, identical for all observers laws analogous to how conservation of momentum explains the otherwise mysterious spooky connection of the momentum between two masses being blown apart by an explosion. The trajectory of the advance of human knowledge for the past 400 years or more has been to continually increase the distance between us and our concerns from the (now demonstrably non-existent) centre of the Universe. This article seems to be arguing for a move back toward the centre for consciousness -- to the delight of the reactionary ignorami of the ID movement.