Posted on 11/30/2004 6:21:11 PM PST by betty boop
Are you saying I'm slow? I am so not speaking to you.
marron: And, as you point out, separate the parts from one another, or separate them from their control device, and whatever else they are, alive they are not.... Typically, also, cells that work in concert with other cells have a means of organizing themselves, which is to say communications, either with those adjacent cells, or with another higher control device, or probably both.
It seems to me that people over the ages understand a clear distinction between life and death. Historically, the dead bodies of human relatives are not left to decompose – but are dispatched with reverence. Usually, people don’t bury the living or set a place at the table for the dead at family gatherings.
Therefore, the denial of a bright line between life and death (or non-life) seems to me like taking a bazooka to biology whether one believes it or not - hence my bantering posts. There remains much to discuss regardless of the position of an advocate, but hopefully this little 100 post sidebar has revealed some of the consequences of the assertion.
On the one hand, when the advocate accepts there is no bright line, then the subject of life and death – or life and non-life - is outside the reach of science. It is theology, philosophy or metaphysics. Therefore, there can be no credible scientific theory of abiogenesis. And, applied to the geological record as the continuum, the fallacy of quantizing a continuum authenticates the position that the theory of evolution is capricious.
On the other hand, by accepting there is a bright line, then the difference as you say is information (Shannon: communication) – which is a phenomenon without a known origin in space/time. Some expect an origin will be found. Some will identify the information with harmonics in the universe, or perhaps a universal vacuum field or mathematical structures in parallel universes. Such positions do not broach metaphysics and are compatible with most Judeo/Christian theology and philosophy.
At the end of the day, it is revealing that a person’s answer concerning life and death is both part of his spiritual compass and also his compass for science. (1 Timothy 6:20)
No clearly defined boundary doesn't mean no distinction. Two (actually from real work) examples: one may have several (for example 3) sets of measurements with the result that:
The mean of set A is not significantly larger than that of B.
The mean of set B is not significantly larger than that of C.
The mean of set A is significantly larger than that of C
A second example is a table of "random" numbers (for example, bits). (It's not clear that such a thing exists, but the "A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates" from Rand was used successfully for years.) Again, I'm assuming the Abnormal Deviates were taken by Eyegor and given to Doktor Frankensteeeen. The question is, if one number is changed in a table of random numbers, is the table still random? The answer would seem to be yes. Of course still "yes" for two, or three changes; but what about changeing half or even all the numbers? At the exremes, the table appears either random or completely structured. It's not clear that there is a specific number of changes that make the difference.
I would like to (randomly?) amplify the stuff in post 665.
More effort is spent in reducting randomness or uncertainty than in amplifying it. (In general only for simulation or cryptography or sampling, etc. does one want more uncertainty.)
One obvious method to reduce uncertainty is to measure with more precise instruments.
A less obvious method (which can sometimes be used when the previous idea fails) is to average values. Under some technical conditions (finite variance or satisfyint the Lindeberg-Feller conditions, for example), an average is a better estimate of the "center" of a distribution of values than is any individual value. Bigger samples also yield smaller uncertainties which is why political pollsters try for big samples.
Good example: in a sample from a normal distribution (a "bell curve" for those with degrees in Education); the sample average is a better estimate for the center than any individual.
Borderline counterexample: in a sample from a Cauchy distribution (the distribution of brightness from a flashlight that shines on an wall), the sample average is no better than any single sample as an estimate of the center. This is a strange distribution with undefined mean and infinite variance.
Really ugly counterexample: take a sample from a normal distribution and for each item take its reciprocal. The sample average is much worse than any single sample value as an estimate of the center.
The point is, the "rules and procedures" for working with uncertainty are not always obvious or simple. Intuition must be developed. Trick question: what is the probability of gettin HH in a series of coin throws before getting TH?
I do appreciate what you are saying, but in this discussion of splitting rocks, it must be noted that there is no such thing as a table of random numbers – since all the numbers are the effect of a cause, whatever that might be – algorithm, tossing of die, your ingenuity, even Brownian motion. (based on Wolfram’s response to Chaitin’s Omega)
From the frog’s perspective (Tegmark) that observation makes no difference – the table of evidently random numbers could just appear in his timeline. But from the bird’s perspective, there is nothing random at all.
Yours is a tipping point example, much like Schrödinger’s cat with greater obscurity. Schrödinger gives us two choices, dead cat/live cat – but you suggest a tipping point in the eye of the beholder.
I counter that at the root, what is obscure or distinctive is a mathematical structure to the observer, i.e. the answer depends on whether the observer is a frog or a bird. The bird would see a distinctive tipping point which the frog could not see.
Nevertheless, frog or bird, I would suggest that the question the frog could ask is: what is the Kolmogorov complexity of the unaltered table? If it is a low complexity, then what he would observe to be a range of tipping possibilities is knowably false from his frogness view. If it is a high complexity, he’ll have to ask the bird.
Very interesting. I wonder if any dialogue can bring DS's last into the vicinity of yours. If I follow the outline, his enumerations suggests that naive experience is not sufficent for the determination of life non-life, that (according to one poster) we really ought to put such fallacious determinations out of the reach of science, but that perhaps intuition and precision of tools might still raise the certainty wherein lies the truth (according to another poster).
And, what consequence follows from accepting this big gap between certainty and naive experience. And, who has set for us the bar for certainty?
OK, "this big gap between certainty and naive experience" would then be the distance between said frog and bird.
25%
Thanks for your insight, as always!
Bingo. Of course the "seemingly" symetrical HT is 50%.
And to help the lurkers develop their intuition: divide a circle (circumference, not disk) in to two parts with two randomly chosen (in angle) points. A: what is the average length of the segments? B: what is the average length of the segment that contains the origin?
Among mathematicians the difference in worldview (Aristotle v Plato) is fundamental and in the eyes of many if not most, irreconcilable. Einstein and Gödel argued it, Penrose and Hawking argued it. Tegmark’s metaphor of the frog and the bird is helpful to understand the difference.
Even though many mathematicians aver to be Aristotlean (frogish) – in my view, they must be at least a little bit Platonist (birdish) to have made it through high school geometry. If r stands for radius – the equation is not going to work if one lets r also stand for circumference.
The bottom line in math then is whether the mathematical structures themselves actually exist (Platonist view). Did the mathematician discover pi or invent it?
Personally, I doubt that Riemann spent much time fretting whether his geometry was real, but along came Einstein. Ditto for mirror symmetry and dualities. This bizarre relationship between math and the physical world is a stunner to the likes of Max Tegmark, Cumrun Vafa, Roger Penrose and the bird. But to others like Hawking and the frog it either doesn't exist or it's a yawner.
Hopefully, as you say, others will come to the table. Count me in.
LOL! I’m probably not quite “ready for prime time” here, Alamo-Girl. But I have been doing a lot of thinking about js1138’s question lately – which essentially drives to the problem of life vs. non-life -- so will hazard a reply. It is not my aim to construct a doctrine, or even to propose a theory. I just want to continue in Alamo-Girl’s method, which is to try to gain consensus (or refutation) on relevant points and to build out from there.
It seems that to say there is no such thing as a non-living system in nature is to make a very bold claim. How to validate it? Unfortunately, it appears that, to do that, we must first engage in the struggle for a definition of life. And the only way to do that, it seems to me, is by specifying what basic attributes or features a living system must possess. For to “define” something is to reduce it to its essential, characteristic terms. Here is my proposal:
According to Ervin Bauer (Theoretical Biology, 1935/1967), living systems are characterized by the following:
(1) Living systems preeminently have the characteristic that they are never in thermodynamic equilibrium and, supported by a free energy reservoir, are able to continuously invest work against the realization of the equilibrium that would otherwise set in, given prevailing outer conditions on the basis of the physical and chemical laws. That is, they do not just radiate entropic entropy away into the environmental “sink”; they are able to store it for use to perform “work against the realization of the equilibrium.”
(2) Living systems are strongly spontaneous systems. Bauer writes, “It is typical for every living system that they show spontaneous changes in their states which are not elicited by causes [that are] external to the living system.” Thus they exemplify the quality of emergence.
(3) Living systems are strongly and sensitively responsive systems. That means they are not only able to recognize inputs streaming in from their external environments, but also inputs triggered by internal systemic changes – and can adjust/adapt their internal (and external) activity in ways that preserve themselves as far away from thermodynamic equilibrium (i.e., “heat death”) as possible.
(4) Living systems are “self-organizing systems,” regulated or “ordered” from the global level. Any “macroscopic” living system is composed of a great number and variety of other living systems – cells tissues, organs, etc. Global governance is required for the control, adaptation, regulation, and communication of the subsystems with each other, and also individually and collectively with the global system – all of which conduces to the organic unity and perdurance of the global system itself.
Given these criteria, it seems that Doc’s rocks “don’t make the cut.”
The criteria strongly suggest that living systems are “information processors,” that “successful communication” to and among all their internal states must take place instantaneously in order for (1) to (4) result. This suggests a couple of things in turn: (a) living systems are integrated by an EM or other type of field that can unify the global (macroscopic) collaborative effort required to preserve the living state; and (b) that even the most simple living system must possess at least an elementary form of consciousness – awareness or basic sentience. For the successful utilization of communicated biological information entails the ability to “learn” and “decide,” based on “the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver,” thus to choose or select the proper outcomes that facilitate (1) through (4).
Now (b) above is indeed speculative, and has ever been so. For from the ancient world we know that human beings have speculated about the relationship of being and consciousness; some have tended to identify the two. I know that cornelis is aware of the history of this question. I don’t know the answer myself, but do notice that there seems to be a necessary correlation of being (i.e, life) and consciousness that everywhere indicates the presence of a system that is “alive.”
Now the question whether everything that exists is alive in some fashion is another matter that has enjoyed a long history in human speculation. Generally, the question can be answered affirmatively on the supposition that the entire Cosmos is “alive.” Which brings us back to our earlier consideration of an “evolution of a population of one.” If the universe itself is a living system – that is, manifests the (1) to (4) criteria – then we might be able to say that all of its subsystems, organic and inorganic, are “alive” in some fashion – including Doc’s rocks.
But I think to say this is to lose some important distinctions about the nature of life. Let’s make a thought experiment and see whether we can clarify this assertion.
Let’s say we trundle up to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, with a 12-pound cannonball and a live albatross in hand, which we will throw over the side and then see what happens. We don’t know how much the albatross weighs; but as Galileo has already demonstrated, it doesn’t matter. If we toss the cannonball and the albatross over the side at exactly the same moment, then as Galileo has shown, both will hit the ground at exactly the same moment.
But in our thought experiment, this result does not occur. For once cast away, the albatross will sink, but then very soon it will make a “course correction” (e.g., by modifying its internal boundary conditions, such a the trim of flight feathers, and innumerable other fine-tunings a bird must do to be in a flight posture) and fly away: It will not hit the ground at all.
Of course, if it were a dead albatross, both the cannonball and the bird would hit the ground at the same time. But this is what we do not observe in the living case.
I guess the “moral of this story” is this: the 12-pound cannonball is a physical system whose state and outcomes are entirely dependent on the physical laws. There is something about the living albatross, however, that can act against the occurrence of the outcome predicted by the physical laws. And I would say that “something” is the very crux of the distinction between a living and a non-living system.
I propose the difference consists in the successful communication of biological information. There may well be such a thing as a “life principle,” which governs the application of the least action (i.e., conservation) principle of the physical laws in living systems, and living systems alone.
And this seems reasonable to expect; for if living systems are “information processors,” then we have to look at possible candidate sources for the information. From the standpoint of Kolmogorov complexity, the information content of the physical laws is very low. Further, calculations and estimates have been done that strongly suggest DNA itself is “too information poor” to be the source of biological information. So, where is the information source?
As Alamo-Girl has pointed out (and I certainly agree with her), there is no known source of biological information within the 4D spacetime block.
Must leave the problem there for now. Please share your thoughts with me?
ping
As you have well described, there is a readily apparent distinction between life and non-life within the universe. That thought extends to a readily apparent distinction between life and death. The cut is at the point of which governs a corporeal entity: physical laws, in particular thermodynamics - or successful communication (Shannon information).
The indicators include the mystery of the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, the physical constants and physical laws.
In a big bang, both matter and anti-matter would be created equally and annihilate one another in a burst of gamma radiation. But the universe is full of matter. Science accounts for some of this by a difference in decay rates of b-Meson v anti-b-Mesons but the question remains whether that is sufficient to explain the asymmetry. Even if it were, the difference itself – as in the values of the physical constants – and the workings of the physical laws would have to be “just so” in order for biological life to emerge. Even the slightest variance, and there is no biological life. In many cases, a slight variance also means no universe at all.
This raises the question whether the universe have a will to live or if it is willed to live by its Creator, i.e. the uncaused cause of a beginning.
But if the universe is aggressively or willfully engaged in bringing forth and sustaining life we should also expect to see some evidence of information in the universe (self-organizing or self-contained) or at least a residue of communications having occurred, presuming that the will is God’s and not the creature’s. We actually do see evidence of sound waves in the early universe and vibrations of strings in string theory. Perhaps that is some of the evidence we seek.
But what we do not (yet) see is the full Shannon-Weaver information model in the universe that we do see in the biological, the molecular machinery: the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver, communications consisting of message, source, encoder, channel, decoder, receiver.
So if the universe is governed by a life principle, it is not exactly the same as biological life. The distinction between (biological) life and non-life, life and death remains.
BTW, I am thinking about posting a new thread to divert traffic concerning the ramifications of what we have been addressing here to the theory of evolution so this thread will not be inadvertently taken into a sidebar debate. What do you think?
I think I will happily follow your lead, Alamo-Girl!
Thank you for your splendid post! You suggest that the evolution of biological life must be considered within the framework of the evolution of the universe as a whole. And I think this an extraordinarily important insight. So if in your judgment a clearer focus on this problem can be gained in a separate, new thread, then I'm all for it.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear Alamo-Girl.
I was thinking about any sidebars that might emerge over the validity of the theory of evolution itself with regard to our previous sidebar on the fallacy of quantizing the continuum. Evolution debates tend to consume threads and I'm hoping this discussion stays on target.
I'm thinking if anyone wishes to return to that topic, then I'll kick off a separate thread - as long as that's ok with you.
I'm essentially only lurking here, but I don't see the need for a whole new thread over that. The fallacy of quantizing the continuum can be applicable in difficult cases of classifying certain species, because the boundries get fuzzy due to [gasp!] common descent and incomplete speciation. But I don't think that needs to be much of a distraction. Just something to keep in mind.
If the fallacy may apply (or be mentioned) in borderline cases of distinguishing between something living and not living, it would be relevant to this thread.
Your definition of a living system would include a lot of mechanical and electronic devices. Certainly it would include the internet. In an attempt to be both abstract and bulletproof, something has been overlooked.
I have not tried to assert that matter is alive in any biological sense. I simply assert that there is no difference between living an non-living matter. Obviously the structure and behavior of biological systems will differ from non-biological things.
It seems to me it would be more fruitful to identify the specific processes associated with life and the required structures for engaging in those processes. The less abstract your list, the more useful for suggesting research.
If the fallacy is not asserted with regard to the theory of evolution on this thread then indeed, the thread is not at risk of being derailed.
The assertion of the fallacy with regard to abiogenesis has already killed further investigation of that theory.
I doubt if it will be raised in a discussion of the life principle - because the continuum is not being quantized here, at least not the way betty boop is approaching it. Which is to say, she is not looking for a specific tipping point of non-life to life or life to death but rather a description of the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.