Professor Ellis,

A wonderfully written essay! Learnt a lot from it. I particularly enjoyed the sections on the differences between the logic of physics vs biology. I had the following question that I was hoping you would help me with:

If we took the example of a bacteria detecting poison and moving away from it, the poison would correspond to context C; let us call the bacteria system S, and we can form the corresponding context dependent statement "If C,THEN S will move away, ELSE S will move toward." Would you agree that if I decided to redraw the 'boxes' differently and looked at the joint system (C,S) together, then the earlier context dependent statement can be restated as a statement one would expect under the logic of physics? If the global (C,S) joint system has to follow physical law and can be analyzed from it, we should then be able to understand the 'purpose' in the local relationship between C and S. Would you agree on that?

Thanks.

Natesh

PS: I explore this C-S relationship in my submission 'Intention is Physical' which I have turned in, and should be up sometime next week. I would be happy if you could take a look at it, and any and all feedback is welcome.

    Dear Prof. Ellis,

    you've provided a cogent and well-argued essay. One point that---perhaps only to me---has some special significance is where you present Maxwell's equations: I remember very well the moment when I first understood them, which I guess a more religiously minded person might call 'revelatory'. As you note, those few, simple equations, together with gravity, govern essentially all that we encounter in everyday life---I don't think anybody who isn't awestruck by that has truly appreciated this lesson.

    I think it's that moment, more than anything, that makes me look at purported explanations of the mind appealing to supernatural or extra-physical powers somewhat askance: it would be profoundly dissatisfying if the simplicity of fundamental physics would have to be muddled by the addition of the essentially mysterious in order to give an account of mind.

    Consequently, I think I share your general approach to the matter: let's not throw in the towel and appeal to the ghost in the machine, but let's try and do some more science. Your essay is a welcome contribution to that.

    However, I'm not quite sure your essay really cuts to the heart of the matter---or perhaps, I just don't quite see how. You appeal to the 'logic' of ion channels; but I feel one must be a bit more careful not to conflate semantic, meaningful information with the essentially syntactic operations occurring at the physical ground level. One risks introducing what was meant to be derived into the basic assumptions, at least courting circularity.

    As an example, I would not say that an overflowing basin implements the logic 'if water level w > h, emit water' (where h is the depth). So even though the basic process can be brought into a 'if...then...else'-structure, I don't think that this automatically licenses us to attribute any genuine information-processing to a system.

    One always runs a great risk to import interpretations into one's models, only to then rediscover them---after all, to the human mind, almost everything appears meaningful. As an example, consider the lamp lit at Old North Church by Paul Revere: you might suppose it means 'the English will attack by land', but it does so only to a human mind, who knows how to 'decode' the information, i.e. who knows 'one if by land, two if by sea'. The lamp itself does not carry meaningful information---without the background knowledge, it's just a source of illumination. But this background knowledge itself depends on the semantic capacities of any onlooker.

    So I'm not sure I see how your example actually generates meaning and purpose. To me, it seems that these biomolecules are far more like the overflowing water basin than they are like an intentional organism choosing between alternatives, based on relevant information.

    It's possible that you intend to circumvent this difficulty by appeal to biological function, as introduced via evolution, in a similar manner to the 'biosemantics' of Ruth Millikan and others, perhaps utilizing the (effective) downward causation to get the 'evolved meaning' to the ground level of ion channels and the like. If so, then I think this line of argument may have merit, and would like to see it fleshed out some more.

    Anyway, thanks again for an intriguing contribution to the debate!

      This seems a very promising line of work. I will try to keep track of it.

      Thanks

      George Ellis

      Dear Lorraine

      > we seem to agree that the mutation issue is important, but we don't agree about how multiple theoretically possible outcomes could turn into actual outcomes. I maintain that physical structure is built on what amounts to rules/laws;

      -agreed

      > and so reality resolves multiple theoretically possible physical outcomes by in effect creating new, one-off local rules;

      - well I think that is a way of saying that higher level causality emerges from lower levels, through a combination of coarse-graining lower level physics and black-boxing lower level logic

      > and that models of systems show that rules can't emerge from complexity.

      - I think we disagree here

      > I too am very interested in the issue of what a model can tell you about reality, but I have a different take on it: I maintain that, unlike models, the actual universe is an isolated system that must therefore generate/create its own rules;

      - whereas I think it is subject to a priori given rules

      > and that the particles ("little parts" of the universe) are the generators and carriers of fundamental-level rules.

      - agreed

      > Re "Of course mutation is necessary. That won't get you a entity that fulfils a specific purpose unless it is then selected for": I think that an entity doesn't need to fulfil a purpose in order to exist - an entity only needs to fit into a niche, or create a niche.

      - This may be a question of language. Filling or creating a niche may amount to fulfilling a need, e.g. developing eyes in order to see fills a niche available only to animals who can see

      > The subjective experience of all sorts of information (consciousness) via interaction with the rest of reality (not necessarily people or animals) is what is fulfilling about life: purpose is not necessary.

      - That experience may or may not be fulfilling. It depends on circumstances and outcomes. Purpose in the sense of function is necessary for all physiological systems. For people as a whole, purpose or meaning can be claimed to be the key to a fulfilling life: see Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search For Meaning.

      > Re "Organisms exist to reproduce": I know that that is a quote, and not your assertion, but one might wonder about the many people who do not or cannot reproduce, or people who are past reproduction age: why do they still bother to exist?

      - I think that statement is meant for them as a group as a whole, but not necessarily for individuals. Indeed for example it is not true for worker ants.

      > My opinion about aim or purpose is that, like everything, it develops from existing proto-aspects of reality, but only single- or multi-celled organisms have the molecules, structure and molecular interactions to have significant capital "P" Purposes. So, an electron could have proto-purpose (proto-consciousness), but the moon or a computer does not have the structure, the molecules or the interactions to have purpose.

      - This seems to be a form of Whitehead's Process Philosophy

      > We exist for our own purposes, but through love or other reasons, we can dedicate ourselves to what we consider to be a higher purpose than ourselves.

      - Yes indeed

      > The higher purpose might be the good of the whole of which we are an individual subjective part.

      - agreed

      > Not just human beings, but animals like hens with baby chicks can have higher purposes.

      - well maybe. I see full consciouness as being necessary: that is a possibility to make responsible decisions.

      Dear Branko,

      > if we just want to find the cause derived from physics, it's the attractions and repulsion.

      - Indeed: particularly those between protons and electrons. But causes derived from physics are not the only causes (see my discussion above of Aristotle's 4 causes )

      > This physical process is common and essential to all levels of structures and phenomena.

      - Yes agreed

      > For adaptive selection too.

      Well that link is not so clear. Attractions and repulsions may be key to selection, but I can't see a direct relation to the deletions that are a crucial part of adaptive selection

      Regards

      George

      Dear i.,

      > what if we can extend this theory to levels of consciousness and see that a higher level of consciousness being responsible for manifestation of different lower levels of it self.

      - that may well be possible

      > A gene is a part of organism and there is no organism with out the gene, it's a singular system.

      - It's an integrated system. Not sure what is intended by `singular'

      > So is consciousness a singularity and we are all a part of it

      - I don't understand that. I know what a singularity is in mathematics or physics. I don't know what is mean here.

      Best

      George

      Dear LC

      > have been down with influenza so have been slow and still am.

      I hope it is better

      > Roger Penrose goes on a track of sorts with physics, mathematics and the mental world all connected as joints in a paradoxical triangle.

      Indeed. We do not understand that link yet.

      > I tend to focus a bit more locally in my thinking in that if there is a duality between IR and UV physics, then maybe quantum hair on black hole horizons, such as what Strominger argues with BMS symmetry, has structure that appears in the more ordinary world.

      - I can't see how that would work. Black hole horizons are far removed from the everyday world.

      > I think somehow this equivalency between UV and IR gives what might be called euphemistically a yin and yang relationship between bottom up and top down causal or correlations.

      - an interesting idea. maybe so.

      Cheers GE

      Dear Natesh

      > If we took the example of a bacteria detecting poison and moving away from it, the poison would correspond to context C; let us call the bacteria system S, and we can form the corresponding context dependent statement "If C,THEN S will move away, ELSE S will move toward."

      - Right

      > Would you agree that if I decided to redraw the 'boxes' differently and looked at the joint system (C,S) together, then the earlier context dependent statement can be restated as a statement one would expect under the logic of physics?

      - Interesting idea. You may be expressing the idea of supervenience in a new way. But I think l I disagree, because the joint system J := (C,S) is not guaranteed to have only physics style causal relations.

      > If the global (C,S) joint system has to follow physical law and can be analyzed from it, we should then be able to understand the 'purpose' in the local relationship between C and S. Would you agree on that?

      - I think I disagree as per above, but it is a good question that I'll need to consider further

      Dear Jochen

      Thanks for that thoughtful comment.

      > you appeal to the 'logic' of ion channels; but I feel one must be a bit more careful not to conflate semantic, meaningful information with the essentially syntactic operations occurring at the physical ground level. One risks introducing what was meant to be derived into the basic assumptions, at least courting circularity.

      - I agree completely with you on the difference between those two kinds of information. semantic information only comes into being at higher levels. But that occurs through combining lower level logical elements capable of syntactic operations into higher level logical circuits such as neural networks that can do the higher level work. That is only possible if the lower level elements are there, ready to be incorporated into interaction networks. That is why they are the key link between physics and logic.

      > As an example, I would not say that an overflowing basin implements the logic 'if water level w > h, emit water' (where h is the depth). So even though the basic process can be brought into a 'if...then...else'-structure, I don't think that this automatically licenses us to attribute any genuine information-processing to a system.

      - Right. They have to be built into the right kind of higher level structure. You can use that basin as part of a Turing Machine, if you do it right.

      > It's possible that you intend to circumvent this difficulty by appeal to biological function, as introduced via evolution, in a similar manner to the 'biosemantics' of Ruth Millikan and others, perhaps utilizing the (effective) downward causation to get the 'evolved meaning' to the ground level of ion channels and the like. If so, then I think this line of argument may have merit, and would like to see it fleshed out some more.

      - Indeed. I only had 9 pages to work in. And as I have said elsewhere, that downward causation is essential to this kind of emergence.

      Professor Ellis,

      Interesting point on J=(C,S) not necessarily following physics style causal relations. I should have stated myself better. Perhaps the following might clear it up with where I am going.

      Let us redraw the boxes as the following. For every system S, we will divide the universe into an observable domain O and the rest as B. O is not fixed and can change in time, thus changing the O-B boundary. Any context system C has to be in the observable domain O of S to be able to affect it at that time, and S also has to be in its own observable domain. If O only comprised of C and S in a particular case, then (O,B) or specifically the time evolution (C,S,B) would fall under the physics category now I think. Hope this helps make my argument clearer.

      Interestingly if we were to study the correlations between C and S even under the physics category, we can show that energy dissipation minimization under finite complexity constraints (alone) is a sufficient condition for emergence of inference and prediction in such systems. The learning/inference dynamics is in a very particular manner that the implementation requires an hierarchical feedforward feedback model, the type we see in the brain.

      It gets even more interesting when you allow for S to have agency (the ability to act but not necessarily with intent or purpose). The optimal solutions to constrained optimization of dissipation for C-S correlations will involve a very nice 'exploitation-exploration' tradeoff. Not to mention an hierarchical model that realizes these dynamics will necessitate the 'sense of agency' in the system, and we might be able to identify the source of intention in the agency of the system S.

      In addition to the above, I have shown an interesting way to unify individual learning with England's dissipation driven adaptation and how we could explain the brain as a system exhibiting self-organized criticality and its implications of cognition as input mappings. I would be very interested in your thoughts if you have the chance to read my submission 'Intention is Physical'.

      Thanks

      Natesh

      Dear Steve

      > "All this to tell you that your work considers themro and photons, not the gravitation which is the main causality."

      - gravity is important in creating galaxies, stars, and planets, that are the habitats for life. It also provides an important aspect of the environment in which we live (animals must be designed to function in a context where gravity may make them fall). But as far as I know, it plays a minor role in how life functions: it does not directly affect flows of electrons in our bodies, which is rather governed by electromagnetism and quantum theory. That is where the molecular behavior that I discuss comes from. Thermodynamics is important for our functioning at a macro level (e.g. we have to ear food), as are the properties of photons (e.g. in how sight works).

      Regards

      George

      Dear Ganesh,

      thanks for that.

      1. > Let us redraw the boxes as the following. For every system S, we will divide the universe into an observable domain O and the rest as B. O is not fixed and can change in time, thus changing the O-B boundary. Any context system C has to be in the observable domain O of S to be able to affect it at that time, and S also has to be in its own observable domain.

      - You seem to be talking of the causal domains investigated in relativity theory.

      > If O only comprised of C and S in a particular case, then (O,B) or specifically the time evolution (C,S,B) would fall under the physics category now I think. Hope this helps make my argument clearer.

      - Not really. How does this work out for (a) sand grains in a desert, (b) rocks on a planet, (c) biomolecules in a cell, (d) cells in a body.

      2. Interestingly if we were to study the correlations between C and S even under the physics category, we can show that energy dissipation minimization under finite complexity constraints (alone) is a sufficient condition for emergence of inference and prediction in such systems.

      - What is a finite complexity constraint? if you mean existence of complex entities such as biomolecules, I might believe you. The heavy lifting has already been done in creating those molecules, which cannot be brought in to existence by such principles alone, see e.g. the minimal total energy principle.

      3. The learning/inference dynamics is in a very particular manner that the implementation requires an hierarchical feedforward feedback model, the type we see in the brain.

      - So that complex system must already exist (at the macro level) and be based in appropriate structures such as neurons and biomolecules (at the micro level). They do not come into existence simply via energy minimisation, which is happier with Boltmann gases and salt crystals.

      4. It gets even more interesting when you allow for S to have agency (the ability to act but not necessarily with intent or purpose). The optimal solutions to constrained optimization of dissipation for C-S correlations will involve a very nice 'exploitation-exploration' tradeoff.

      - is not "agency" as defined here a biological trait? Neither an electron nor the Moon has agency in that sense. This is like what Hartwell et al talk about.

      > Not to mention an hierarchical model that realizes these dynamics will necessitate the 'sense of agency' in the system, and we might be able to identify the source of intention in the agency of the system S.

      The Earth and the Sun are hierarchical systems. They have no agency. To realise agency you need physiological systems.

      5. In addition to the above, I have shown an interesting way to unify individual learning with England's dissipation driven adaptation and how we could explain the brain as a system exhibiting self-organized criticality and its implications of cognition as input mappings.

      - I have not understood this idea of dissipative driven adapation. If it is adaptation, there is some selection principle in action which cannot be captured simply by the idea of dissipation. How does dissipation know that a set of eyes or a pair of wings is a good idea? The need is driven top-down, as I discuss in my essay. That is what is missing in England's proposal, as far as I can see. Incidentally Friston has a similar but perhaps more developed proposal, see A theory of cortical responses

      6. I would be very interested in your thoughts if you have the chance to read my submission 'Intention is Physical'.

      I will take a look.

      George

      Hi Professor Ellis,

      It is well said ,But I spoke about this weakest quant force, the quant gravity.Not G or g,of course this gravity is everywhere because all mass is Under this force respecting newton and the fact that it exists za force between all, m1 m2 ,r ,G ....give this force.Now about thermo,I love so much, I have several books of Zemansky ,Heat and thermodynamics.One of my favorite équations is this PV=nRT ,fascinating equation.But the problem is not about these lectromagnetic thermodynamic interactions implying our standard model and our biology, mineralogy,....if the photons are not the main piece of puzzle, that implies that we must consider this dark matter, the BHs,the quant BHs,the quantum gravitation together in a road resopecting the principle of equivalence;We had a problem for this gravity because we consider only photons.Now if we consider that the cold and the heat are more than we can imagine and that this gravitation is in fact the realchief orchestra, so that implies that we can explain this quantum gravity with determinism and objectivity with this cold and heat.If the stanbdard model is encircled at all scales by this gravitation.So it implies that photons are in fact a serie of spherical volumes having the entire entropy.Paradoxal but that implies that a photon is a spheron coded ,like if I said that this cold gave the properties to photon.The gravitation is fascinatin,g and seems to be the main primordial gravitationa aether implyin,g properties to thermo.Thermodynamics is important indeeed and foundamental but we must rethought our interpretation of this gravitation and this cold to better encircle this infinite entropical gravitational evolution spherisation.It is fascinating this universe and its 3D sphères, quant and cosm.We are Inside a wondertful project of optimisation,a kind of mechanic of improvement.I liked your papper.I am wishing you all the best in this contest.Best resgards.

      Dear George,

      I think the word "purpose" is being used in at least 3 senses: 1) a somewhat vague subjective goal or intention which is held in conscious awareness; 2) an ostensibly-objective evaluation of the place/ usefulness/ necessity of organisms/ organs/ molecules in an ecosystem or part-ecosystem; and 3) a hypothetically-existing higher-level external-to-the-universe master-plan that somehow guides outcomes in the universe, in addition to laws-of-nature. I think that there is no evidence of 3).

      Re "Purpose in the sense of function is necessary for all physiological systems":

      I wouldn't say that purpose (in the above 3 senses) is the same as function. The then meaning of the word "function" ("power of acting in a specific proper way") was appropriated by Leibniz in 1673 to refer to mathematical functions, seemingly because the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of a mathematical model is completely determined by its mathematical function.

      Nothing has changed: despite the visual appearance of some complex system models, no new function evolves out of a deterministic modelled system because the mathematical function completely defines the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of the modelled system. By analogy with models, for new function to emerge in the universe, the equivalent of new mathematical functions/rules have to be added to the complex universe-system.

      Human beings can add new rules to a model system, but the actual universe is not a model. Seemingly by definition, there is nothing external to the universe. That is why I contend that the universe must generate its own rules.

      Dear Lorraine

      > I think the word "purpose" is being used in at least 3 senses:

      - yes I agree

      1) a somewhat vague subjective goal or intention which is held in conscious awareness;

      - well it may not be at all vague, but it is subjective in the sense that it is in the mind of a conscious agent

      2) an ostensibly-objective evaluation of the place/ usefulness/ necessity of organisms/ organs/ molecules in an ecosystem or part-ecosystem;

      - yes: eyes have the function/purpose of enabling vision, hemoglobin has the function/purpose of transporting oxygen in the blood stream, wings enable flight, and so on;

      3) a hypothetically-existing higher-level external-to-the-universe master-plan that somehow guides outcomes in the universe, in addition to laws-of-nature. I think that there is no evidence of 3).

      - I have not entered that discussion at all here. It plays no role in my essay.

      > Re "Purpose in the sense of function is necessary for all physiological systems": I wouldn't say that purpose (in the above 3 senses) is the same as function. The then meaning of the word "function" ("power of acting in a specific proper way") was appropriated by Leibniz in 1673 to refer to mathematical functions, seemingly because the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of a mathematical model is completely determined by its mathematical function.

      - well mathematical functions only operate in abstract spaces, unless human minds use them for say engineering purposes, when they do indeed cause change in the real world (see Seventeen Equations that Changed the World).

      - This is however different from what Hartwell et al talk about

      > Nothing has changed: despite the visual appearance of some complex system models, no new function evolves out of a deterministic modelled system because the mathematical function completely defines the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of the modelled system.

      - agreed

      > By analogy with models, for new function to emerge in the universe, the equivalent of new mathematical functions/rules have to be added to the complex universe-system.

      - It is key to separate ontology from epistemology here. As a mathematical Platonist, I believe that maths per se is timeless and unchanging. However what we know about maths is culture dependent and changes with time. No new functions or rules can be added to the Platonic reality; they are what they are. We can however learn more about them and use more of them in engineering applications through the operations of our minds. In that sense new functions/rules have to be added to the system.

      > Human beings can add new rules to a model system, but the actual universe is not a model.

      - yes

      > Seemingly by definition, there is nothing external to the universe. That is why I contend that the universe must generate its own rules.

      - As the universe is not conscious, I don't know what that means. Whatever happens in the universe is governed by a set of unchanging eternal rules ("Laws of Nature", as described by the standard model of particle physics together with general relativity). The universe has no option but to obey them (whatever that means).

      Hi George, thanks for your encouraging comments on my essay. I particularly appreciated your words:

      "I think you are touching on some important ideas here that are not often recognised because they are unpopular. But I think most of what you say is correct, and is congruent with my own ideas and my own essay."

      They excited me because the goal of FQXI is to identify important ideas that are not recognised because they are unpopular.

      I think I am seeing a pattern in the submissions.

      Starting from generally accepted premises, one is able to make steady progress towards explaining how goal-oriented systems arise, as you do brilliantly. But there seems to be a barrier that is hard to cross, to get to aims and ambitions, which are properties of minds.

      In order to cross that barrier, a different starting point is required, which is the theme of my "Reality Envisaged". One needs a new framework in which minds and thoughts are given a physical description. Then one can begin to build the mathematics.

      In that sense, I would suggest our essays are complementary, rather than congruent.

      best regards, and thanks again, ...george simpson...

      George, in your comments on my essay, you say

      "The Ideas Field consists of symmetries among information patterns (minds)". I would prefer to talk about multiple realisations of the same abstract patterns."

      I am quite comfortable with this - the symmetries are at an abstract level. I think you will agree that such symmetries could in principle be measured in artificial minds.

      Professor Ellis,

      I have addressed some of the questions raised on my submission page over there. I will address the rest here. Think there are some fundamental differences on some key ideas/definitions that I would like to differentiate so that we can clearly draw our intellectual battle lines so to speak :)

      1) The key difference between the logic of physics and biology in your essay seems to be the presence of a context in biology that is seemingly missing in physics (Am I still missing something else here?). I would argue that for a system S, C is like any other physical system that influences it's state, and the 'context' or lack thereof is derived from the interactions (governed by physical law) between S and C. For example: in the case of the microbe (S) and poison (C), it is the specific interaction between S and C and the action that S performs or doesnt perform due to that interaction, that imbues C with it's context with reference to S. The context of the physical system C to S is not something determined apriori. Of course if the system is capable of memory and learning, then it can use that to remember the poison and it's actions for a future situation. I would further argue that "If...then...else" like logical statements can be achieved in hardware in computers, that can be purely described using physics based statements.

      What type of system S can recognize the context that is has imbued C with because of its interactions? I think that is an important question that needs to be worked out.

      2) (This is a repeat of what I wrote on the other thread) The agency I am talking of (takes the definition from philosophy and it) is simply the capacity to act. To act involuntarily, unconsciously or consciously with a purpose will all fall under it. The moon with the ability to act on earths waters makes it an agent, but doesn't have to fall under the category of making it a purposeful one for the moon or even tht the moon is capable to generating its own purpose like we do. It is very possible to think of physical systems that have no agency-can change their state based on the influence of external systems but do not have the ability to 'act' and affect its environment. It is thus possible to have systems that have 'agency' as I define, but not have a purpose or intent for that agency. I would point out that it is not just hierarchical systems that have a sense of agency, but minimally dissipative systems (from my essay) whoses dynamics can be achieved in an hierarchical predictive coding model that will be capable of a sense of agency. The sun, earth, etc will not satisfy the condition of being minimally dissipative.

      3) The complexity constraint is using a statistical complexity measure like the mutual information between the system and all the inputs in the past that has influenced it's state. The finite complexity constraint is necessary for I am dealing with finite state automata models with an emphasis on finite and this constraint would ensure I dont end with trivial solutions like 'have an infinite number of distinguishable states and remember everything'. Furthermore the problem is mathematically formulated so that the tradeoff parameter in the optimization problem beta can be moved like a knob to play around with the complexity and see how that affects external input-system correlations. While it is possible to have both extremely complex structures or minimally dissipative systems that do not learn, we can see that the type of learning dynamics we see in certain biological systems is a tradeoff between the dissipation and complexity, parametrized by beta.

      4) "If it is adaptation, there is some selection principle in action which cannot be captured simply by the idea of dissipation." England's idea is that those selection mechanisms themselves are instantiations of larger thermodynamic dissipation principles. There are of course some caveats there in his hypothesis and there is much work to be done to make it a more developed proposal.

      Think I have addressed most of the important issues you raised here to the best I can over a post. Appreciate your questions. I have learnt that I need to be a lot clearer with some of my definitions.

      Natesh

      Dear Mr. George F. R. Ellis,

      Your essay looks an epitome of science itself. It may win the prize because it has all the elements that the community of science are looking for. I am going to comment here and my comment has nothing to do with prizes or such things as ornamental matters. The earth is in great danger and I am making a last minute pleading in a bid to avert the danger. I see before me how falsehood prospered by trampling the truth to the ground. This same falsehood that I see before me is what is driving the earth and its inhabitants to unprecedented catastrophe. The purpose of my discussion is, therefore, to revive the truth and to avert the calamity.

      The story you told in your essay can be summarized. You did not include the part of science that says: 'first there was nothing [vacuum] and in that nothing was physical law and that physical law created matter'. You started from matter. So in summary (my summary of your story) you said: 'there was matter and in it were physical laws. These physical laws were and are, and they are purposeless and these purposeless physical laws drove matter aimlessly towards a goal. At some point the physical law wrote a logical operation code, which is not a law but a rule, and this rule gave rise to life. The rule also later wrote new logical operation codes and this codes created the diversity of life that we see on earth'. The imagination is more amazing than magical illusions.

      So then, you may not know it has a purpose, but how do you know the stone does not have a purpose? How do you know the moon does not have a purpose? You assumed authority in saying so. Also, how do you know organisms exist to reproduce? I know you quoted it, nonetheless agreeing with it, but are you sure it is not the other way around? If you think it is the other way around, which is that there is reproduction in order to make organisms live, whose purpose is reproduction then? Can you answer clearly whose purpose reproduction is?

      You claimed the existence of "physical laws." You further claimed these "physical laws" determine the evolution of a physical system, saying that physical processes obey these laws. So the purpose of the "physical laws" is to dictate the process of physical systems, yet you stated the laws drive the physical processes in a purposeless inevitable way. Clearing all the semantics and going to the substance of it, 'law' does not imply inevitability but it does imply purpose. It is a contradiction you are espousing here. Laws are there for a purpose. The very concept of law is purpose. Since you inferred purposelessness in physical laws, you have to explain with clarity how physical laws are purposeless.

      In your information section you presented purpose as different from physical laws and that purpose and functions emerged later by way of evolution. The earth is an ecosystem and the system includes non-living things. An ecosystem like the earth is a purposeful organization and how does it differ in purpose from your voltage gated ion channels? Any number of natural phenomena can be expressed in logical operations but to use this ability of expressing them as a basis for a hypothetical claim of emergence of life is, the way I see it, much of a stretch.

      Many claims you made are based on speculations. The references themselves don't lead to facts but to other speculations. You depended heavily on the notion of Mr. Darwin's idea which was later named "evolution." You quoted some tutorial instruction saying: "evolution is essentially a process in which natural selection acts as a mechanism for transferring information from the environment to the collective genome of the species." That claim was experimentally disproved more than a century ago, but you are advancing it as if it is true. Mr. Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen's experimental report of 1903 demonstrated clearly that an organisms genetic line is unalterable by the environments encountered by its members. In fact, as documented in 'Johannsen W. Experimentelle Grundlagen der Deszendenzlehre; Variabilität, Vererbung, Kreuzung', Mr. Johannsen stated: "Mr. Darwin's theoretical presuppositions with respect to inheritance were in principle incorrect and thus the Darwinian theory of selection finds absolutely no support in genetics." That is the founder of genetics who did the first hand experiment who rejected Mr. Darwin's idea. How do you expect to get it right when you base your idea on faulty foundation? You also provided a reference to a book titled "the arrival of the fittest." The book is speculative and doesn't have factual basis. However, the book underlines one important point: it admits that evolution by way of mutations is not plausible. The author states that there is not sufficient time for random mutations to create life. After rejecting evolution or the emergence of new functions or life by mutations alone, the author attempted to provide a substitute for it by providing the alternative of "robustness" by adaptation. In trying to introduce adaptation as a means of "accelerated evolution," he fell back to Mr. Darwin's refuted idea of environmental stress on the reproductive system and he calls the environment the 'hidden architecture of life'. The author forgot or was totally oblivious of the fact that the environmental notion that he is alluding to was long experimentally refuted.

      Whether or not you wrote an equation for it, your 'selection process' presumption is not factual. What is factual is the results of Abbot Gregor Mendel's experiments which gave rise to the 'punnett square' which is now being used by men of science to determine the probability of an offspring having a particular 'genotype'. The punnett square rejects the notion of Mr. Darwin's evolution. It is easy to convert the punnett square into a mathematical statement, and since it is experimentally proven, this mathematical statement would be valid.

      Regards,

      Mulugeta

      Dear Mulugeta

      "You claimed the existence of "physical laws."" - yes I did. So do all scientists. "Clearing all the semantics and going to the substance of it, 'law' does not imply inevitability but it does imply purpose." - You are entitled to your view. "How do you know the moon does not have a purpose? You assumed authority in saying so. " - I did not assume any authority, I stated my view.

      "Mr. Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen's experimental report of 1903 demonstrated clearly that an organisms genetic line is unalterable by the environments encountered by its members." - life has moved on in the past century.

      Regards

      George Ellis