Dear Juan, thank you very much for sharing the references!

Best,

Sara

Dear Lawrence,

It is interesting to think that there might be some extensive variables we could associate with a 'phase change' from non-life to life. The challenge is always to identify what precisely these might be. I like your notion of associating them with information/complexity in biochemical networks. This sounds very much in line with attempting to identify parameters associated with informational and causal architecture that I present in the essay. The difficulty is trying to identify the relevant parameters - is it information flow? network topology? algorithmic compressibility? I think this is the challenge to look to with moving forward trying to identify if a 'bio-state' exists. But, I agree - I don't think we know nearly enough at this stage to say whether this physical distinction between life and non-life actually exists or not - there is lots of work to be done!

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Best,

Sara

Dear Hoang Cao Hai,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Best,

Sara

Dear Jayakar,

Thank you kindly for your well-wishes and interest in my essay.

Best,

Sara

Dear Peter,

I do very much agree that the big question here is not just about the emergence of life, but of intelligence as well. I am particularly interested in whether intelligent life will always (eventually) evolve given sufficient time (however long that actually may be!) once life has emerged, or if it is the case that the evolution of intelligence is exceedingly rare. I don't think we are in the position yet to answer this one way or the other, and I am very curious about whether similar physical mechanisms underly both processes (which I suspect is the case).

I've found your essay and will plan to read it - excellent title!

Best,

Sara

Dear Hector,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that the field of complex systems definitely suggests that higher-level descriptions are necessary in many areas of science!

You bring up some interesting points on AIT complexity measures. Although I did not include a discussion of algorithmic information theory in my essay, I completely agree that it is central to the story and in retrospect it is a big omission in my discussion. It certainly provides a much better measure of genomic complexity than Shannon information as you point out. A challenge however is that not all the information is stored in the DNA. So even if we do calculate, for example, the kolmogorov complexity of two genomes from two distinct organisms, I am not convinced that this would provide a true comparison of their complexity (although it is a great place to start!). There seems to be a lot of algorithmic information content not stored directly in DNA, but instead stored in distributed biochemical networks (e.g. information that dictates self-assembly processes). I think AIT could still capture this, and is probably the most fruitful direction to take, but its not at all straightforward to determine where the algorithms are physically represented. In lieu of being able to precisely define these more distributed parts of biological information, I think exploring causality in biology is one interesting and possibly productive way of understanding how information operates in biology. I'd be very interesting to see development of connections between the two approaches.

Thanks again for your insights!

Best,

Sara

Dear B. Grispos,

You have hit on one of the primary challenges in identifying any sort of rigorous definition for life - it is notoriously difficult to come up with a well-defined criteria that distinguishes living from nonliving. It certainly makes the task of identifying life's origins very difficult without a proper definition!

I am not particularly satisfied with the definition of life as "a complex self-sustaining chemical network based on carbon biochemistry capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution" either. I don't think it makes a clear distinction between animate and inanimate matter. I discuss why Darwinian evolution may not be a sufficient (although it could certainly be necessary) condition in the essay, but what about for example that carbon is necessary? Carbon is certainly a very special element, but silicon is not completely ruled out as a possible alternative. And "complex self-sustaining chemical network" could describe just about any geochemical cycle. So I agree this definition is not adequate - it can certainly be used to describe a great number of systems, many of which we would not be willing to call alive and worse it may not include systems which are alive! This is why I think more fundamental distinctions may be necessary.

Best,

Sara

  • [deleted]

  • Post #80

Giovanni wrote:

"In quantum-gravity research there is a long-standing effort

of understanding how spacetime should be described when both

Planck's constant ~ and Newton's constant GN are nonnegligible.

We cannot claim much success addressing this issue."

Giovanni,

what mean "nonnegligible"?

Give me please more detail...

  • [deleted]

  • Post #81

I am not sure if research has been done with phase structure in Progogine's open thermodynamics. Open thermodynamics is not on the same solid foundation thermodynamics of closed systems is on. There might be some research on this however which one could search out. If this has not been seriously looked at it could represent a considerable challenge.

Cheers LC

  • [deleted]

  • Post #82

Sara Imari Walker,

The human race may have been forced to become Reductionists simply to stay alive. One way to assure command over the elements that one must face for survival is to become a "Reductionist" and absorb all the physical knowledge required for assuring one's survival. A total "Holistic" approach to life may suffer extinction if the basic Reductionist manifestos "physically correlated event" concepts are not comprehended - like predicting the season for planting, etc, etc.... a club kills quicker then a stick, etc, etc. It therefore appears that human life is caught exactly in the middle of Reductionist & Holistic because for each Reductionist "learned action" we build a physical event string of correlation having Holistic value (i.e., a correlation between events, ie., comparison information). It seems like our thoughts may be caught in the very middle of building a physical Reductionist model (say the standard model of physics for instance) for the Holistic purposes of achievement, completion, curiosity, all Holistic.

If you agree with the statement that Reductionism can feed a Holistic quality, and visa versa, then we may consider that we have a superposition of Holistic and Reductionist information going into "any" event (biological included) - our two brain hemispheres could accommodate the dissociation of Holistic and Reductionist information with our final physical actions that explore a common ground that is a balanced reaction to support the two extreme lines of thought, Reductionist and Holistic. It would be as if life has an "all from one" and "one from all" way of thinking and acting ... local, global... one physically affects all ..... all physically affect one ...

Assume we can dissect information on BOTH Reductionist and Holistic grounds, can we find a model that allows us to combine the two seemingly extreme set's of information? To accommodate these extreme sets of information, we might want to look at the duals in string theory as providing a mathematical avenue to physically describe this information. "Astronomy" and "quantum physics" certainly fit into the Holistic and Reductionist information categories, respectively ... which brings us back to unification of measurable information. This is where ADS/CFT (super symmetry) tells us that that information regarding that which is extremely large (of cosmic size) can be exactly described by measuring information of that which is extremely small (sounds like a quantum worls to me)!! There appears to be a perfect reflection of information content (T dual) if one considers the conformal quantum field as the "information space" that can possibly be utilized to model BOTH the Holistic and Reductionist information. This implies that the quantum physicist and the astronomer will be capable of predicting each others information findings when they find the correct way to interpret the correlation of each bit of information whose common ground analysis provides the actions incurred by the masses ... whether they be atoms, cells, organs, humans, ecosystems, planet, galaxy, universe... The exact correlation of Holistic to Reductionist information (super symmetric string theory dual) may provide the proper boundary conditions for life to emerge and exist in a manner that maintains life by adhering to information gathered by the Reductionist (sustains physical life) but at a cost of losing sight of the Holistic contribution that actually provides half of the net information regarding any event (biological events included). This implies that by focusing on reductionism we may defocus on Holistic information and visa versa (possibly the result of information existing in a hyperbolic space, but, that's another story)... as if information used for physical reasoning has a Reductionist Holistic switch (the 2 sheets in the hyperbolic space) ... when the fact is that the switch has been set to 50% for everything that our senses that feed our conscious mind w/ information can measure (a Feynman/Wheeler emitter/absorber argument used for the 50% ... but... that's again another story).

Anyway, I greatly enjoyed your article and appreciated your use of the word "information" extensively. I believe that we must define everything measurable simply as "information" (L. Suskind methodology) to build a model that allows this information to sustain life by merging both the Reductionist and Holistic information to drive all of life's measurable information (to which a physical action is the net result of the balance achieved between Reductionist and Holistic information that is reasoned out between the brains hemispheres). This top/down approach also appears to be on the minds of many more essay authors, including that by G. Ellis whose essay had many overtones of what you state you measure and observe. Maybe with information provided by J. Barbour's shape dynamics and G. Ellis's top/down approach you can model (via the string theory basis) the exact living biological shape and physical actions of a known life form that uses BOTH Holistic and Reductionist information to sustain life. You may then begin to predict your biological measures w/ functional stability?

Best Regards,

Anthony DiCarlo

    • [deleted]

    • Post #83

    Hello Ms Walker and Mr Zenil,

    I like these kind of discussions.Thanks for that :)

    I beleive strongly that the evolution is a main part of the puzzle. The cybernetic seems very relevant when we consider the transfert of informations with the energy and its entropical arrow of times. The encoding is very complex, I return about the importance of the serie of spherical volumes considering the serie of uniqueness. The encodings can be synchronized.

    The algorythms of evolution are so complex that it seems difficult to know the main code, the main central sphere of series of uniqueness.It is like trying to see our central universal sphere of our universal sphere.The walls are indeed far. We have our limits. All can be quantized if we begin with this serie of uniqueness , and the rotations and the volumes ....so it permit to imply the comportments and properties of spheres of light. The rotations of the light imply the mass, the energy , the light,the space. So with the volumes and the complexity of codings , it becomes very relevant when all is quantized in a pure road of evolution of mass. In a simple resume. The universal system can be computed with relevance with stil, I am insisting a lot :), the serie of uniqueness and its finite number, so we have quantum spheres, serie finite.....mcosV=constant. and E= mc² can be optimsed with the two others motions of the spheres of light so the spinal rotaion and the orbital rotation. The angles are relevant considering the informations of evolution. The electromagnetism seems very very complex and the volumes very small compared with the central spheres. So the informations are relevant there. The DNA and the RNA with their architecture of spheres (HCNOP) are relevant for the biological algorythmic building. The link OH ...O with the complementary polynucleotids and the serie of uniqueness are relevant for the tranfert of informations. The hydrogen bridge and the closed links of the adenin, guanin, thymin and cytosin more the P are intriguing when we fractalize the series of uniqueness.So we go towards the main central spheres, so the main codes. The road is very complex, and more we go towards these singularities, more the difficulties are important.And more the volumes of spheres also. The rotations of synchronizations, sortings of informations become very relevant when the oscillations are in harmony with the rotations, the rotations of volumes so are in synchronizations.It is the reason why probably all DNA is unique. We have all our velocities of rotations in fact. If the synchronizations of these rotations and if the increase of mass are correlated, more the variable volumes and the density.and if the serie of uniqueness of bosonic informations , so the light is inserted , it becomes relevant when the rotating spherical volumes are analyzed. The synchronizations of rotating spheres answer to a lot of things. The stability of the mass is seen with logic and the linearity of light also. So the synchro of volumes also, like the sortings.It is fascinating all this encoding of evolution.

    Thanking you for these discussions. Good luck in this contest.

    Regards

    • [deleted]

    • Post #84

    Hi Sara. There is no true or ultimate difference between what is animate and inanimate because the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. Accordingly, the fundamental and general unification of physics involves direct bodily experience (seen, felt, AND touched) -- as the ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites in conjunction with our growth and becoming other than we are. DO YOU AGREE? What are your thoughts on this please?

      • [deleted]

      • Post #85

      Dear Sara Imari Walker,

      I'm not QUITE sure what to make of your essay in the context of this competition.It is eloquently written. You clearly set out a point of view. I am not sure you have said which -basic- physical assumptions are wrong, though you have said that bottom up causation from chemistry to life may be inadequate to account for living things.

      I'm not sure you aren't in part creating a non existent problem by saying that there is a lack of knowledge about the distinction between life and non life. What distinguishes a living thing from a non living thing is summed up by the Characteristics of living things: movement, excretion, respiration, reproduction, irritability, nutrition and growth. The viruses are not life but complex chemistry on the boundary between living and non living as they can not autonomously reproduce but require the biochemistry and structure of a host cell. Combustion too is just chemistry, it does not have a distinct structure that separates it from the environment. Which my son has informed me is now taught at High School as another characteristic of a living rather than non living things. (Probably to overcome the perennial question: why isn't fire alive?) As an astrobiologist you would know all that though.

      A virus does contain encoded information but that in itself does not make it alive. A computer programme contains encoded information but it does not make it alive. It is the higher function characteristics or potential for those higher function characteristics of living things that makes them alive. At least according to current widely accepted and taught definitions of life. Changing the definition of living rather than non living to one of encoded information content makes me a little uneasy, as it could be a way of giving a living definition to AI or advanced robotic inventions.

      Just because a virus is non living and less complex than a living organism it does not mean it is not highly evolved. Viruses are adapted to their living hosts, they are not simple precursors of life.

      I'm sorry if those responses sound too critical.It is a very readable, thought provoking essay. I agree with your conclusion. Looking at the development of information and the control it allows, within (and between) living systems, could be useful in pinpointing a transition from inanimate chemistry to pre-living chemistry to biochemistry.

      Good luck, kind regards Georgina.

        Dear Sara:

        Benjamin Dribus draw my attention on your intriging essay, which after reading I appreceate very much. Indeed reductionism ad infinitum is not working, it is useful upto certain scales.

        In "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" I explain the role of consciousness, which of course is a perception of my image of "reality". As Ben said :"if you take these things seriously and put them together with my causal approach, you get a very complex (but interesting) picture of time and consciousness".

        I hope you will take the time to read and rate "The Consciousness Connection" and look forward for your comments.

        Wilhelmus

          Hi Domenico,

          This is an interesting suggestion that I believe some researchers are exploring at present. It is very challenging though! Technically it is very difficult to detect any kind of chiral signature remotely, particularly if it is a weak signal. Chirality as a remote biosignature has even been proposed as a possible biosignature in exoplanet atmospheres (an area of inquiry in its infancy) - this abstract may be of interest to you: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.P14C..08S

          Best,

          Sara

          Dear Mrs. Walker

          It is a nice presentation of informatics of life. Maybe you should also stress more that top-down causation exists also in inanimate world, but it is much less presented. You also found analogy with quantum physics. I hope that this top-down causation of information can help at simulations of computer life and in simulations of evolution?

          But, higher levels which causes on life, are also decisions. Decisions are things of consciousness. (If mainstream explanations of Libet experiment can be replaced. One is my explanation at the end of the essay.) I also wrote that memory is connected with existence of consciousness. Maybe we will find connection of this with your and Tononi's explanation.

          Here, quantum consciousness is also possible to include. Namely, non-quantum physics is one-optional, if someone can calculate everything, he can calculate future events. (Let us ignore Chaos theory.) Thus we need explanations of decisions, whose can be explained only with quantum theory. There is a lot of other arguments for quantum consciousness. Something is written in my essay, in my other article, and in my first essay.

          In the last part of my essay I wrote about consciousness. However, consciousness is a consequence of matter. But what is matter, is not known enough. What is matter, will be given by a quantum gravity theory. So, in the first part of article I try to answer this question. You will see that quantum theory is a lot of connected with information, Brukner, not only consciousness. I do not believe that consciousness arise from nowadays physics. I believe in panpsychism, still more than Koch.

          You wrote that present physics is enough to explain to consciousness. I claim that this is not true. So here we have possibility to put arguments and anti-arguments. The other my claim is that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. I guess that here we also do not agree? Maybe one day an experiments will be possible to test existence of non-quantum consciousness, to test Tononi's idea, to test my idea of memory background of consciousness, and to test idea of panpsychism.

          Best regards, Janko Kokosar

          p.s.

          At the end of primary school it should be already clearly mentioned to schoolpersons that consciousness is not yet explained and that a lot of possibilities is open. But this is not mentioned even at university. My opinion is that this is a consequence of subconscious conspiracy of mainstream science to serve their truth. Do you agree with this?

            Hi Ben,

            Thank you for your very thoughtful comments! My rejection of the fully reductionist picture does apply at the classical level (although I also have not ruled out the possibility that life is intrinsically quantum-mechanical). That being said, if I understand what you mean correctly, I don't "really mean it" as you state it, i.e. I don't mean "that subsets of spacetime exert influence on other subsets independent of the influences between their respective events". To put in perspective of your very nice essay - top-down causation as used here would only occur for causally-related events that are timelike-separated (such that standard bottom-up causation is always part of the story). So mutual causation between "lower" levels and "higher" levels is always the case. In this regard I very much agree with the how George Ellis has framed this in his essay - that is, that top-down causation occurs by higher levels setting contraints on lower level relations (which is what opens the possibility of nonphysical entities being causally efficacious).

            In living systems this becomes particularly interesting because nonphysical (or virtual) entities appear to have causal efficacy. I am not sure if this argument could be made for other areas of physics in quite the same way. For example, in this regard I would consider computers or any artificial systems to be derivative of our biosphere and therefore not be separate physical phenomena since they only arise in nature (as far as we know) from living systems.

            With regards to your point 4, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on specific physical instances of causally efficacious information outside of biology in classical physics. Perhaps you are viewing this as one opportunity to possibly uncover an intrinsic quantum mechanical foundation for biological systems?

            Thanks again for the well-wishes and engaging discussion!

            Best,

            Sara

            Dear Anthony,

            You bring up many interesting points here. I certainly agree that both holistic and reductionist approaches are required for a useful explanatory framework. Do you really think it is the case that it is 50/50? Does this derive from theory/empirical evidence or conjecture? I ask because in thinking on the transition from non-life to life, if you take the idea of a transition causally efficacious information seriously, ideally one would like to identify when this transition can be said to have taken effect (50%, > 50%?) i.e. when can you say true emergence has occurred? I am not sure I have ever come across a rigorous criteria for this kind of measurement.

            Thanks very much for your engaging discussion!

            Best,

            Sara

            Dear Frank, Yes I do agree that the properties of the observer are an important attribute of any interpretation of physical reality.

            Best,

            Sara

            Hi Georgina,

            I certainly appreciate your critique. In fact, the challenges associated with defining life are notoriously difficult, one can just look at various attempts over the history of science (Schrodinger's "What is Life?" is a great example). Your list "movement, excretion, respiration, reproduction, irritability, nutrition and growth" is certainly valid if one seeks a list definition-theory for life, but I find this unsatisfactory. List definitions don't give you much explanatory power. So for example, if I take your list it would be very difficult for me to predict what other life-forms beyond our biosphere could potentially exist. Worse, I have no way of determining how common life should be. Most attempts at definition-theories of life have faced problems, not necessarily with non-living examples (as demonstrated by the nice example you cite of fire, which meets perhaps one criteria on the list - metabolism - but not the rest), but instead with living systems that might not match all the criteria in a particular list. For example, an organism incapable of reproduction (e.g. a sterile mule) technically wouldn't fit your definition. Or as another example - a desiccated organism, not currently exhibiting any measurable metabolic activity wouldn't qualify either. Both examples would typically be considered examples of life. If you reduce your list, you start to include things like fire which aren't alive, but if you expand it your start to exclude things which are living. Steve Benner has a nice recent paper about some of the difficulty of defining life within the context of astrobiology which you may find of interest available here http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2010.0524.

            As far as viruses go, I would consider them living but only as part of a larger biological system. I certainly think they are more than just chemistry in this regard. With regard to computers, I think if one is taking any kind of fundamental approach to understanding life, computers or anything else derivative of our biosphere should not be taken as a separate example - these only arise as a bioproduct of living systems so their existence as a natural phenomena is inextricably tied to the existence of life. Therefore, I am not aiming to discuss the distinction between artificial life and life per se, but if there is anything distinct about living systems that sets them uniquely apart from all other natural phenomena that don't derive their existence from the emergence of life. In this sense I believe that the onset of coded information and information control provides a very clear distinction.

            Biology has traditionally been a science of defining and categorizing, with little by way of determining overarching theory. The aim of my essay is to suggest that physical approaches, based on deeper conceptual interpretations of the living state, may be a productive mode of inquiry into understanding life as a physical phenomena of fundamental significance on par with phenomena studied in other regimes of theoretical physics. So I suppose in the context of this thread, that the basic physical assumption that I reject, is precisely that definition-theories are adequate and that there is nothing to be gained by going beyond them.

            Thanks again for your comments.

            Best,

            Sara