Constructing a Theory of Life

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.

Lot's of conditional qualifications, but that would seem necessary if we are to consider knowledge and information as having a real, existential physical property. And why not? Two millennia elapsed between the abstract identification of the orthogonal relationship and the experimental observation of it having a physical form in the electromagnetic dynamic. That argues well for information being physical rather than being an artifact of analysis.

You wrote "a physical form in the electromagnetic dynamic"

Only if time is considered as something existent in/over which forms can be distributed. But not if time is only the singular extant configuration of the universe, each configuration being a different time. So there is no orthogonal time dimension in external reality as opposed to the model.

I think that processes happen but, for the most part excluding life and computers, without adhering to a separate plan or set of rules. That rules can be found that apply to repetitive processes or similar circumstances does not mean they were causal. Which is different from, for example, following a kitting pattern or running the algorithm of a cellular automaton. In such cases the information controlling the change is separate from the process and the material reality being transformed by it.

Anonymous, I think I may have misinterpreted your post. I don't know whether you are talking of the orthogonal relationship of the time dimension to space or the orthogonal relationship of magnetic and electric components of electromagnetic radiation. Not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that because the abstract notion was considered prior to the development of the physics, the abstract is in some way producing the actualized form in nature?

G. Woodward,

I decline to create a fqxi account, the site seems to have technical problems which do not get adequate attention as would be expected of an enterprise associated with the level of expertise available through Perimeter Institute. I'm skeptical therefore of security safeguards, though I think there is some good as a public outreach and some value in serious dialogue presented here. So I occasionally browse, but a brief comment then requires use of the public box.

So without getting into a discourse, I would say your observations and questions do address the argument of what is meant by information being existential. The point of the abstraction in antiquity of orthogonality becoming observed experimentally in modernity goes to the original abstraction being an idealization of form in a comparatively primitive world. That abstraction derived from study and argument of relationships between simple ratios independent of scale, and for that matter independent of time or reference to space. Purely the ideal of ratios giving rise to geometric form, and thus implying space.

The Pythagoreans invented an abstract that then informed all manner of advancements in architecture, engineering, art, philosophy and even the formalization arithmetic and the equi-partition of the number line. So can we then argue that that evolution which led to the experimental observation of the right angle rule of electromotive force, is itself of existential origin discovered in the abstractions of idealizing thought in a earlier more primitive time? I think its would be worth arguing so as a line of inquiry.

Hi, the site does get a lot of spam. It might look like the site isn't working properly as the posts listed as recent can't all be accessed. However it is set up so spam posts, which are mostly advertising, can be reported as inappropriate and disappear while awaiting moderation.

I think the definition of existence that is used will either allow or disallow immaterial relation to be included. I would exclude them, reserving physical existence for substantial things and their relations. Brain activity in a material brain can easily be considered as something physical happening. A diagram on paper is a material representation, also something physical. But the immaterial concept without concurrent means of being known, through thought or visualization can be true/correct while not having a physical existence of itself -I think : )

In quantum events, energy is not always conserved: i.e. the numbers, for variables like energy, don't add up. In other words, in quantum events, new information [1] is added to the universe-system.

The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system.

But the interactions of particles, atoms, molecules, and living things, have to be understood in terms of at least some new information having been added to the universe-system.

"Constructing a Theory of Life" is about constructing a theory of where this new information is coming from:

A) Does new information just emerge for no logical [2] reason (like Georgina, and other illogical people, claim); OR

B) Do certain forms of matter themselves create this new information?

I think it is becoming clear that matter itself is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.

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

1. Information in the universe, i.e. what the universe knows about, is representable as equations, algorithms, and number assignments.

2. Logic: "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic

Lorraine, I have not claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason. Putting words into other people's mouths and insults add nothing of value to your argument. They don't belong in a well reasoned discussion about physics.

Concerning the big questions, in the end, we know NOTHING. Except perhaps that Joe Fisher's dictum of "reality isn't a theory" must somewhat be true.

I stick to Stewart Cowan's comment and opinion that holy scripture is relevant for explaining the big questions. The bible is a prophetic book and many of its prophecies have been already fullfilled in the past. One has to carfully study them and there are good books out there that list these fullfilled prophecies together with biblical archeology (the findings of bible scriptures that can be accurately dated). Even the exact day Jesus rode on the donkey into Jerusalem (10. Nisan 32 AD) was prophecied in the old testament. Many people do not know these things due to a lack of personal serious investigations. Nonetheless these investigations could have huge merrits for one's understanding of the big how's and why's.

Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward,

Not a single invisible finite "quantum event" has ever taken place. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All supposedly finite information can only be written by folk who have a surface and publish their finite written rubbish on a surface that can only be read by other people who have a surface. All other insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria have surfaces and deal with reality much more effectively than stupid men do, because they are not deceived by supposedly finite SCIENTIFIC codswallop information.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was allowing English scholars in the early 17th century to translate their rabbinical writing into the supposedly definitive English language. The English scholars that did the translation published the greatest book of fiction ever written. Please read Thomas Paine's fine pamphlet, The Age of Reason for the full details.

Reality am not a theory am not "close" to being the truth. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from existing propositions and rules.

Logic does not create these propositions or rules: no propositions or rules "emerge" from logic. The source of the propositions and rules is outside the scope of logic.

And so in our universe-system, the source of the rules [1] cannot be logically deduced.

What can be deduced, is whether an outcome is a logical consequence of existing rules, or whether the outcome is due to a new rule [1] having been "input" to the universe-system. Some outcomes of quantum events can only be seen as a new rule (e.g. a new number assigned to an existing variable) having been "input" to the universe-system.

Logic does not create the rules. In our universe, the only candidate that could create and know about these rules, is matter itself: particles, atoms, molecules and living things. It is reasonable to conclude that matter is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.

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

1. Where rules can be represented as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments.

Lorraine,

your "yes you have in effect "claimed..." is not the same as it having been claimed. You were presenting your own low opinion on what has been written as if it was the other's actual statement/claim.

Dear Joe,

I 100% agree that nature, including "insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria", literally devised everything we see.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Georgina,

You implied that an outcome situation could cause a new property/new information/new rule to emerge in the universe: this is completely illogical. .

This is the type of situation that you seem to envision for enzyme folding, and this is a situation where nothing new emerges:

The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system:

1. No new entity has emerged: the word "cyclone" is merely a description of an outcome situation that is a natural consequence of existing laws of nature.

2. No new "destructive property" has emerged: the destruction wrought by a cyclone is merely a natural consequence of existing laws of nature. "Properties" are merely a natural consequence of rules/laws of nature.

Previous post was from me.

A correctly folded enzyme has catalytic function whereas the unfolded or mis-folded or much deformed one does not. Rules pertaining to catalytic function apply to the correctly folded enzyme; such as temperature sensitivity affecting rate of catalysis, because of the effect of heat on its form. The rule does not apply the un-foldedd sequence because it does not work as a catalyst; Nor does it apply to the parts alone. This is very different from considering different scales within circulating air, or scales of moving air. There is a logical reason for the difference which is difference in shape/organisation not just scale. Some arrangements have shape and or topology that have functions because of that shape and or topology. Physics and chemistry that applies to the whole form does not necessarily apply to the constituents. The wing was another example.

No Georgina,

Nothing escapes physics. There is no scale in the universe in which physics does not apply. Underlying every shape, and at every scale, in whole or in part, it's the physics that is doing it: it's the rules (represented by equations, algorithms and number assignments) that determine the outcome numbers, including shapes of enzymes. The only question is whether any new information/rules have been input to the universe, or whether existing rules suffice to explain outcomes.

Just like your erroneous concept of an "image reality", your concept of a "shape" is erroneous. There is no such fundamental-level information in the universe as "shape". Both "shapes", and the "image" of our surrounding reality that we subjectively experience, are higher-level information that require the logical analysis and collation of lower-level information, via the equivalent of algorithmic rules. Then you have to ask where the rules came from.