With that established, I then define "life" as "self-productive machinery": — Pfhorrest
The most convincing general argument for this irreducible complementarity of dynamical laws and measurement function comes again from von Neumann (1955, p. 352). He calls the system being measured, S, and the measuring device, M, that must provide the initial conditions for the dynamic laws of S. Since the non-integrable constraint, M, is also a physical system obeying the same laws as S, we may try a unified description by considering the combined physical system (S + M). But then we will need a new measuring device, M', to provide the initial conditions for the larger system (S + M). This leads to an infinite regress; but the main point is that even though any constraint like a measuring device, M, can in principle be described by more detailed universal laws, the fact is that if you choose to do so you will lose the function of M as a measuring device. This demonstrates that laws cannot describe the pragmatic function of measurement even if they can correctly and completely describe the detailed dynamics of the measuring constraints.
This same argument holds also for control functions which includes the genetic control of protein construction. If we call the controlled system, S, and the control constraints, C, then we can also look at the combined system (S + C) in which case the control function simply disappears into the dynamics. This epistemic irreducibility does not imply any ontological dualism. It arises whenever a distinction must be made between a subject and an object, or in semiotic terms, when a distinction must be made between a symbol and its referent or between syntax and pragmatics. Without this epistemic cut any use of the concepts of measurement of initial conditions and symbolic control of construction would be gratuitous.
"That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer. In the former, we can follow up all physical processes (in principle at least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter, this is meaningless. The boundary between the two is arbitrary to a very large extent. . . but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be placed somewhere, if the method is not to proceed vacuously, i.e., if a comparison with experiment is to be possible." (von Neumann, 1955, p.419)
https://homes.luddy.indiana.edu/rocha/publications/pattee/pattee.html
I do like your general direction as well, however, your particular definition Suffers from including Crystal growth As a living being, because Crystal growth uses a flow of energy to do productive work upon itself (Build its more ordered lower entropy structure) So it does reduce its own internal entropy And transfers the entropy difference as he to the environment. — Sir Philo Sophia
I think that is problematic as well because gravity does fight against the second law of thermodynamics as it reduces entropy when matter clumps up together ( less micro-states are available for the matter to explore). — Sir Philo Sophia
However, I am much more comfortable with an energy and work Framework of defining life than a nebulous/abstract and information entropy related one. — Sir Philo Sophia
I've always enjoyed reading your posts on other topics so I look forward to your further thoughts and/or critique on the subject. — Sir Philo Sophia
With that established, I then define "life" as "self-productive machinery": — Pfhorrest
Ah. But the question when it comes to life is how can a machine self-reproduce. — apokrisis
I think that is problematic as well because gravity does fight against the second law of thermodynamics as it reduces entropy when matter clumps up together ( less micro-states are available for the matter to explore). So anything that uses such lines of definition I believe would not be viable. My general intuition, is that all entropy based definitions of life would be flawed. I'm still thinking through that and when I go through the Negtropic Articles And arguments that apokrisis Made, — Sir Philo Sophia
With that established, I then define "life" as "self-productive machinery": a physical system that uses a flow of energy to do productive work upon itself — Pfhorrest
Please note that I didn't just mean machinery that produces other machinery like itself, but rather, machinery that does "productive" work, in the sense that I defined it in that post, upon itself. — Pfhorrest
I should also point out, that it is very curious that you were initially touting an entropic definition of life as being the key defining principle ( e.g., negentropic), But when I asked you to make a concise definition you completely drop that and just focus on pettee's semiotics — Sir Philo Sophia
The story begins, appropriately enough, with the Big Bang (Layzer 1975; Chaisson
2001). The key idea is that the universal expansion has been accelerating so fast that the universe has been unable to remain in equilibrium internally (Frautschi 1982; Landsberg 1984; Layzer 1975) and it appears that it may be continuing to accelerate at present (Ostriker and Steinhardt 2001). This expansion beyond the range of possibility for global equilibration gave rise to the precipitation of matter, which might be viewed as delayed energy.
Clumps of matter represent potential energy gradients of one kind or another. Because of the Second Law, these energy gradients are intrinsically unstable and the world acts spontaneously to demolish them in the service of equilibration (Schneider and Kay 1994). And the faster the degradation, the more entropy (as opposed to useful work, which embodies some of the energy in other clumps) is produced per unit time. Gradients would originally form just from gravitation and fluctuation-driven winds and waves. Some of them, just by chance, would come to be configured in such a way as to be able catalyze the degradation of other, more metastable clumps.
But, as I said, catalyzing energy degradation requires particular relations between gradients and consumers. This fact brings information into our picture. The information is required to create energy availability in a degrading gradient —availability for work. Gradient destruction in the service of work is necessarily an informed process (Wicken 1987). For a consumer to line up with a gradient so as to set up exergy extraction, it needs to have a certain orientation and form with respect to that gradient. What is a consumer? It is a gradient feeding upon another one. But it is necessarily an informed gradient. The origin of definitive semiosis (the biosemiosis of Hoffmeyer 1993) lies in these relations, as noted already by von Uexküll in 1926 (Salthe 2001). So, what is information?
etc....
Swenson, Schneider and Kay, Lineweaver, Salthe and many more have hammered out the basics of how life and mind arise as dissipative structures with the intelligence to exploit entropic gradients. — apokrisis
You want to treat live vs death, animate vs inanimate, as dualistic categories. And so any greyness or vagueness has to be eliminated from "the holy definitions".
But my organic and semiotic perspective takes the opposite view. Definitions are pragmatic. Differences are only relative. Vagueness is how anything new could even originate as a process of symmetry breaking development. — apokrisis
I am not trying to account for cosmic evolution, so this comment is off point. Again, I will be very eager and responsive to and appreciate if you could constructively critique my proposed Scientific Definition, esp. where/if my largely basing it on the physics Principle of least action.Lineweaver covers this in multiple papers, showing the evolution of the Universe as a series of steps - the symmetry-breakings that cause it to fall out of thermal equilibrium and so find itself forced to use dissipative structure to get back on track. Eg: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0305214.pdf
By the way, this is its own complication on any least action account of cosmic evolution of course. — apokrisis
Tornadoes and dust devils are also borderline dissipative structures if you are trying to force a biotic/abiotic division on nature. ...
So the dead/alive distinction is very easy to apply to nature when we talk about rocks vs wombats. And becomes a suitably grey matter when we talk about tornadoes vs prions.
The cites I have given on the issue address two issues. — apokrisis
my definition does not say anything about the matter evolving a better least action paths for themselves. Please read it closely, it says:Belousov–Zhabotinsky (BZ) reactions are a classic example of inorganic systems being able to evolve better least action paths for themselves - convection cells that transfer heat with better efficiency.
Note that prions have been shown to reproduce by non-genetic means (see below Wiki), and we can assume they do Darwinian evolution b/c their conformal shapes, as with all protein structures, do not replicate exactly and are very degenerate in their functional action. Thus, I say the prion clearly shoots down any Scientific Definition of living matter based on Petty or Semiotics- no gray zone there!And becomes a suitably grey matter when we talk about ... prions
The "self" has to be dealt with here if we are going to be able to make this division between work and entropy clear as "work" does speak to there being indeed a selfish interest in play. — apokrisis
Okay, that makes more sense of the von Neumann quote which otherwise didn’t seem connected to what you were saying, which I thought was about reproduction. — Pfhorrest
The definition of life can itself be seen as a guide for where to draw the boundary of a “self” — Pfhorrest
Clearly, this is why you did not try to employ any of that feel-good philosophical jargon in your definition, which I "twisted your arm" to produce. — Sir Philo Sophia
Emergence of coherent self-organizing structures are the expected response of systems as they attempt to resist and dissipate the external gradients that are moving them away from equilibrium
BTW, I gave you another mispelling of Pettee since it gives you some good feelings, as my mispellings are likely a Freudian slip on how little I regard his/Semiotics ideas with regard to useful Scientific endeavors. — Sir Philo Sophia
In other words, thanks for confirming that you do not have or know of a concise Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter. So, maybe science has not clearly defined it? — Sir Philo Sophia
Among the more or less general laws which manifest the achievements of physical science in the course of recent centuries, the Principle of Least Action is probably the one, which, as regards form and content, may claim to come nearest to that final ideal goal of theoretical research. — Max Planck
The path of least action, As defined in physics, for any living system is simply to die. — Sir Philo Sophia
Molecular biology is based on two great discoveries: the first is that genes carry hereditary information in the form of linear sequences of nucleotides; the second is that in protein synthesis a sequence of nucleotides is translated into a sequence of amino acids, a process that amounts to a transfer of information from genes to proteins. These discoveries have shown that the information of genes and proteins is the specific linear order of their sequences. This is a clear definition of information and there is no doubt that it reflects an experimental reality. What is not clear, however, is the ontological status of information, and the result is that today we have two conflicting paradigms in biology. One is the ‘chemical paradigm’, the idea that ‘life is chemistry’, or, more precisely, that ‘life is an extremely complex form of chemistry’. The other is the ‘information paradigm’, the view that chemistry is not enough, that ‘life is chemistry plus information’. — Marcello Barbieri
The divide between life and matter is real because matter is made of spontaneous objects whereas life is made of manufactured objects.
I thought that crystals were excluded from my definition because a crystal is not in itself a machine. — Pfhorrest
I do not think so. Just the opposite, veering away from the course least actions costs more wasted energy which means the matter will generate more heat (i.e., entropy), which eventually must be transferred to the environment of the motion.The principle of least action is very closely related to entropy, such that veering away from the course least actions is basically the same thing as resisting the increase of entropy. — Pfhorrest
Indeed, I am comfortable with any stab at a black and white definition of life having its interesting grey areas. We may differ on that score. — apokrisis
OK, but I showed how your proposed black and white definition of life does not work for what even you personally consider as living matter (i.e., when the virus is hijacking its host to copy itself). So, clearly, you are ideologically creating fake gray zones to fit your Semiotics belief of the world; thus, your comfort with a (much) worse B/W definition. I already showed you how the virus has no epistemic cut (i.e., Pattee is wrong), so you now have much cognitive dissonance to workout within your own mind.... You, unfortunately, have the problem that when you only have a (Semiotic) hammer at hand, every problem is a (symbolic) nail. And I've been watching Semiotics hammering away at the same problem (to little/no avail) since at least the early 90s. :wink:The only way to then demystify that telic principle is to follow Pattee, Rosen and other semioticians. The scientific account has to be expanded so it is anchored in the duality of physics and symbols, code and process, entropy and information. — apokrisis
You, and the references/articles you cited, never made those arguments, so I cannot get what you never gave. Glad you are finally articulating yourself, and finally attacking my definition directly, which is what I was asking for in my original post and (begging for?) throughout my comments with you. Thanks!I think you just can't follow the argument. So let's break it down. — apokrisis
This is a great point to bring into critical question. Here is my reasoning for that wording: if you only follow the path of least action then you are guaranteed to lose potential energy over time (at least do to real-world energy losses; e.g., even a moon in orbit is slowly losing its potential energy as its kinetic energy (KE) is continually, in part, dissipated to heat or transferred to interacting matter), and both are a monotonic process. As for living matter, we all agree that their potential energy (PE) must not decrease over time, else they would not be able to do any work (to stay alive) b/c they would not have any excess PE available to convert into excess KE, which is needed to avoid the most KE efficient path of least action. Right? So, your only question is really about "...resulting in a tendency of monotonic increased entropy... over time"; however, even you have admitted that only living matter can, and must, continually repair itself against the 2nd law requirement that the net entropy of matter in a system is always increasing, which I tend to agree with. So, the flip-side of your admission on that is that you must agree that inanimate matter must have a "...a tendency of monotonic increased entropy... over time", as required by the 2nd law. Thus, I do not see any error as you purport. Please point out where I'm wrong,You want to employ the least action principle to define the world of inanimate physical processes. And yet from the very first bit of your definition you introduced the error of mixing entropy and potential energy - "...resulting in a tendency of monotonic increased entropy and decreased potential energy over time." — apokrisis
it is not just an accounting gimmick as you think it. PE is real and physical reality b/c E=mc^2 tells us exactly how much the objects mass has increased when it gains the PE.Then when than motion vanishes as it seems to with a pendulum on the upswing, we can still keep track of the now hidden energy by calling it an accumulating potential. — apokrisis
Not true, b/c, as I argue and point out above and before, my definition calls for and requires that living matter must have dissipative structure (be it Semiotic, or whatever) that produce more KE (thus transferring/dissipating more entropy to their environment) than would otherwise occur under PLA, and I require that PE increases, which also means that there is a net decrease in entropy in locking up the energy as potential (not in KE motion). Keep in mind, and do point out where you think I'm wrong, that saying higher KE is just another way of saying higher entropy b/c it means the matter in faster motion is exploring more microstates per unit time, thus the system has higher entropy.Now of course, if a semiotic level of dissipative structure exists and is bound by a least action principle, that is a big problem for your definition. — apokrisis
See my argument below about why I do not believe "the right kind of measure for a living system " will be based on entropy.Or maybe not if you realise that it is certainly not the dumb and blind Hamiltonian of Newtonian systems, nor even the dumb and blind dissipative balancing act of the self-organising structures that appear in "far from equilibrium" inanimate systems. It now has to be a new variational principle that provides the right kind of measure for a living system with a memory, a goal, some kind of mind. — apokrisis
Practicing scientists can see what really makes a working definition. You need some closure principle to create a baseline for measurement - a universal symmetry statement such as the Hamiltonian. And then you need the two opposing forms of action that are the yo-yo symmetry-breaking departures from this baseline. — apokrisis
again, not (yet) proposing a theory here. again, before theories come broad definitions which set the metes and bounds and framework from which theories may be motivated and formulated. So, I think you are way jumping the gun, and should please focus on the merits, or not, of my B/W classification definitions.That is the simplest kind of theory you can produce. The gold standard. You can now actually go out and measure the world. — apokrisis
what do you mean by "entropy uncertainty "? The entropy in quantum mechanics (Von Neumann entropy) is zero during the pure quantum state. So, it seems to make no sense to talk about quantum "entropy uncertainty ". Are you talking about a non-pure state having a density matrix and non-zero Von Neumann entropy? However, that still would not be uncertain entropy. Please clarify.And generally, the whole field was energised by Shannon's demonstration that information is the other face of entropy. Physics itself was stumbling into a new information theoretic era where the Planckscale - the unified physics scale - has this "Hamiltonian" metric where entropy uncertainty and information certainty are a symmetry double act like kinetic energy and potential energy. — apokrisis
They understand the actual significance of the least action principle as a way to anchor that. And there is this "double foundations" thing going on where physics itself is starting to ground itself in entropy~information - the spontaneity of fundamental chance and the continuity of fundamental constraint. — apokrisis
Fifthly, given the above facts, your theory would need to account for why non-human organisms are more attuned to "the principle of least action" than humans. Your theory is, after all, saying all life contradicts "the principle of least action" but, if I'm correct, non-human organisms, because of their wasteful energy-expending-behavior, would achieve minimum potential energy states at a faster pace than humans and that's another way of saying non-human life-forms are aligned to "the principle of least action", if not relative to inanimate matter, relative to humans. — TheMadFool
Far from dooming living systems, the PLA, alongside the 2nd law of thermodynamics may be key — SophistiCat
The distinction being that 'spontaneous objects' can be accounted for in purely physicalist terms, whereas living organisms require the manufacturing of proteins which requires coding. — Wayfarer
as far as I understand, a virus requires no coding to manufacture any complex functional proteins. — Sir Philo Sophia
OK, but my definition goals are far more ambitious than yours! Note that mine covers all matter what-so-ever: "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter.... any grouping of matter or energy which " — Sir Philo Sophia
veering away from the course least actions costs more wasted energy which means the matter will generate more heat (i.e., entropy), which eventually must be transferred to the environment of the motion. — Sir Philo Sophia
Are you differentiating “animate vs inanimate” from “living vs nonliving”? I took them to be synonyms for our purposes, in which case a definition of life also divides all matter and energy into those systems that meet that definition (living or animate) and those that do not (nonliving or inanimate). — Pfhorrest
in many cases this is a plausible model that is contemplated; however, the hypothesis behind my proposed definition is much broader than that and does not necessarily always require a local entropy gradient to exploit when the living mater has already accumulated excess PE (possibly by initially exploiting a local energy gradient). Once it has excess PE then it can "redirect or enact kinetic energy to avoid the path of least action" as recited in my OP definition. This is why I like the PE focused model b/c entropy gradients are not always needed along and given stretch of the organisms path (e.g., just has to burn excess PE until it finds more PE it can accumulate or find entropy gradient to exploit to get PE).i.e. an energy gradient to exploit, which are also exactly the conditions in which locally reducing entropy is possible. — Pfhorrest
as mentioned above, I think it is more complex that that one (maybe most common at lowest life forms). So, I'll offer my analysis and basic mechanics of how my definition/hypothesis might apply to the virus matter. It is what I wrote on the fly (first thoughts), so it is raw, and likely has many kinds of errors, yet should convey the gist of what I generally mean. Including typo/gramo errors by my dictations software. I have not taken the type to proof read it:but having an exploitable energy gradient makes it locally possible for a limited system to run counter to that trend — Pfhorrest
yes, synonymous and covers energy which is carried by the matter. — Sir Philo Sophia
does not necessarily always require a local entropy gradient to exploit when the living mater has already accumulated excess PE — Sir Philo Sophia
given that you are in such great command of current state-of-the-art scholarship on the subject, as you claim to be aware of, then why don't you reply with what you find to be the best scientific definition of what minimal properties constitutes living matter vs inanimate?
If you cannot offer one, your own or what you believe in the most from literature, then I choose to ignore your rants about me not posting literatures best vs Webster's. — Sir Philo Sophia
So, let's see if you can do better... — Sir Philo Sophia
Having a store of potential energy is the same thing as there being an energy gradient to exploit. — Pfhorrest
For example if your store of potential energy is a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment, it is the temperature or pressure differential between the volume and the environment that enables the release of that potential energy; if the environment was just as hot and high-pressure as the inside of the volume of gas, it would not be usable potential energy, relative to that environment. — Pfhorrest
Similarly, lifting water above the surrounding ground is what lets you get work out of it when it flows back down; if the ground was all the same level as the water, the elevation of the water would be useless. Unless, of course, you then dug out the ground below the level of the water, in which case there would then be a difference, and you could let the water flow down into the hole you dug, and use that to do work. — Pfhorrest
The absence of such a differential is the same thing as the presence of entropy, so "increasing its store of potential energy" is the same thing as "reducing its local entropy". — Pfhorrest
BTW, I should point out another major problem with your proposed definition is that it defines the whole universe as living. That is, the physical rules of the universe by default produces stars and planetary systems, which your definition would define as living b/c they were produced by the universal "machine". A star is a machine that "that transforms energy from one form to another, which is to say it does "work" " in producing radiation and new types of atoms. Likewise, a planet "uses a flow of energy to do productive work upon itself, which is to say, to reduce its own internal entropy (necessarily at the expense of increasing the overall entropy of the environment it is a part of. Mars was doing this for millions of years before its dynamic core ran out of energy and the planet "died". Earth is still doing this today, and even if all life never existed still would do it b/c the Earth has a huge and active dynamic core of energy and the planet must use and dissipate that energy to build new and ever more complex chaotic & dynamic structures to dissipate that entropy/energy, and this keeps the Earth far away from thermal equilibrium with the space it 'lives' within. That is what mountain formation, ocean currents, weathering, Hurricanes, tornados, Jet streams, planetary magnetic shields, etc., all are doing. So, stars + planets systems have all the functions/behavior of a living cell systems under your and apokrisis' definition approach. Maybe you can refine your definition approach to avoid this undesirable problems? That said, I believe my PLA/PE approach is the most fundamental and should avoid all known problems.My definition hinges on the physics concept of a "machine", which is any physical system that transforms energy from one form to another, which is to say it does "work" in the language of physics.
I propose the definition of a property of such physical work, called "productivity", which is the property of reducing the entropy of the system upon which the work is done. — Pfhorrest
likewise. To get more constructive outcomes, hopefully, you learn how to be more constructive in offering useful critiques. bye bye...Ah, no, thanks. You are not worth my time. — SophistiCat
Having a store of potential energy is the same thing as there being an energy gradient to exploit. For example if your store of potential energy is a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment, it is the temperature or pressure differential between the volume and the environment that enables the release of that potential energy — Pfhorrest
So, I would argue that if the mass of the particles did not decrease then they lost no energy, incl. no PE, as their entropy naturally increases toward maximum (thermal equilibrium) per 2nd law. — Sir Philo Sophia
A hot volume of gas does actually weigh more than a cold one per E=mc^2. — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.