• Blog
  • The Dirty Secrets of Life by Paul Davies

"Do we need new physics to explain life?" and "Do biological systems hint at new physics?" Physicist Paul Davies shares intriguing insights into the secrets of life in this talk.

Explore more:

Keywords: Life, Physics, Davies

If one wants to talk about the development of life/ consciousness, one has to start with a pre-existing, inherent, time-place on-the-spot, structural subjectivity of the world.

From the ground up, the world is constructed out of subjective points of view, points of view on a subject’s surrounding situation, where knowledge of the surrounding situation IS TRUE, at least momentarily, that particular numbers apply to particular categories.

This is not about a mathematical transformation being applied to objectively existing numbers and categories, in order to get a faux-subjectivity.

This is about an inherent structural requirement of the world, if one wants to talk about the development of life/ consciousness.

This time-place subjective view on the rest of the world can only be represented using statements which include the type of logical connective symbols used in computer programs (like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN).

    Lorraine Ford
    To try to explain the seemingly magical properties that life has, Paul Davies speculates that life might involve new laws of physics that do not contradict existing, known laws of physics. He asks:

    1. Do we need new physics to explain life?
    2. Do biological systems hint at what this new physics might be?

    Then, seemingly as a way of framing the problem, he details what is known about life on Earth, the “Dirty Secrets”, summarised as:

    1. All life on Earth is not known to be the same life.
    2. Life cannot be fully understood using ball-and-stick chemistry.
    3. We have not made life in the lab, or got anywhere near doing it.
    4. Most of mesoscopic biophysics is “make-believe”.
    5. The Darwinian principle – survival of the fittest – does not (alone) explain biological complexity. The big issue is arrival of the fittest. Lamarckism isn’t dead.
    6. There is little reason (to date) to think that life may have happened more than once in the observable universe. If we do not know the process that transformed non-life into life, we cannot estimate the probability for it to happen. “… we don't know how to think about the transition from non-life to life.”
    7. The fact that life started quickly on Earth does not prove it must form readily. “… as Brandon Carter pointed out.”

    …………………

    However, a description of “dirty secrets”, i.e. superficial knowledge about life on Earth, goes no way towards explaining life: how it arose, and why it continues to exist.

    I think that rather than new physics being required to explain life, what is required is a new way of appreciating the world:

    • Forget about how life knows its surroundings: how come a particle or a molecule knows about its surroundings? How do we represent knowledge?
    • Forget about how life moves in response to its surroundings: quite apart from law of nature relationships, how come the world is moving at all (1)? How do we represent this movement, which is NOT representable by the equations that represent law of nature relationships?

    …………………….

    1. Apparently, the late physicist John Archibald Wheeler once said to his students: “You see, these equations can’t fly. But our universe flies. We’re still missing the single, simple ingredient that makes it all fly.” https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/John+Wheeler

      Lorraine Ford
      (continued)

      Re my “Forget about how life knows its surroundings: how come a particle or a molecule knows about its surroundings? How do we represent knowledge?”:

      So, how do low-level particles and molecules know about themselves and their surroundings? Answer: seemingly via particle interactions, and rock-solid (law of nature) relationships between categories. But the actual issue is: how come a particle or a molecule knows what particular numbers currently apply to the categories? How do we represent this time-place knowledge of the numbers that apply to the categories?

      To explain life, what is required is a new way of appreciating the world.

        Lorraine Ford
        One issue, that physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers have got badly wrong, is their unquestioned belief or assumption that mathematical systems can abstractly exist, independent of human beings/ the human mind.

        The particular issue that I’m referring to, the issue that physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers seem completely oblivious to, is the issue of how this mathematical system knows itself, and how this mathematical system moves itself.

        This is the part that human beings play in mathematics: human beings are conscious of the symbols, and human beings move the symbols.

        This complete obliviousness to what actually, physically happens in the practice of mathematics, is seemingly why people like physicist Paul Davies fail to notice that the equations of physics cannot represent a complete, workable system (or world), without the addition of aspects of the system that know/ are conscious of the system, and aspects of the system that move the system.

        These additional, but necessary, aspects of a system are clearly the forerunners of life.

          Lorraine Ford
          The structure of the universe is such that:

          • We are inside the universe, subjectively experiencing ourselves as part of the universe, and this experience (together with agency) is the wherewithal by which we can, in effect, look out at, and try to model, the rest of the universe.
          • We are not objective entities that exist separate to, and outside the universe, that can try to model the universe by looking in from the outside.

          The world is not like a landscape that can be objectively observed and modelled by an external observer. Instead, from the ground up, the world is literally constructed out of subjective points of view, points of view on a subject’s surrounding situation, where knowledge of the surrounding situation IS TRUE, at least momentarily, that particular numbers currently apply to particular categories.

          However, physicists’/ mathematicians’ / nerds’ attempts to model life's situational consciousness and agency, i.e. “Agent Based”/ “Game of Life” models of the world, suffer from the delusion that the world is like a landscape that can be objectively observed and modelled by an external observer.

            Lorraine Ford
            Re “Agent Based”/ “Game of Life” attempts to model life in the world:

            This goes to the question:

            • Does there exist a free agent outside the universe, making trillions upon trillions of nitty-gritty computer-programming decisions, writing the computer programs that determine what happens inside the universe?
            • OR do there exist free agents inside the universe, making their own decisions, in effect writing their own computer programs, in order to navigate the world, in response to encountering the world?

              Lorraine Ford
              The most intractable problem in physics and mathematics is physicists and mathematicians.

              Because they fail to notice THEMSELVES as necessary parts of their symbol systems.

              The necessary parts that they play in their symbol systems is that they are conscious of (and analyse) the physical symbols, and they freely move the physical symbols.

              But physicists and mathematicians have completely cut themselves out of the picture, and deeply and religiously believe that mathematical symbols alone can represent a viable system.

              But there is no such thing as a viable system without aspects that have situational conscious of the system, and aspects that freely move parts of the system in response to this situational consciousness.

              To represent a viable system symbolically, you need to include symbolic statements that represent situational consciousness of the system, and symbolic statements that represent movement of parts of the system in response to this situational consciousness. (Despite the delta symbols, the symbolic statements that represent physics “laws of nature” merely represent relationships between categories; the symbolic statements that represent physics “laws of nature” do NOT represent movement in a system).

              These necessary aspects of a viable system (situational consciousness of the system, and free movement of parts of the system in response to this situational consciousness) are the very same aspects that are required in order for life to exist.

                Lorraine Ford
                The algorithmic infrastructure that would be required to support a Multiverse idea is mind-blowing. But the fact that Multiverse ideas continue to be entertained just goes to show that physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers continue to be totally oblivious to the necessary algorithmic infrastructure that would be required in order to potentially transform equations into a viable standalone system, Multiverse or otherwise.

                So, what is it about algorithms? Mainly, they symbolically represent knowledge/ consciousness of particular time-place situations (it “IS TRUE” that particular numbers, or number changes, apply to particular categories); and they symbolically represent a response to that particular situation (e.g. new numbers might be assigned to particular categories).

                These necessary algorithmic aspects, required in order for a viable standalone universe to exist, are the very same algorithmic aspects that are required in order for life to ever exist in the universe.

                This is seemingly not the type of new physics that Paul Davies was hoping for in his quest to “explain all of the apparently magical properties that life has”.

                  Lorraine Ford
                  So, a viable, standalone universe requires the existence of aspects that can only be represented by algorithmic statements, as well as the existence of aspects that can only be represented by equations.

                  Similarly, viable life requires the existence of aspects that can only be represented by algorithmic statements, as well as the existence of aspects that can only be represented by equations.

                  Does it have to be explained that, the strings of written (or spoken) man-made symbols in these algorithmic statements and equations, have none of the “power” of the actual aspects that are required to build a viable standalone world, and to build viable life?

                  These necessary algorithmic aspects of the world are:

                  • Situational consciousness, which is the aspect of the world that is representable (in very simple cases) by statements like
                    (category1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (category2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (category3=number3 IS TRUE)
                  • Free agency, which is a more or less logically reasoned response to the situational consciousness, where the outcome of free agency is also representable (in very simple cases) in terms of categories and numbers.

                    Lorraine Ford
                    Consciousness is not actually about the redness of apples and the sounds of music and birds. Consciousness is actually about “IS TRUE”, on-the-spot knowledge/ awareness of an entity’s situation/ surroundings.

                    The redness of apples and the sounds of music and birds is more about this on-the-spot situational knowledge being in a manageable form. The other, unwieldy, mathematical, alternative is reams and reams of paper with long lists of current categories (like relative position or light wavelength) with associated current numbers, and a big diagram showing the current mathematical or logical connections between the categories.

                    Despite the amazing successes of physics, it can’t be claimed that the world is actually mathematical in the sense of man-made mathematical statements containing man-made mathematical and Boolean logic symbols. Rather, it can only be claimed that, luckily, the world is structured such that high-level human beings can use man-made mathematical and logical symbols to represent lower-level aspects of the world. But these mathematical and logical symbols are unwieldy.

                    It is probably the case that the low-level world actually operates, and knows its own situations, in a more manageable, life-like form; this form is the forerunner of higher-level conscious experience and feelings.

                      Lorraine Ford
                      What if the Earth was shaped like a cube? What if trees grew with their roots in the air and their leaves underground? What if zombies existed?

                      What if philosophers stopped wasting everyone’s time with their what-ifs?

                      But it is not just philosophers, it is physicists with their assumption that life and consciousness could miraculously emerge from a world of zombie particles and molecules.

                      Consciousness is the name we give to compact, all at once, on-the-spot, time-place point of view, “IS TRUE” knowledge (and, in higher-level consciousness, conclusions derived from analysis) about the surrounding situation/ world. Free will is the name we give to the response to this compact, all at once, on-the-spot, time-place point of view, “IS TRUE” knowledge about the surrounding situation. In other words, consciousness and free will are characteristics that had to exist in the world BEFORE anything that could be described as “life” could ever emerge.

                      So, there can be no zombie particles and molecules.

                        5 days later

                        Lorraine Ford
                        AIs have failed to take over the world in the manner predicted by the science-fiction-raised tech boys. What a surprise! (Not a surprise.) Reminds me of the fact that Jesus has failed to take over the world in the manner predicted by the bible-raised religious boys. Though both groups still fervently hope and believe that an ultimate takeover will happen.

                        So, what is the difference between genuine life, consciousness and agency on the one hand, and AIs on the other hand?

                        Man-made physical symbols are the difference.

                        Man-made physical symbols are things like arrangements of ink on paper and arrangements of pixels on screens; arrangements of sound waves in the air; and arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits in computers.

                        Ink, paper, pixel screen elements, sound waves, voltages through circuits, and transistors are all subject to the laws of nature. But the special man-made ARRANGEMENTS of these physical things (i.e. man-made physical symbols) are not subject to the laws of nature because they are not “known” to the laws of nature; the arrangements are only known to people after they have analysed the light and sound waves that have interacted with their eyes and ears.

                        The thing that seems to bamboozle the physicists, philosophers and nerds is the fact that, in computers/ AIs, special man-made arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits have been devised which, together with man-made computer programs, can symbolise the sort of analysis that people and other living things do.

                        Unfortunately, physicists, philosophers and nerds have shown themselves to be no different to the religious believers with their bibles filled with man-made symbols. Because physicists, philosophers and nerds have also made the mistake of believing that man-made physical symbols literally, factually, inherently carry their own meaning.

                        The only things that can potentially take over the world are genuine living things, from microbes to people, where living things are defined by their ability to analyse the physical arrangements they encounter (as opposed to AIs that can only symbolically represent this analysis).

                          Lorraine Ford
                          The Turing Test states that: if you are silly enough to believe that a made-by-human-intelligence, electrically-powered, programmatically-driven, box of wires and transistors is conscious or intelligent, then the made-by-human-intelligence, electrically-powered, programmatically-driven, box of wires and transistors IS ACTUALLY conscious and/or intelligent.

                          Clearly, the power of belief can very easily overwhelm human intelligence, as is evidenced by footage of the men who have apparently fallen in love with their blow-up plastic sex dolls, and the people who have apparently fallen in love with programmatically generated sound waves and light waves coming from their device screens, that these poor unfortunate people have misconstrued to be coming from an actual entity.

                          Sadly, physicists, philosophers and nerds have also opted for belief in superficial appearances (i.e. the Turing Test), rather than noting the actual intelligence, i.e. the actual non-deterministic algorithmic elements, that are displayed by even the most primitive life.

                          This all goes back to the fact that any viable system, any viable universe, requires algorithmic elements (i.e. elements representable by e.g. IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE and THEN) as well as the elements representable by equations and numbers.

                          Write a Reply...