Constructing a Theory of Life

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

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!

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

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

The view that a state of affairs can exist in the universe (e.g. that (what we represent as) law of nature relationships, number relationships, and algorithmic relationships can exist in the universe), without the universe knowing about it, can't be supported. The existence of these relationships and the knowledge of these relationships are 2 sides of the same coin. [1]

Fundamental-level knowledge is of e.g. momentum relationship, energy relationship, and time/change derived from an algorithmic relationship (delta represents an algorithmic relationship).

But fundamental-level knowledge is different to the higher-level algorithmically-acquired knowledge of living things. Living things have no direct experience of fundamental-level knowledge. And conversely, particles atoms and molecules have no experience of higher-level knowledge.

And without physics, human beings would have no idea of the fundamental-level information relationships that inform the universe.

But physics has failed to notice that the existence of relationship and the knowledge of relationship are 2 sides of the same coin. So we keep getting nonsensical questions like: "how did consciousness evolve?" [2], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an "emergent property" [2].

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

1. More precisely, the universe is not an entity: it's the parts of the universe that have this knowledge, where the parts of the universe are particles, atoms molecules and living things.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

The last line should read:

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

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.

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

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.

Quantum mechanics theory gives no real mechanism for going from probable to actual and concentrates on the effects of measurement but seems to neglect size limits for superposition.

The efficiency of photosynthesis in converting light energy into chemical energy tends to make me skeptical of the intelligent observer transformation concept's age-old wisdom. It seems that there are a lot of micro-macro interactions in light energy being absorbed by pigment molecules in leaves and then making 2 molecules, ATP & NADPH, to produce chemical energy, seemingly at a superposition efficiency -- this w/o observation.

I would tend to favor the gravitational decoherence idea of growing assembled quantum systems and the introduction of temperature and spectral density to their environment as additional causes of decoherence.

I always look with interest for new explanations of this process.

In the universe, there is no relationship between things (like particles) as such (except maybe coherence): there is only relationship between information categories, where the relationship is itself an information category. Examples of information categories are energy, momentum, relative distance, and time. We represent these information relationships as equations, number assignments and algorithms.

In the universe, these known relationships between information categories have the status of law because they determine the outcome numbers. The reverse situation is not true: sets of outcome numbers do not determine relationships; relationships do not emerge from an objectively observed set of outcome numbers, even if the set of outcome numbers is given a label of "attractor". And relationships do not emerge from situations, where a situation is a subjective point of view on the outcome numbers.

In the universe, all information has context, there is no information without context: any new category of information is necessarily a new relationship built out of existing information categories. So when it comes to living things, it becomes more apparent than ever that we need to understand what it is that builds/creates/constructs information relationships, and what knows these information relationships. The only candidate is things: particles, atoms, molecules and living things.

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?

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

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.

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?