James,

thanks for your thoughtful comments.

>> I can understand your distinction between living systems and the inanimate, but the distinction is less crisp when you think of microorganisms and some new theories like Jeremy England's. Does a virus, bacteria, fungi or protozoa have a goal or purpose and does it grow, reproduce or metabolize?

I am not an expert on all these simple organisms/entities. A virus does not count as it is not self-sufficient. The others do all those things, I think. I must clarify that the statement by Hartwell et al I quoted in my essay about purpose is not I think meant to be a metaphysical statement about the meaning of life: it is a statement about all the physiological and developmental systems that underlie life, each of which does indeed have a purpose. Thus a bacteria has flagella because they enable it to move; a bird has wings because they enable it to fly.

>> Jeremy England's new theory regarding the second law of thermodynamics says the difference between the animate and the inanimate is that living things are much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.

His thesis is very interesting but I think it is only part of the story. You can't capture the full nature of life by statistical mechanics methods alone, although they will be playing a significant role at the micro level. In particular what is missing is the element of genotype selection for phenotype advantage, with the key feature that a vast number of genotypes give the same phenotype outcome. This multiple realisability of higher level function is the key element discussed by Andreas Wagner in the book I mention, and cannot I think be encapsulated by statistical physics methods, because they do not refer to function.

>> "You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant," England said.

I don't think he can have seriously read the literature on the origin of life. No one knows how that happened. In particular we don't know if metabolism or information came first. Nor is it likely that life originated from plants. Indeed it did not, because the early atmosphere of the Earth had no oxygen.

>> Well done link of physics to logic, but is there also a cosmic or long-term link between physics and logic.

We don't understand that one. Roger Penrose writes nicely about it.

> What is the mixed-bag process of clouds of supernova elements forming into rocks vs microorganisms and are the latter alive or potentially alive but not the former?

Yes indeed.

Regards

George

Dear Inez

Evolution is of course the key, but it has to have something to work on. I believe the only possible substrate is carbon, because it alone allows existence of molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. It is the latter that are truly extraordinary: a wonderful book about this is Protein Stucture and Function (Primers in Biology). Yes I believe macromolecules are the only possible solution.

George

I'm not going to write another essay, so I'll respond just to the first things you say:

"To state that lifeless beings have no purpose must be a self-evident metaphysical axiom...since there's no evidence offered to support it. So there's one problem - it's not self-evident. If the lifeless are purposeless, then why do they exist? If life forms have a goal, what is it?"

As stated in my previous response, that quote is not a metaphysical statement about the meaning of life, but rather refers to the obvious purpose of physiological systems in all living organisms.

Dear George:

Thanks for your time and I deeply appreciate your comments on my paper- FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE . Below are my responses to your comments/questions:

1. GE Comment: "You say "The physics of the spontaneous decay phenomenon is integrated into a physical model of the universe that allows a system to induce a change to its own mass-energy state without an external agency." So this is quantum physics you are referring to - which is not purposeful, it is random as far as we can tell."

AS Response: The physics of the spontaneous decay is described mathematically in relativistic formulations (please see detailed equations in the attached paper) and not in terms of statistical or random QM. You are correct in stating that randomness has no purpose but spontaneous decay is represented as Free-Willed and not a random phenomenon since each mass or particle is hypothesized and treated as a conscious living entity making a conscious and definite choice to decay or not. The well-known physicist Freeman Dyson alluded to the evidence of three levels of mind - the human mind, the mind residing at the micro level the atomic subatomic level, and then at the very macro levels the mind of the universe. Dyson states: "..... So the atom seems to have a freedom to choose, that's something, which characterizes quantum processes that they seem to just occur spontaneously. We call that spontaneous decay. So it is spontaneous; ......this freedom that the individual atom has to have.... seems to be an indication of some rudimentary form of mind."

2. GE Comment: "It is hypothesized that such consciousness defined as the self-induced motivation capability inherent in living systems allows them to efficiently organize their simplest components with the intricate aims of survival, reproduction, and other biological ends employing panoply of physical effects to accomplish many conscious or free-willed chosen goals." - well yes but that is now biology not physics.

AS Response: You are correct to point out the self-organizational capability as biology however the key point of my paper is that the physics of consciousness defined as the self-induced motivation capability inherent in living systems is the fundamental top-down causation for this biological capability. Hence, the biological purpose has its root in the fundamental physics.

Brian Greene enumerates this fact elegantly by describing how our conscious moment-by-moment activities are governed by the physics of mass-energy equivalence described by Einstein's special relativity theory: "... When you drive your car, E = mc² is at work.....When you use your MP3 player, E = mc² is at work...... As you read this text, E = mc² is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula." The physical process governing goals involves intentional self-induced change of state by a living system again using relativistic mass-energy conversion processes within its mind-body.

3. GE Comment: "Such consciousness or spontaneous motion also governs the spontaneous expansion of the universe, spontaneous birth/decay of particles, and functioning of the biological mind that provides spontaneous self-motivation capabilities to biological life forms." Here physics and biology are irretrievably mixed up with each other with no clarity on their relation.

AS Response: Again, as above, the physics of consciousness is the fundamental top-down causation for this biological capability. Hence, the biological purpose has its root in the fundamental physics.

Best Regards

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 3_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf

George,

"If it is what was expected, it is ignored; if it is unexpected, it becomes the focus of attention."

I have to disagree, though I hope you may prove yourself correct. I venture that if you or colleagues read an essay here or paper withe a proposition that doesn't conform to your expectations, then far from always focussing on it you'll tend to dismiss or ignore it. Results of 10yr experiment support that! I wait with interest.

"Well its not so much logic that fails at that scale as predictability. Do you propose QM is classically 'logical'!? That is quite a departure, including of course from Einstein, Bell, Feynman etc. Do you not think it may be the departure from Logic that leads to the apparent un-predictability?

If someone came along and showed a way of producing QM's predictions from an unexpected classical mechanism (no 'hidden variables') as anticipated by John Bell, do you propose;

a) You and colleagues would focus on it in the interests of advancing science? or

b) You and all would dismiss it as it's unexpected and unfamiliar and can't be right as it's logical and too different from present doctrine, so dismiss and ignore it.

If b) as findings to date suggest, then do you agree you may also prove wrong that; " the quantum to classical transition... may well be understood one day."

Do you agree that what most say and what they do in science mostly prove to be quite different things, i.e. that we must look and account for hidden self delusion? (I've found that a valuable but rarely employed analytical tool).

Best

Peter

Dear Peter

>> If it is what was expected, it is ignored; if it is unexpected, it becomes the focus of attention."

> I have to disagree, though I hope you may prove yourself correct. I venture that if you or colleagues read an essay here or paper withe a proposition that doesn't conform to your expectations, then far from always focussing on it you'll tend to dismiss or ignore it.

Nice comment. I'm talking of the way senses such as vision work, not the way rationality works. Please see the book Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World by Chris Frith.

>> "Well its not so much logic that fails at that scale as predictability.

> Do you propose QM is classically 'logical'!? That is quite a departure, including of course from Einstein, Bell, Feynman etc. Do you not think it may be the departure from Logic that leads to the apparent un-predictability?

As I see it, quantum physics has its own logic, which is not the same as that of classical physics. Sure we'd welcome a hidden variable theory that really works (pilot wave theory is closest)

Regards

George

George,

"Sure we'd welcome a hidden variable theory that really works"

Thanks That's excellent news, though why does it have to be a "hidden variable" theory? I agree with Bell they can't work! He thought the error lay in the assumptions, even pointing to where! (I found later).

And 'Astonishingly' (his word too), I've derived and presented one, dead simple, (from just a rotating sphere and detectors) simply reproducable and falsifiable. Nobody has been able to disprove it (most just run and put their heads in the sand - including editors of course!) But it just keeps reproducing all of QM and resolving it's (classical) illogicalities.

Please do have a go - ask any questions and please challenge whatever you like.

Best

Peter

Professor Ellis,

Thank you for your responses. You have given me a lot to think about and work upon in the future. Wagner's book sounds very interesting and I have just ordered it. Hopefully it will give me a better understanding of what I have been missing and how (if possible) the gap can be bridged between logic of physics and biology. Thanks again for your engagement and good luck in the contest.

Cheers

Natesh

Dear Mr. Ellis

Sorry, this is not related to your essay. These are questions for you as cosmologist.

What do you think about these attitudes?

1. The universe is inevitable;

2. "Matter dominant universe" and "radiation dominant universe" coexist in every point in time;

3. Mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but universe is eternal.

4. Terms multiverse and "parallel universes" are very confusing. It is possible that there are bubbles without interaction between them, but there is the same math in bubbles of Universe.

I concluded that using my methodology, equations, especially Eq. (17) of my essay:

Regards,

Branko Zivlak

    Thanks for your comments, George. Hope you have time to check out my essay and furnish your own valuable thoughts.

    Jim

    "The key difference between physics and biology is function or purpose. There is no purpose in the existence of the Moon or an electron or in a collision of two gas particles.".

    george, i would be interested to hear how you arrive at this conclusion. are you in effect saying that particles or larger objects cannot *by definition* have either aims or intentions? if so i would be interested to know why you would believe that to be the case.

    george, hi,

    in reading your essay i was encouraged that you also noted, as i do in my essay, that randomness in neural structures is very important. i was wondering if you had any further thoughts on its significance.

      Hi Luke

      biology thrives on disorder at the molecular level, as very nicely explained in Hoffman's book Life's Ratchet: How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos. The randomness in neural structures is a special case. The key role of that randomness is providing a repertoire of alternatives from which a choice can be made according to higher level needs. Thus the higher context is able to select what happens through the opportunities opened up by this randomness.

      regards

      George

      Dear Branko

      sorry I'm not going to do a cosmological discussion here.

      George

      Dr Ellis,

      I hate to add one more comment on this thread, considering that you must be exhausted by now reviewing and replying to all of them.

      Your essay is no doubt a very solid one, well argued and well developed from your proposed abstract. I think though that it is better situated in the context of discussion about the distinction between inanimate objects and animate objects because your silver lining is the physics of life. I argue that the distinction between the two is not life but a form of life and one does not have to resort to religion to sustain this view. In the hierarchy of ontologies starting with quarks, particles, to atoms, ... all the way to galaxies and galaxy groups, what we call living structures is only a small fraction of "objects" just prior to cosmic or space-borne objects. The idea that there is more life and more teleology to a human being or even a single eukaryotic cell than there is to a planet, a star or a galaxy is a blatant anthropomorhic notion that is no less absurd than yesteryear view that human-inhabited planet earth is the center of the Universe. The structure that are beyond biota in the universe are better conceived as garnering structural, ontological organization and a level of teleology that are beyond what an infinitesimal biotic object that is only part of their own structure may ever conceive.

      What happens to humans on planet earth with all their great aims and intentions, if only one day, the sun-star shut off its rays? What happens if it does so for a whole earth-year? In my sense, we are too dependent on the environment to give ourselves the freedom of separating what is "meaning" to us, which scope is a function of the environment, from what is meaning in the environment. Our "meaningfulness" is only part of that of the environment, and if our meaningfulness and apparent self-determination makes us living entities, we then are only a lifeform among other lifeforms. In this context, there is no "emergence" of life but only a "distinction" in lifeforms to be debated. There is indeed a big distinction between a piece of rock at the foot of a mountain, as an inanimate object, and another seemingly inanimate or "devoid-of-intelligence" object as say a comet, if one can ever ascertain meaning in terms of nature and cumulation of phenomenologies associated with existent objects across the entire spectrum of universal ontologies.

      Let me conclude by saying that I would have been happier with your essay, as well developed as it is, if it dwelt more on the mathematics of cognition than the physics of life, just to remain closer to assigned topic.

      Congrats and good luck.

      Joseph

      Dear Joseph

      the essay criteria state

      "Essays should address questions such as (but not limited to):

      1>How did physical systems that pursue the goal of reproduction arise from an a-biological world?"

      so my essay is clearly on target.

      >> "The idea that there is more life and more teleology to a human being or even a single eukaryotic cell than there is to a planet, a star or a galaxy is a blatant anthropomorhic notion"

      I have no idea how you are defining life, nor how you impute teleology to a star or galaxy.

      >> "there is no "emergence" of life but only a "distinction" in lifeforms to be debated.""

      There was no life 13 billion years ago. It emerged after then.

      >> "What happens to humans on planet earth with all their great aims and intentions, if only one day, the sun-star shut off its rays? What happens if it does so for a whole earth-year?"

      Of course life depends on its astronomical environment. That does not mean that that environment is living.

      George Ellis

      Addendum:

      The usual definition of life is here: "Life"

      It does not resemble a star or galaxy.

      George -

      Thanks for another first-class essay. Your strategy of choosing specific cases to illustrate each type of logic and their linkages works well, and lets you pull a remarkable variety of phenomena into a coherent picture.

      Clearly you're right that "there's no purpose in the existence of the Moon." But in focusing on the deterministic aspect of physics in Section 2, you bypass an issue I tried to focus on in my essay, which deals with the broader category of "meaning" rather than "purpose". There are certainly many kinds of meaningful - i.e. physically measurable - information in physics. These are all related to each other deterministically, in the classical regime, but QM tells us that measurement processes themselves are in some way involved in bringing about this determinacy. As you've suggested, there's some kind of "top-down realization" involved here, as there is in the logic of life.

      Without proposing any new theory, I've tried to show that three very different realms of meaning - in physics, biology and human interaction - can all be conceived in terms of recursive processes built up through natural (accidental) selection. I suggest that "measurement" and "human consciousness" have been hard to conceptualize for the same reason "life" is - because they all involve many different, interdependent functions. Nonetheless, as your essay nicely demonstrates, we have a very clear (if hardly complete) understanding of the relation of deterministic physics to living things. So far we have no such clarity about the basis of classical physics in QM, or about the basis of human intersubjectivity in biology. My goal is not to "solve" these problems, but to explain why they've been so difficult to approach, and suggest a picture in which these three remarkably different informational technologies are understandable in principle. I'd very much appreciate your perspective on this.

      Thanks again for setting an example of beautifully clear-headed thinking. It's very badly needed here, since there's such a strong pull toward reducing everything in Nature to a single ultimately simple process.

      Conrad

        Dear George Ellis,

        I am a great admirer of your work and am honored to participate in a contest with someone as distinguished as yourself. Apologies for the simplicity of my question but when you say:

        "Physics underlies adaptive selection in that it allows the relevant biological mechanisms to work; but adaptive selection is not a physical law. It is an emergent biological process."

        Do we mean to imply that biology and thinking being emergent are not just non-fundamental but non-deterministic and that we are in some sense therefore free?

        I would be honored if you checked out my own much more literary entry in this contest "From Athena to AI."

        Best of luck,

        Rick Searle

          • [deleted]

          • Post #118

          Dear Conrad

          thanks for the kind remarks.

          > Without proposing any new theory, I've tried to show that three very different realms of meaning - in physics, biology and human interaction - can all be conceived in terms of recursive processes built up through natural (accidental) selection.

          Yes, agreed. It is a profound principle for creating order.

          > I suggest that "measurement" and "human consciousness" have been hard to conceptualize for the same reason "life" is - because they all involve many different, interdependent functions.

          Yes indeed. They can't be reduced to a few simple functions. They can be reduced to a great many simple functions interacting in very complex ways. It is the nature of those emergent networks of interactions (which can only be described at a higher level than that of their constituent entities) that enables complex emergence.

          > So far we have no such clarity about the basis of classical physics in QM, or about the basis of human intersubjectivity in biology.

          I agree again in both cases. Both are unsolved.

          > My goal is not to "solve" these problems, but to explain why they've been so difficult to approach, and suggest a picture in which these three remarkably different informational technologies are understandable in principle. I'd very much appreciate your perspective on this.

          I'll take a look.

          George