Is Life Fundamental? by Sara Imari Walker

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

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?

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

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 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