Posted on 05/04/2005 10:48:30 AM PDT by betty boop
Autocatakinetics, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production
By Rod Swenson
An Excerpt:
Ecological science addresses the relations of living things to their environments, and the study of human ecology the particular case of humans. There is an opposing tradition built into the foundations of modern science of separating living things, and, in particular, humans from their environments. Beginning with Descartes’ dualistic world view, this tradition found its way into biology by way of Kant, and evolutionary theory through Darwin, and manifests itself in two main postulates of incommensurability, the incommensurability between psychology and physics (the “first postulate of incommensurability”), and between biology and physics (the “second postulate of incommensurability”).
The idea of the incommensurability between living things and their environments gained what seemed strong scientific backing with Boltzmann’s view of the second law of thermodynamics as a law of disorder according to which the transformation of disorder to order was said to be infinitely improbable. If this were true, and until very recently it has been taken to be so, then the whole of life and its evolution becomes one improbable event after another. The laws of physics, on this view, predict a world that should be becoming more disordered, while terrestrial evolution is characterized by active order production. The world, on this view, seemed to consist of two incommensurable, or opposing “rivers,” the river of physics which flowed down to disorder, and the river of biology, psychology, and culture, which “flowed up,” working, it seemed, to produce as much order as possible.
As a consequence of Boltzmann’s view of the second law, evolutionary theorists, right up to present times, have held onto the belief that “organic evolution was a negation of physical evolution,” and that biology and culture work somehow to “defy” the laws of physics (Dennett, 1995). With its definition of evolution as an exclusively biological process, Darwinism separates both biology and culture from their universal, or ecological, contexts, and advertises the Cartesian postulates of incommensurability at its core, postulates that are inimical to the idea of ecological science. An ecological science, by definition, assumes contextualization or embeddedness, and as its first line of business wants to know what the nature of it is. This requires a universal, or general theory of evolution which can uncover and explicate the relationship of the two otherwise incommensurable rivers, and put the active ordering of biological, and cultural systems, of terrestrial evolution as a time-asymmetric process, back into the world.
The law of maximum entropy production, when coupled with the balance equation of the second law, and the general facts of autocatakinetics [see below], provides the nomological basis for such a theory, and shows why, rather than living in a world where order production is infinitely improbable, we live in and are products of a world, in effect, that can be expected to produce as much order as it can. It shows how the two otherwise incommensurable rivers, physics on the one hand, and biology, psychology, and culture on the other, are part of the same universal process and how the fecundity principle, and the intentional dynamics it entails, are special cases of an active, end-directed world opportunistically filling dynamical dimensions of space-time as a consequence of universal law. The epistemic dimension, the urgency towards existence in Leibniz’s terms, characterizing the intentional dynamics of living things and expressed in the fecundity principle, and the process of evolution writ large as a single planetary process, is thus not only commensurable with first, or universal, principles, but a direct manifestation of them.
The view presented here thus provides a principled basis for putting living things, including humans, back in the world, and recognizing living things and their environments as single irreducible systems. It provides the basis for contextualizing the deep and difficult questions concerning the place of humans as both productions and producers of an active and dynamic process of terrestrial evolution, which as a consequence of the present globalization of culture is changing the face of the planet at a rate which seems to be without precedent over geological time. Of course, answers to questions such as these always lead to more questions, but such is the nature of the epistemic process we call life.
This is probably
the one area Wolfram
doesn't dwell upon.
His simulations
embody principles that
can be compared to
the "real" world nicely,
but his automata screens
all take place within
silicon chips and
act out rules specified in
a software language.
If reality
is some simple network space,
where do its rules run?!
Automata grids
get their rules from the machine.
I could imagine
that "reality"
is enmeshed within something
(maybe Sheldrake's fields)
and, then, consciousness
would be something that exists
in that larger "mesh"
but then manifests
in "reality" via
a life's nerve system.
(Sheldrake has wondered
if a "brain" may be a "tuned"
antenna that links
to our "self" the way
a TV antenna gets
signals from the air.)
It's worth noting, too,
early Christians imagined
people as three parts --
the flesh, the spirit
and the soul which is the join
between the body
and spirit, changing
always, like a shore where waves
move over the sand.
Of course, consciousness
and unconscousness could be
just trivial things,
spontaneous "shapes" --
like "glider guns" to Wolfram --
that pop up sometimes
and then fade away.
Seems to me the "evidence"
can be read both ways.
read later with dictionary handy
Most interesting speculations, TheFIRMbss! Notwithstanding the “evidence can be read both ways,” the conclusion from evidence that consciousness is a “trivial” thing would at the very least drain the Universe of meaning; it may even drain the Universe of an ultimate organizational principle, rendering life impossible. For as the late Fred Hoyle – astrophysicist, atheist – has conjectured, the Universe appears to be the product of a “superintellect” or superintelligence. (With this remark he seems to go further than even the proponents of ID.) If this is so, then the physical Universe is the production of a conscious mind, on which it depends for its beginning, and possibly its on-going maintenance as well….
Thank you for the ping to biologist Rupert Sheldrake. He certainly has some very interesting things to say:
“Most biologists take it for granted that living organisms are nothing but complex machines, governed only by the known laws of physics and chemistry. I myself used to share this point of view. But over a period of several years I came to see that such an assumption is difficult to justify. For when so little is actually understood, there is an open possibility that at least some of the phenomena of life depend on laws or factors as yet unrecognized by the physical sciences.”
These statements certainly ring my bell: but then, I tend to be "field-happy!" :^) Needless to say, Sheldrake is highly controversial in the biologist community; one imagines the Darwinists out there must really detest him. For he says such interesting (and to me, common-sense) things; for example:
“Given the right genes and hence the right proteins, and the right systems by which protein synthesis is controlled, the organism is somehow supposed to assemble itself automatically. This is rather like delivering the right materials to a building site at the right times and expecting a house to grow spontaneously.”
As David Pratt writes, in a critical piece (“Rupert Sheldrake: A Theosophical Approach” [BTW I don't see anything necessarily "theosophical" about Sheldrake's conjectures, FWIW]),
“Although modern mechanistic biology grew up in opposition to vitalism -- the doctrine that living organisms are organized by nonmaterial vital factors -- it has introduced purposive organizing principles of its own, in the form of genetic programs. Genetic programs are sometimes likened to computer programs but, whereas computer programs are designed by intelligent beings, genetic programs are supposed to have been thrown together by chance! In recent years a number of leading developmental biologists have suggested that the misleading concept of genetic programs be abandoned in favor of terms such as internal representation or internal description. Exactly what these representations and descriptions are supposed to be has still to be explained.
“The role of genes is vastly overrated by mechanistic biologists. The genetic code in the DNA molecules determines the sequence of amino acids in proteins; it does not specify the way the proteins are arranged in cells, cells in tissues, tissues in organs, and organs in organisms….
“The fact that all the cells of an organism have the same genetic code yet somehow behave differently and form tissues and organs of different structures clearly indicates that some formative influence other than DNA must be shaping the developing organs and limbs. Developmental biologists acknowledge this, but their mechanistic explanations peter out into vague statements about 'complex spatio-temporal patterns of physico-chemical interaction not yet fully understood.'”
Especially fascinating to me is Sheldrake’s concept of morphogenetic fields:
“According to Sheldrake, the development and maintenance of the bodies of organisms are guided by morphogenetic fields. The concept of morphogenetic fields has been widely adopted in developmental biology, but the nature of these fields has remained obscure, and they are often conceived of in conventional physical and chemical terms. According to Sheldrake, they are a new kind of field so far unknown to physics. They are localized within and around the systems they organize, and contain a kind of collective memory on which each member of the species draws and to which it in turn contributes. The fields themselves therefore evolve.
“Each morphic unit has its own characteristic morphogenetic field, nested in that of a higher-level morphic unit which helps to coordinate the arrangement of its parts. For example, the fields of cells contain those of molecules, which contain those of atoms, etc. The inherent memory of these fields explains, for example, why newly synthesized chemical compounds crystallize more readily all over the world the more often they are made.
“…[I]t is worth examining exactly what a morphic field is supposed to be. Sheldrake describes them as ‘fields of information,’ saying that they are neither a type of matter nor of energy and are detectable only by their effects on material systems.” [emphasis added]
Must leave it there for now, TheFIRMbss; I am so pressed for time these days, I can’t give this a fuller treatment right now. (Things should be “back to normal” after June 1st….) But I do want to get back to this fascinating subject matter in due course, and am so grateful to you for your excellent contributions to this thread. Thank you!
 |
Mixing Sheldrake and Hoyle is like strange jazz because they came to believe kind of opposite explanations for "order" in "our" universe. Sheldrake suggested the past impacts the present through cumulative fields of some nature. Hoyle came to suggest that time was like a river flowing one way but with currents and eddies that sometimes flow backward and Hoyle saw "order" as our present state being acted upon by information from the future through some backward time mechanism. |
Thanks for the great comparison/contrast of Sheldrake and Hoyle, TheFIRMbss! “Strange jazz” indeed! The apparent conflict of the two views seems to boil down to the problem of time reversibility. It seems that in our 4D space-time block, time is irreversible, moving from past, to present, to future. Them’s the “rules” that apply to “our” three dimensions of space plus one of time, mainly the result of the action of the second law of TD, whose “arrow of time” points only in one direction.
Yet Hoyle may actually have the better of this “argument,” but only if we may justly recognize the existence of additional temporal dimension(s). My conjecture is that there is at least one more “timelike” dimension, and recently I’ve begun to suspect that there may be others besides. (Who knows? The total number of dimensions may be virtually infinite for all we presently really know.)
A fifth dimension of time would wholly “incorporate” our 4D block; a hypothetical observer “located” in the 5th would view all the “contents” of the 4D block not as a temporal or historical unfoldment (or temporally unidirectional evolution), but as one vast, “entangled” simultaneity.
Information appears to be critically necessary to the evolution of the Universe. But I think “swapping” info back and forth (past to future, or vice versa) along the timeline we humans perceive is a tad awkward. I am more attracted to David Bohm’s notion of the “Implicate Order,” which is sourced in a dimension completely outside of space-time as we know it, but drives everything that happens or could happen “here.” It seems to me the IE would not arise in the 5th temporal dimension, but in yet another “timelike” -- effectively timeless -- dimension.
Just some stray thoughts FWTW.... Thank you so much for your insightful reply, TheFIRMbss!
I remember when I was taking thermodynamics in college I always had trouble doing entropy problem. I eventually got to the "aha moment" when I finally understood that it only applies to CLOSED systems. The earth is not a closed system - there is a net amount of energy falling on it (from the sun) and that is what allows it to become more "orderly".
Thanks for the great link, aquila48! WRT the above italics: the reference is to the solar system. But what of the Universe as a whole? Where does it get its "order" (energy) from? Should we think of it as a "closed" or as an "open" system?
Thoughts, people???
 |
Decades prior to Wolfram's automata work, French astronomer turned computer geek turned UFO researcher speculated here that the universe might be associative in the manner of a CPU chip's addressing mechanism. One set of "signals" applied or occur in one manner and give rise to a second set based on the "content" indirectly pointed to by the first signals. Time, then, would appear sequential really would be just the progression of changing pointers in the "address register" of the universe. We become aware that the sequential facade is just appearance when we're confronted by "non-causal" relations -- the synchronistic coincidences that startle us now and then. This view is open to testing, via things like remote viewing where associative concentration seems to generate some manner of wanted result. Forward and backward in time become obsolete, and get replaced with some kind plenum (like the akashic records!) which we normally transit in sequence, but which theoretically can all be accessed. |
Actually, the reference was just to the earth. I imagine if one considers the whole solar system then entropy may actually be increasing and thus the solar system as a whole is becoming more random. For this to be true there would have to be more energy escaping the solar system than entering it, which is probably the case.
As for the whole universe, I don't believe we know as yet, since we don't know whether it's a closed system and if open whether there is a net energy inflow.
A solar system
in a spiral arm might be
gaining energy
if it's spiraling
around a gravity hole.
The mechanism
would be similar
to driftwood moving faster
as it's drawn closer
to a whirlpool's eye.
But I am not up-to-date
on galaxies, so
I do not know if
the spiral formation is
from center outward.
Very nice post.
The hypothesis of heat death of the universe is based on the physical entropy with the universe as a closed system. As the article indicates, the inflationary model suggests that the universe was in thermodynamic equilibrium prior to expansion.
IOW, the notion that space/time is three dimensional space evolving over time is false. Time is a dimension (x,y,z,t) – that is why clocks run slower in higher positive gravity, light bends near gravity indentations of space/time. To the observer traveling at the speed of light (speed limit of the physical realm) – no time passes. The gravity indentations are equivalent to velocity (equivalence principle).
State-of-the-art geometric physics suggests there may be more than one temporal dimension (in addition to all the spatial dimensions called for in string theory). In Cumrun Vafa’s F-theory, the additional time dimension forces us to think in terms of a time plane in our 4D rather than a timeline. Past, present, future exist all at once in the hypercube. Cause/effect could be effect/cause or not related at all.
Also, in this 5D, 2 temporal dimension theory, the Kaluza-Klein compactification of extra dimensions is not required and all kinds of matter in 4D arise from vacuums in the higher, 5th dimension. Notably, in this theory rather than 1080 particles in the physical universe, it may be one particle which appears 1080 times.
BTW, the reverse of the positive gravity indentation is also being investigated. In this case a negative gravity would be a space/time “outdent” causing the acceleration of the universe and may be what we call “dark energy”.
As I recall, it was Lisa Randall who suggested that the reason gravity is so small by comparison to the other fields is that it is interdimensional.
IMHO, a worldview and cosmology which is grounded in thermodynamics is false for the same reason that a worldview based on microscope to telescope is tunnel-visioned.
We have entertained his views but only briefly and long ago with regard to his research on pets – how they sense the master is fixing to arrive. In actuality, his views are much more inclusive then we considered at that time – and are very, very close indeed to concepts betty boop and I have been raising for quite some time around here.
His website is very informative:
The Hypothesis of Formative Causation states that the forms of self-organizing systems are shaped by morphic fields. Morphic fields organize atoms, molecules, crystals, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, societies, ecosystems, planetary systems, solar systems, galaxies. In other words, they organize systems at all levels of complexity, and are the basis for the wholeness that we observe in nature, which is more than the sum of the parts. For a more formal definition of morphic fields, see the Glossary.
According to the Hypothesis of Formative Causation, morphic fields also contain an inherent memory given by the process of morphic resonance, whereby each kind of thing has a collective memory. For example, crystals of a given kind are influenced by all past crystals of that kind, date palms by past date palms, giraffes by past giraffes, etc. In the human realm this is similar to Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. For morphic resonance see Glossary. In the realm of developmental biology the morphic fields that shape the growing organisms are called morphogenetic fields; in social organization they can be called social fields; and the organization of mental activity they can be called mental fields. But all these kinds of fields are particular kinds of morphic fields, and all are shaped and stabilized by morphic resonance. For a fuller description of the Hypothesis of Formative Causation see my books A New Science of Life, which is quite brief and somewhat technical, or my book The Presence of the Past, which is longer, but less technical, and more complete.
What evidence is there for the existence of morphic fields?
Morphic fields are postulated to account for the wholeness of self-organizing systems which can not be explained in terms of the parts alone and their interactions. My current research on bonds between pets and owners, the sense of being stared at, and other experiments described in my book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World is designed to provide evidence for morphic fields, and this evidence is already looking quite strong. Papers on recent experiments are currently in the press, and a listing can be found in the Scientific Publications section of this web site.
Evidence for morphic resonance comes from memory effects in nature, as discussed in my book The Presence of the Past, and from experiments on human psychology showing that it becomes easier to learn what other people have already learned. One phenomenon that suggests the existence of morphic resonance and morphic fields is the otherwise inexplicable rise in IQ that has taken place over the last few decades, the so-called "Flynn Effect".
How does your theory differ from the traditional mechanistic explanations of morphogenesis?
The mechanistic explanation of morphogenesis attempts to explain it in terms of molecules and interactions between them, particularly in terms of DNA and protein synthesis. This is a bottom-up approach, and can not explain the emergence of form. For example, genes code for the sequence of amino acids in proteins, but this can not even explain how the proteins fold up in the correct way to give the right three-dimensional structure.
Still less does it explain how proteins form cells, cells forms tissues, tissues form organs, and organs form organisms. The focus of research in conventional developmental biology is on genes, gene activation and proteins, but no more explains the development of form than the study of the delivering of building materials at a building site explains the structure of the house that is built there. For a detailed discussion of the mechanistic theory of morphogenesis, and how it differs from my own views, see my book The Presence of the Past.
Again, this returns to the primary objection to scientific materialism as a paradigm for explaining life. The objection to "randomness" is frequently raised by the mathematicians and physicists investigating information, autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence --- but here we see a biologist also raising the objection. That is great news!
At bottom, this is the same objection raised by Intelligent Design supporters - that the "R" has to be removed from the formulation RM - NS > Species. It is comforting to me to see further evidence that that objection will be addressed, the disposition of the ID movement notwithstanding.
Very nice placemarker
Those compatified dimensions of space in Kaluza-Klein theory perhaps are just "pointers" to real extension in additional temporal dimension(s).
Furthermore, the very notion of thermodynamic modeling of the universe has been called into question, since the effects of such factors as gravity and quantum phenomena are very difficult to reconcile with simple thermodynamic models, rendering the utility of such models as predictive systems highly doubtful according to some.
Or to put it very crudely, perhaps thermodynamic modeling may have utility limited to our 4D block. But the Universe does not appear to be a "captive" of 4D.... I imagine it is not a closed system....
Notably, in this theory rather than 1080 particles in the physical universe, it may be one particle which appears 1080 times.
I just love this conjecture! One particle appearing 1080 times all at once! Talk about "superposition!" Ah, the joys of extra time dimensions.... :^)
Great post, Alamo-Girl! Thank you so very much!
Exactly! The "bottom-up approach" doesn't explain anything about FORM, about emergence, biological complexity, consciousness -- the very things that specify "What is Life?" It is encouraging to see that Sheldrake has tackled this problem. Of course, I gather there is a tendency among some scientific materialists (at least) to regard Sheldrake as some kind of "theosophist" or Eastern guru-type nutcase.... Sigh....
Outstanding post, Alamo-Girl! Thank you so very much!
Also, it seems to me that science is dividing between two mindsets. One is only comfortable in materialism, microscope to telescope, Newtonian physics (classic) and three dimensional space evolving over time. The other is quite comfortable with relativity, quantum field theory, information theory and geometric physics with time as a dimension.
IMHO, the latter will overtake the former in every discipline, including biology.
Physicists deal with major expansions and revisions of theory – from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s relativity to quantum mechanics to string theory, etc. Ditto for mathematicians. Perhaps biologists will become more comfortable with such things...
HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!! That is God's truth, dear Alamo-Girl! In no uncertain terms!!!
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.