Replies

Thank you for asking!!!

A-G, what did you think of Bauer's biological principle, which Grandpierre refers to as the "Aikido Principle?"

I think they are absolutely correct! It is an important issue which is frequently ignored on both sides of the aisle for different reasons. You may find Pattee’s explanation interesting (emphasis mine):

The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

"How, therefore, we must ask, is it possible for us to distinguish the living from the lifeless if we can describe both conceptually by the motion of inorganic corpuscles?"
Karl Pearson The Grammar of Science

…By 1970 there was no longer much interest in possible paradoxes or revisions of physical theories to accommodate living systems. Nothing new appeared to be needed. Kendrew (1967) summarized the molecular biologists' position in Scientific American: ". . . up to the present time conventional, normal laws of physics and chemistry have been sufficient." This is now the generally accepted view among biologists2. But this reductionist view is really only an response to dualism and vitalism. This view does not even address Pearson's question. If it were stated as an "answer" it would be a total non sequitur: Life is distinguished from the lifeless because it follows the conventional, normal laws of physics and chemistry of lifeless matter.

In contrast to this dominant reductionist view of molecular biology, there continued to be a minority of more skeptical and holistically minded thinkers who believed that physical laws are incomplete or inapplicable in their present form (e.g., Wigner, 1961; Burgers, 1965; Elsasser, 1975; Rosen, 1991)3. There have also continued to be many speculations about whether life can be adequately explained by classical models without incorporating quantum dynamics.

In the last decade there has arisen in addition to these opposing schools of physical reductionists and physical skeptics, a third school that models life and evolution disregarding elementary physical laws altogether. Some well-known examples are Langton's (1989) replicating cellular automata, Ray's (1992) Tierra program, Holland's (1995) Echo model using genetic algorithms, random Boolean nets of Kauffman (1993), Fontana's (1992) algorithmic chemistry, and many artificial life computer simulations. Von Neumann (1966) is often cited as the founder of artificial life studies because of his logical theory of self-replication, but it is important to emphasize that he did not believe that such physics-free models would answer, "the most intriguing, exciting, and important question of why the molecules . . . are the sort of things they are4.

Many other abstract descriptions of life now fall under the title of complexity theory. This field is dominated by mathematical approaches, nonlinear dynamics, ergodic theory, random manifolds, self-organized criticality, and information and game theory (e.g., Cowan, Pines, and Meltzer, 1994). Complexity theorists are looking for universal principles of complex systems that apply at all levels, from spin glasses and sandpiles to cells and societies. The relation of these models to biology, and even to physics, is often a controversial issue. The power of computers to simulate models of self-replication, development, evolution, and ecology have resulted in many interesting behaviors. Computation also allows the study of nonlinear dynamics that generate endless formal complexity. However, because of the high degree of abstraction, these simulations are often difficult to interpret, and their applicability to biology is uncertain. Direct empirical justification is hard to find for such abstract models. In any case, since these models do not directly involve any microscopic physical laws and apply to both living and lifeless systems they do not address Pearson's question. If asked Pearson's question, the physics-free modeler would answer that the essential properties of life are distinguished by abstract relations that do not depend on any particular physical realization….

Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about...

There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra…

That of course compares with Grandpierre’s Aikido principle:

An analogy may serve to shed light to the way of how biology acts when compared to physics. It is like Aikido: while preserving the will of the attacker and modifying it using only the least possible energy, we get a result that is directly the opposite of the will of the attacking opponent. It is clear that the ever-conspicuous difference between living beings and seemingly inanimate entities lies in the ability of the former to be spontaneously active, to alter their inner physical conditions according to a higher organising principle in such a way that the physical laws will launch processes in them with an opposite direction to that of the "death direction" of the equilibrium which is valid for physical systems. This is the Aikido principle of life. A fighter practising the art of Aikido does not strive after defending himself by raw physical force, instead he uses his skill and intelligence to add a small power impulse, from the right position, to the impetus of his opponent’s attack, thus making the impetus of the attacker miss its mark. Instead of using his strength in trying to stop a hand coming at him, he makes its motion faster by applying some little technique: he pulls on it. Thus, applying little force, he is able to suddenly upset the balance of the attack, to change it, and with this to create a situation advantageous for him.

So yes, I agree – very much so!

There has been a strong tendency for biology to look away from the question of what is the difference between life and non-life. This will not stand in the face of mathematics, physics and information theory.