Constructing a Theory of Life

Roger Granet

While I wish them luck in their research, it always amazes me how physicists seem like they're totally qualified to contribute to basic ideas in biology like consciousness, evolution, etc., but when biologists, or others, try to contribute to basic areas in physics, or at least the philosophy of physics, they call us crackpots and deride us. This is even more ironic when many physicists and mathematicians hold faith-based, evidence-free ideas like that mathematical constructs and physical laws actually exist in a Platonic realm that nobody can see, touch, measure or experiment on. While this rant is partly sour grapes on my part, I think these grapes have a basis in reality.

Robert McEachern

Roger:

I agree. It has yet to dawn on the physics community, that reality (the things that actual occur) is much more a result of initial conditions, rather than the laws of physics. The extremely limited information content of the laws, ensures that they can only ever describe what is impossible. But what is possible and thus observable, is dictated, almost entirely, by the enormous information content of the initial conditions.

Rob McEachern

Roger Granet

Rob,

Thanks! And figuring out how those initial conditions came to be and what they are is a question everyone has an equal chance at answering. Academics are more about describing systems like the universe as they already are and not about how those systems came into being in the first place, so they have no advantage on the second topic. What irritates me is when they pontificate about this second topic (e.g., Why is there something rather than nothing?) and other topics outside their area while at the same time deriding amateurs for their ideas on these same topics.

Also, physical laws describe physical things, interactions and changes in the universe. They're not fundamental like the initial conditions and what brought those initial conditions into being. As you say, the initial conditions and how those initial conditions came into being dictate the game.

But, given that, I agree with them that anyone's ideas on these topics should match reality, be testable and be able to make testable predictions.

Roger

Georgina Woodward

Nature and nurture, an idea from biology, might be applied to physics. Eg. The nature of a particle being what it is, and its behaviour due to its 'initial condition, i.e. its behavior when emitted from a substance or device, is affected by the environmental exposure it incurs, between emission and result. Such as an electron passing through the magnetic field of a Stern Gerlach apparatus. The outcome spin up or spin down state is a product of the interaction of particle and field not merely the behaviour and nature of the particle unchallenged.

Steve Dufourny

Hi all,

Contructing a theory of life, a toe at my humble opinion must consider the spherical volumes and sphères and their motions and oscillations.We can unify G c h with objectivity. The main aim being to explain also this quantum weakest force the quantum gravitation. Several works are relevant about the geometrical algebras (Clifford, Lie,...) these works with quanternions, octonions are relevant considering the quasicrystals and the corrélations ith our space time .These works consider an external cause , primordial for the shapes, geometries, topologies like the strings and a 1D primordial field.My model of spherisation with quantum and cosmological sphères Inside an universal sphere in optimisation consider an intrinsic cause in the finite primordial series implying also shpapes, geometries, topologies.The relevance is that this can converge and we can reach this quantum gravitation.It does not seem to be an emergent electromagnetic force but needs an other logic non baryonic.The problem also about our consciousness can be analysed also considering the finite primordial series.The body mind soul problem can be also solved in this road considering the singularities and main primordial codes.

Spherically yours dear thinkers.

Steve Dufourny

The real big question is about what are this aether, this vaccuum.Must we consider that aether is luminiferous ? I Don't think , I beleive that this aether is gravitational , it is intuitive of course but we need to superimpose new parameters non baryonic to this standard model.I am doubting that this infinite Eternal consciousness has created only photons like primordial essence of all things. This DM is intriguing also if it exists and that we are not obliged to modify our newtonian mechanics.

If the quantum gravitation is emergent due to our coupling and gauges of our standard model, so I will accept, but that seems odd and imply that we need to insert this matter non baryonic, in the cold probably, lambda of our cosmological model seems relevant, thjis zero absolute intrigues me a lot. Our scales quant and cosm need this matter to balance many things, to solve several problems that we have

Steve Dufourny

How to prove my equation E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² ,this matter non baryonic intrigues a lot.If this matter exists, like the photons they are encoded in nuclei and can give us even a road for this quantum gravitation.A cold dark matter seems important and we can encircle this standard model.If my equation is correct, it is intuitive and general considering the matter and Energy.It will be a big rvolution for our sciences and technologies if we check this quantum gravitation and this matter non baryonic non relativistic .

Lorraine Ford

Luboš Motl was right to use sarcasm:

"Some of the most experienced readers already know that a kettle may heat water. Fortunately, the authors allow us to formulate even such statements in a more "natural" and more "profound" way: For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. LOL, it's a constructor. Who would have thought? One would think that a kettle isn't constructing anything..."

"Constructor theory: Deutsch and Marletto are just vacuously bullsiting", Luboš Motl, 27 May 2014, https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsch-and-marletto.html

Georgina Woodward

I don't see any harm in clearly differentiating objects that have a more profound effect on a system than more passive background objects. The outcome with the kettle working is going to be very different from the kettle switched off.

Georgina Woodward

Joe, of course visible objects can be differentiated, otherwise we would be functionally blind.

[deleted]

"You're a long way from the pituitary..."

[deleted]

Dissect a human brain. seeking q source or mechanism of thought. It never appears. Reductionism fails for emergent phenomena. Unlike intrinsic properties (e.g, the optical spectrum of water), extrinsic properties (chirality) are not "in" there" below a characteristic emergence scale. Self-awareness is not even localized.

Turbulence, spin glasses. Good luck with synthetic local deterministic processes efficiently predicting real world global emergence.

The problem is not explaining why some people are crazy. The problem is explaining why most people are not crazy, since no two brains are small scale identical (even for identical twins).

jim hughes

@Uncle Al, I don't even think there are any "emergent phenomena". We see something at one scale that we didn't, or couldn't, at another scale - but nothing actually emerged except a concept. "Emergence" is just a fashionable sort of hand-waving.

Georgina Woodward

Jim,

Yes we see things at larger scales that couldn't exist at the smaller scale , able to do things that couldn't happen at just the smaller scale. Like the forming of a bird's egg. It is a concept, it is fashionable. Sometimes hand waving aids comprehension.

Georgina Woodward

Joe, what do you mean by a 'real thing', when you also say only one unified, infinite surface has ever existed?

Lorraine Ford

I have re-posted this from the "Agency in the Physical World - FQXi's Next Research Program" Blog, because it is also relevant to the "Constructing a Theory of Life" Forum:

What is information:

Information = knowledge = subjective experience of one or more relationships between categories, whereby every "higher" category is ultimately related to the most fundamental-level categories like energy and momentum. Every information category, even the most fundamental ones, can be defined as a relationship between other categories. So that information/knowledge is always contextual (i.e. related and categorised): information does not objectively exist without context (i.e. i.e. without relationship and categorisation), as if it were a binary digit in a vacuum.

How do we represent information:

The physical universe exists because of information relationships. But the relationships are not to be equated to the mathematical symbols we human beings use to represent them. We represent relationships symbolically as: (law of nature) equations, algorithms (these mainly exist in living things), and initial-value number assignments (where every measured number can ultimately be traced to simpler relationships between categories in which the "numerator" and "denominator" categories cancel out, leaving a number, which is a thing without a category).

What knows information and what creates information:

The universe itself creates and knows all the types of relationships (represented by human beings as equations, algorithms, numbers). More precisely, parts of the universe create and know relationships: i.e. agent-observers create and know relationships, where agent-observers are "information-integrated": particles, atoms, molecules, and living things. This "creation" and "knowledge" are otherwise known as "free will" and "consciousness".

Georgina Woodward

I think you should have made clear that you are quoting yourself; re-posting what you have written on the other page.

Georgina Woodward

What is Joe Fisher? Why do you persist in differentiating it as if it is a separate thing?

Lorraine Ford

As expected, David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto fail to clearly distinguish information from the symbolic representation of information [1].

For example, they say: "Information can ... be moved from one type of medium to another..." But they should have said: "Symbolic representations of information can ... be moved from one type of medium to another...".

So it is not surprising that they are never able to say what information itself is. Instead they 1) try to describe the "character" and "properties" of this thing they can't define (i.e. information); and 2) make assumptions about this thing they can't define (i.e. information):

"we are concerned with the nature and properties of information"; "information has a counter-factual character"; "information is a qualitatively different sort of entity"; "information does resemble some entities"; "information is not abstract"; "the intuitive concept of information is associated with that of copying"; "This will allow us to express information in terms of computation"; "our search for a deeper theory of information"; "An information variable is a clonable computation variable"; "we assume that unlimited resources are available for conversion into information storage devices"; "we assume that unlimited resources are available for information processing too."

1. Constructor Theory of Information, David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563v2

jim hughes

As with some other words - like 'physical', and 'consciousness' - one way to deal with the inability to even describe or define what they really mean is to just ignore that fact, roll ahead, and construct elaborate theories about empty concepts.

[deleted]

Many atheists, including the high priest of materialism, R. Dawkins, deny the reality of free will.

"If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works, rather than a social invention, that would definitely be a boost for human dignity."

The author is perhaps making the same error as Dawkins, etc. in thinking that a scientific explanation is an anti-religious argument.

If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works it means that a) the atheistic evolutionists are wrong about the nature of free will (as they are on many other matters) and b) you can argue, scientifically, that God made free will an essential part of His creation, otherwise how can we be judged if we have no free will?

Atheists might not thank you if your research reinforces holy scripture!

Lorraine Ford

The universe is ordered. All higher phenomena, like planets and living things, are based on underlying laws of nature and quantum events.

These laws of nature and quantum events are representable, by us humans, as equations, algorithms and numbers:

1. Laws of nature are representable as mathematical equations, i.e. relationships between categories, and incorporate an algorithmic step which derives a "time"/ "number-change" category.

2. Quantum events are representable as the creation of a new algorithmic step which specifies a new mathematical equation, e.g. a new number assignment equation.

The point that I'm getting to is this: physics assumes that the universe knows these equations, algorithms and numbers. But physics is either too cowardly to admit to these assumptions, or too stupid to notice that it has made these assumptions in the first place.

I repeat: Physics assumes that a knowledge aspect exists in the universe right from the start.

An environment in which physics fails to notice their assumptions, leads to nonsensical questions like: "how did consciousness evolve?" [1], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an "emergent property" [1].

1. Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230

[deleted]

Re emergent phenomena I have to disagree with "a gas has a temperature, based on the average motion of its particles: the faster they move, the hotter the gas. But the concept of temperature is meaningless if you try to apply it to any one of those gas particles individually".... I disagree because the temperature of the individual particle is the same as the temperature of an assembly of particles whose average motion is the same as the actual motion of the individual particle.

Also... this article repeats the common unjustified assumption that it is "observation" that collapses quantum states when it could well be, and is much more likely to be, just a certain level of interaction.

There are other similar problems throughout

Georgina Woodward

What about enzymes? They are able to exhibit catalytic function because of their particular shape. Shape resulting from folding of the sequence of amino acids. the individual amino acids or ions they are contain do not have the necessary shape to function as the whole enzyme does. So the function is only present at the scale of the whole enzyme. Making catalytic function of the enzyme an emergent property.

Andrew Scott

OK (re enzymes) but that is just using a word - emergence - to cover effects that are a net result of several combined interactions. I am not sure using such a word takes us any further forward in understanding.

Lorraine Ford

I agree with Andrew.

As AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky said in The Futility of Emergence (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence):

"The phrase "emerges from" is acceptable, just like "arises from" or "is caused by" are acceptable, if the phrase precedes some specific model to be judged on its own merits.

However, this is not the way "emergence" is commonly used. "Emergence" is commonly used as an explanation in its own right...

[A] fun exercise is to replace the word "emergent" with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:

Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.

After: Life is a magical phenomenon.

Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.

After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.

..."Emergence" has become very popular, just as saying "magic" used to be very popular. "

Georgina, when you you the word "emergent", are you suggesting that magic has occurred?

Lorraine Ford

The last line should read:

Georgina, when you use the word "emergent", are you suggesting that magic has occurred?

Joe Fisher

Dear Anderson S,

There am no such a real thing as emerging or "re-emergent phenomena." All real phenomena always have a real VISIBLE surface.

Dear Georgina Woodward,

At the moment, Joe Fisher has a VISIBLE surface. Although he might appear to be separated from you, you too have a VISIBLE surface. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise different kinds of VISIBLE surfaces. Unnatural invisible enzymes have never existed.

Dear Lorraine Ford,

All living creatures and vegetation have a VISIBLE surface. All inanimate entities have a VISIBLE surface. All dinosaur bones have a VISIBLE surface. This is because Nature only devised one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Georgina Woodward

Lorraine,

Magic is a kind of deception that happens when an observer has incomplete information from which to construct their understanding of what has occurred. As performed by magicians. Or, as I think you may be using the word, a supernatural occurrence brought about by some kind of will. Such as in the belief system of Wicca. The emergence of the catalytic ability of enzymes fits neither sort of magic. Its function happens because of its shape. That functional shape is not a property of its constituents but only of the whole.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina,

Are you talking about a universe where every outcome has a cause? A cause means that an outcome was determined by a relationship representable by a mathematical equation, a number assignment, or an algorithm [1].

If you are talking about "systems whose high-level behaviors arise or "emerge" from the interaction of many low-level elements" [2], then you are talking about a system where every outcome has a cause, a system where nothing new has actually "emerged". Instead, a pattern of behaviours has been labelled with a word.

"Temperature", "cyclone" and "hurricane" are words describing outcome patterns that have a cause. Despite our word-usage, these patterns themselves cause nothing, it is the underlying relationships (representable as equations, numbers and algorithms) that cause outcomes.

It's the same with enzyme behaviour/outcomes. Or are you are saying that the shape of an enzyme did not have a cause?

...................

1. What, in turn, created these relationships in the first place is a separate issue.

2. The Futility of Emergence, (AI researcher) Eliezer Yudkowsky, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

Georgina Woodward

The shape comes from the protein's folding. It isn't mechanical folding but involves not just the protein itself but interaction with the environment; in which it is buffeted until parts that will bind together come into proximity. So each folding event of a particular protein could play out somewhat differently but result in the same folded configuration. There will be variation in the time taken to fold I expect. There is some seeming randomness or complexity involved in the interaction with the environment which means it isn't just rote playing out of an instruction that is the same every time. While the sequence of the unfolded protein's amino acids is important for folding, it isn't by itself the cause of the folding occurring.

Lorraine Ford

So Georgina, did any new information arise, i.e. did any new information emerge that was not entirely accounted for by the existing physics of the situation (where chemistry underlies the biology/behaviour of enzymes, and physics underlies the chemistry)?

You seem to be saying that the enzyme folding indicates that a new spatial information relationship has somehow been created, that is not entirely accounted for by the physics.

This begs the question: a new spatial information relationship has been created by whom?

Georgina Woodward

A shape is formed that did not previously exist, and that enzyme shape has a function that the unfolded protein does not have. I am not saying the folding isn't accounted for by the physics that happens but that it isn't following a set prescription of what must be done step by step, that is the same every time. The parts of the protein that must come together are the same but what happens in the environment is not fully controlled by the protein. If you mean by 'a new spatial information relationship' a new shape, i.e. a new distribution of the matter in space including relations of parts to each other then yes that is formed; not created, but by 'self assembly', not by someone

Georgina Woodward

Perhaps "environment driven self assembly" is a useful descriptive phrase. As the energy for motion, which results in the finished folding, comes from interaction with molecules and ions in the environment. Most probably water molecules, as the inside of the cell is an aqueous solution, and ions dissolved in it. As well as the effects of fields generated by charged particles that are part of the protein sequence.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina,

Either the enzyme configuration is 100% determined by the physics (i.e. by laws of nature), or it is not 100% determined by the physics.

If the configuration is 100% determined by the physics, and all interactions of other molecules with the enzyme are 100% determined by the physics, then nothing has emerged.

But more correctly, molecules themselves don't interact: all interactions are information interactions. And all information is a relationship (representable as equations, algorithms, and/or number assignments) that exists in a context of other information relationships. So the real question is: has a new information relationship been created or not? Does a new information relationship exist from the point of view of the enzyme; and does a new information relationship exist from the point of view of other molecules, atoms and particles? A new information relationship is equivalent to a new law of nature because it determines some of the outcome numbers.

Has new information emerged/been created or not? From whose point of view does the information exist? Who created the information?

Georgina Woodward

A catalytic function has been enabled that did not previously exist. I don't see anything wrong with calling that an emergent function. That function changes the relationship of the protein sequence to the molecules or ions that are catalyzed by interaction with it. The topology is altered. That's lots of new spatial relations if all of the relations of individual constituent particles are considered. The enzyme doesn't have a point of view, nor do the reagents with which it interacts. If by point of view you mean opinion. But if they did they would notice their relationship is different upon interaction if the reagent attaches to a binding site. Yes outcome numbers are also altered. As by catalysis involving the enzyme the chemical reaction is sped up.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina,

If new information has not been added to this tiny part of the universe that we are discussing, then there is no new function. Every detail of a hurricane is explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events; and every detail of enzyme interactions are also explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events unless new information has been added to the system. New function, i.e. new lawful power over the outcome numbers, means that one or more new information relationships have been added to the universe-system.

I know you don't understand this, but if mathematics (which we use to represent the universe-system) has shown us anything, it is that situations/outcomes are a consequence of rules/laws/relationships. The reverse is not true: rules/laws/relationships do not emerge from situations/outcomes. Only those who refuse to face facts claim that rules/laws/information relationships can emerge from situations/outcomes.

So, who created the new information relationship? And who knows about it? This enzyme-related information certainly does not exist from our human point-of-view (it is only science that has brought this information to our attention): this capacity of an enzyme or a cell, to know about new information, existed long before human beings existed.

Who created the new information relationship? And who knows about it?

Georgina Woodward

Rules and Laws describing or mathematically representing relationships can be 'distilled' from observation of outcomes of particular circumstances. The distilled rules or Laws can then be used predicatively, applied to similar circumstances. That does not mean nature has a rule book in some platonic realm (additional to material reality) from which it is able to receive instruction of what to do.The rules are a characterization of what happens not necessary instruction of what to do, so it can happen.

The enzyme can act ass a catalyst because of its 3D shape and topology, it does not need permission from a new rule. The shape is not formed by someone but by 'environment driven self assembly'. No one need know about it for it to function. An experiment can be conducted and the function of the enzyme characterized by an equation if wanted.

Lorraine Ford

So Georgina,

You are saying that an enzyme is like a hurricane: every detail of its interactions are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events.

I.e. no new function has emerged: just like the word "hurricane" is nothing but a label we give to something that is fully explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events, the word "enzyme" is nothing but a label we give to something that is fully explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events.

You are saying that, with an enzyme, nothing new has emerged except the label we give it. You seem to be contradicting yourself because you have previosly asserted that the "catalytic function of the enzyme [is] an emergent property" (Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 00:35 GMT).

Georgina Woodward

No Lorraine, the content of your first two and a half paragraphs is what you have been saying, not me. I am not contradicting myself but you are trying to make it look as though I am. Individual amino acids or even the sequence of amino acids unfolded does not enable and explain the function of the enzyme. The folded shape and topology enables and explains the function. The catalytic function is emergent at that particular state of organization.

Lorraine Ford

No Georgina,

There is no such thing as order, or "self-organisation", or "emergence" out of chaos: that's just a misleading catchphrase.

Order/ "self-organisation"/ "emergence" never occurs out of chaos: order only occurs as a result of rules.

This is where the phrase "order out of chaos" is coming from: When you plot on a graph the numerical outcomes of a rule [1], human observers sometimes notice patterns or pseudo-patterns in the number outcomes plotted on the graph. These patterns/pseudo-patterns have no power in themselves to determine outcomes - it's the other way around: it's the rules which determine the pattern/pseudo-pattern outcomes.

Enzymes don't "self-organise", order does not emerge out of chaos. Any order in the enzyme is because of an existing lawful rule.

The only debate is whether, like a hurricane, every detail of its interactions are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events due to existing laws of nature; or whether it is apparent that a new rule has been added to the universe-system.

.................

1. Where a rule is made up of equations, algorithms, and number assignments; and where, as a result of the rule, the number outcomes are sometimes represented as colours.

Georgina Woodward

I don't think a hurricane is a comparable system. A small dust devil is like a miniature hurricane. There is no such thing as a miniature version of an enzyme I.e. The same type of functional structure at a smaller scale. The vectors for all of the individual air molecules could theoretically be amalgamated to get the mass movement of the whole hurricane; It is a question mostly of scale not complex organization.

Lorraine Ford

"Despite the ubiquity of emergent behaviour there remains no deep understanding of emergence. At each level of complexity, new laws, properties and phenomena arise and herein lies the problem.

Properties describing one level of a complex system do not necessarily explain another level, despite how intrinsically connected the two may be. Understanding the emergence of the structure of molecules does not necessarily allow one to predict the emergence of cellular biology." [1]

Georgina, as I said, the only debate is whether, like a hurricane, every detail of an enzyme's interactions are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events due to existing laws of nature; or whether it is apparent that a new rule/law has been added to the universe-system. And the other issues are: what caused that rule, and what knows about the rule.

.......

1. Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity, Andy Martin (Senior lecturer, Physics, University of Melbourne) and Kristian Helmerson (Professor of Physics, Monash University), 1 October 2014, https://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplicity-of-complexity-30973

Georgina Woodward

Lorraine, I have given the answer that the shape and topology of the folded enzyme 's protein is required for its function. Its function is not explicable by considering its constituents alone or considering it as an unfolded sequence. I don't see why a new rule needs to be specified. It seems to me you are saying the equivalent of a circular wheel can not roll unless a new rule is written enabling it. Different shapes can accomplish different things because of what they are not because of what they have been told they can do in a rule. If you think it can be done perhaps you would explain how an enzyme works using your 'lower level information'. I have described how I think the enzyme folding is facilitated. Perhaps you would like to explain how it occurs without involving the complex environment and interactions with it.

Lorraine Ford

Georgina,

As I indicated, the only debate is:

1. Whether, like a hurricane, every detail of an enzyme (naturally, I'm including it's shape/spatial configuration!!), and it's interactions, are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events due to existing laws of nature (which include variables representing relative spatial positions!!);

2. Whether it is apparent that a new rule/law has been added to the universe-system.

Seemingly, a new rule has been added to the universe-system.

So, what created the new rule, and what knows about/experiences the new rule?

Georgina Woodward

Can you explain how the function of an enzyme comes about in terms of your "lower-level information-processing events" Or does the explaining the function of the whole, by means of shape and topology, require the whole to be considered? Parts of the enzyme do not have the catalytic function on their own. I don't think any new rule is needed for the function to emerge though, that is your specification

Lorraine Ford

Georgina,

Both free will and enzyme folding are high-level phenomena that, like all phenomena, rest on the foundation of physics. They are not explainable in terms of high-level phenomena or outcome situations - they are only explainable in terms of the laws of physics, and the fundamental-level nature of reality.

"Emergence" is a myth: it implies that outcome situations (representable as sets of variables and numbers) can be a logical cause of new laws/rules (representable as equations and algorithms), and thereby, new properties. But we know for a fact that only the reverse is true: the laws, and the nature of reality, are the cause of the outcome situations.

I'm claiming that both free will and enzyme folding are only explainable in terms of:

1) Adding new information relationships (representable as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments) to the universe; and

2) The necessary, fundamental aspect of the universe that creates and knows about information relationships is inherent in particles, atoms. molecules and living things, i.e. there is no numb, dumb matter.

Lorraine Ford

Re the issue of whether new information can be added to the universe:

1. What IS information? Information in the universe consists of categories of information (like energy, momentum, time, relative spatial position) which equate to relationships between other categories of information, i.e. information in the universe always has context. Information is always relationship (representable as equations, algorithms and number assignments). More precisely, information is always the universe's knowledge (representable as equations, algorithms and number assignments).

2. All particle, atomic and molecular information interactions are quantum events, so there is nothing simple and easily explained going on. Energy is not always conserved within these events i.e. new information is added to the universe within these events.

3. A professor of physics and an associate professor of physics (and they are not the only ones) have come to the conclusion that: "At each level of complexity, new laws, . . .arise" [1].

.........

Georgina Woodward

I agree that new rules can apply to higher levels of organization or complexity. A man made wing shape has rules of physics associated with air flow that apply to it; that don't apply to the micro constituents within it. The whole can provide lift in appropriate circumstances. I don't think the new rule is necessary for the shape to exist but is a result of what it is -and therefore often (but not exclusively) a reason for its manufacture. The wing shape could for example be a part of a static sculpture.