Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop
That is metaphysics baby! (in my best Dennis Miller impression)
Yes, entropy is what is responsible for the organization of the body eventually breaking down; but it is not in any way to imply that this is within a CLOSED system. Most things die and are eventually or immediately eaten by something. That something that eats them breaks down the preys structures to derive energy to build up their own.
Thus livings systems accelerate entropy, creating disorder to create and maintain its own order.
What we know of physical reality is both necessary and sufficient to explain biological function. There is not a single observed biological function that requires anything “over and above” physical law.
Okay. Then describe for me how physical law accounts for "function."
An enzyme doesn't break apart a specific substrate because it wants to, it's amino acids form a electromagnetic environment that makes the substrate breaking apart energetically favorable because of its 3-D shape and the electromagnetic charge positions.
Once again however I think you are looking for something metaphysical.. purpose rather than function......you wont find some deep “purpose” by looking at biological molecular interactions, just mechanical functions.
I must assume you are asking “Why is there life?”
Science cannot answer that question. Read the Bible to find that answer.
So, by extension, the bits stored on a flash drive or the pits on a DVD are not "information", either -- until they are decoded and made to perform a function that interacts with a human.
I see a Newtonian analogy: All of the above data-storage forms are potential information -- much as water behind a dam, or gunpowder in a cartridge, or a weight hanging over your head ...represent potential energy.
So, by that analogy -- and your statement, "information" could be viewed as "kinetic data" that also interacts with a sentient recipient...
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Am I even close? ;-)
But AMD, that is precisely the question I'm not asking here!
Two reasons I'm not asking it: (1) I am trying to stay within the confines of science; but this "WHY?" question points straight to God (IMHO there is no other conceivable alternative cause that can stand rigorous logical test). Science cannot ask a question like that and still be science. (2) I already know the answer (see immediately above); but my knowledge of same isn't relevant to "doing science." And so I do not let it intrude (or try very hard not to) into scientific investigation. Which is premised on the empirical. (I.e., you have to show direct evidence in support of claims.)
On the other hand, the "WHAT" of life is what comes into the range of human direct perception, as aided by human intellect. Thus, the WHAT question belongs to science. The WHY question belongs to God.
What I want to work on here is the WHAT question. Can I make my intent any clearer?
I am only asking: "What is Life?" That is, what are the essential things we need to understand in order to come up with a valid, comprehensive "physical description" of WHAT life is. One in which formal theory maximally "maps" to phenomenal (physical+) biological Reality.
I deeply believe that this is a "conversation" that science — biological and physical — needs to be having right about now. FWIW JMHO
Oh, and by no means ought we neglect to invite the mathematicians to the party! Mathematical modeling may well hold the keys to the future development of a "realistic" biology.
[[(As if entropy = physical death). It is my understanding that entropy is that which inevitably occurs in closed systems. ]]
It is just as bad for open systems as it is for closed- it’s a common argument by evolutionists to insist that open systems allow for violations of entropy, but this is simply a false premise:
“The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]...
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#second
Looks pretty durned interesting to me, TXnMA. I'd like to explore your last further. I suspect you are on the right track here. I'd love to hear more about/help elaborate the details.
I do wonder about the "made to perform" language though. It is stated in the "imperative voice" of "natural speech (language)." The worry is, in general, it's not a good thing to "queer the deal" by imposing arbitrary limits from the get-go. (The word "made" presupposes an unidentified causal agency at work.)
Indeed, as you say, the message in Shannon's mathematical theory of communication can be seen as potential and the communication of that message as kinetic.
The receiver, however, need not be human. For instance, the communication could be from one computer to another - or within the molecular machinery of a houseplant, etc.
Of a truth, in biological programmed cell death, the message itself might be to curl up and die.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Clothing... functions even moves and has purpose but it is not alive..
Is the human body merely clothing to the spirit?..
Are all "bodies" of living organisms clothing?... i.e. to types of spirits..
The old observer problem of "What is life?".. and that answered.. "What is death?".. or vice versa..
Erwin Scroninger wrote the definitive book on the subject a long time ago.
Biologists are fairly satisfied with a DEFINITION of life, for whatever esoteric purposes THAT could be put to, we are now engaged in a full fledged and total struggle to understand HOW life works, now that we are fairly satisfied we know what life IS.
It is the details of HOW life works that will lead to treatments for disease, understanding of pathology, understanding aging, etc.
A better definition of what life is isn't going to be useful for much, especially delving as you do into metaphysical navel gazing.
Once again....
Life: An organization of molecules that consumes energy in order to maintain and replicate its molecular organization.
I deliberately used the terms, "made to", "human", and "sentient" -- to stimulate A-G into revising her analogy into a more general form. '-}
As they say in Congress, "I now exercise my right to 'revise and extend' my own remarks:" ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A-G: "The letter in your mailbox doesn't become information until you read it. "
TXnMA: So, by extension, the words written on a letter, the bits stored on a flash drive, or the pits on a DVD are not "information", either -- until they are decoded and [made to] perform a function that interacts with a human [consciously] reactive recipient.
I see a Newtonian analogy: All of the above data-storage forms are potential information -- much as water behind a dam, or gunpowder in a cartridge, or a weight hanging over your head ...represents potential energy.
So, by that analogy -- and your statement -- "information" could be viewed as "kinetic data" that also interacts with a sentient [consciously] reactive recipient....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Caveats and disclaimers:
Admittedly, I've never read Shannon, but, I really expect that there are some new "group insights" lurking in this train of thought!
How did the molecules get organized?
How did the molecules get organized?
The definition of something now has account for its origins?
I thought you wanted a definition of what life IS, now you seem to want an explanation of where life came from. Entirely different question.
Well that would be nice, but not necessary if all one is asking for is a description of the principles involved in biological organization. The "how" question, not the "why" question.
Reduced to a single phrase, the Shannon model tells us that "information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it moves from a before state to an after state."
It is the action of successful communication, not the message itself. The message doesn't matter - it could be DNA, Shakespeare's Hamlet, etc. The language doesn't matter either as long as the sender and receiver speak the same language.
And although the receiver decodes the message from the channel, consciousness is not necessary to the model. The same model applies to television, radio, computers, the internet, etc.
The elements of a successful message in order are: message, sender, encoding, channel, noise, decoding, receiver.
Information content is measured by the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver, in bits (which are not necessarily binary btw in Shannon's model.)
As far as I know, there is no known materialistic origin for information (Shannon, successful communication) in the universe. Indeed, there is a standing prize of a million dollars for the first scientist to propose a feasible answer to that problem. AFAIK, that prize has not been collected. I'd research it, but as I said, my time is very limited today.
To make a long story short, an astrophysicist friend of betty boop's - whose specialty is the sun - early on wondered about light as an information carrier (channel.) His speculation sounds like it might dovetail into your field of expertise.
Any hoot, I look forward to reading your next, dear brother in Christ!
Again, I aver a better definition is successful communication (Shannon) in nature.
Where there is successful communication in nature, there is life. When it ceases, there is death. And where it never happened, there is non-life.
"Purpose" in that definition is a matter of the message itself, whether to maintain, replicate, metabolize, organize, etc.
It is also mathematics, universal and holds up to intense scrutiny. And as a bonus it offends neither side of the ones who refuse to look any further: "nature did it" v "God did it."
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.