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?
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?
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.