Towards a Scientific Definition of an "Action"

Sir Philo Sophia

I have a developed what I currently find as a best working Definition of what it means for something to make an "Action" which I'd like to see if others can either find problems with, or support for, it with well reasoned, constructive discourse.

This is intended to be a scientific definition, so holding up to serious philosophical scrutiny is a first step, as I tighten and adjust it as a best working scientific theory. Accordingly, I'm looking for, and will be most responsive to, high caliber (preferably technical) scrutiny and discourse on where my definition has realistic/practical problems.

Under my below definitions, for example, a virus is alive and takes actions towards a goal. So, if you do not regard a virus as a living being making intentional actions then you have to point out exactly where/how my definition is flawed, and argue why a virus is inanimate matter, not making selective decisions to make an action or not.

As we know dictionary definitions on this are circular and useless, and current best scientific definitions are not in agreement, are incomplete and flawed at best.

My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action" to distinguish/categorize the types of 'actions' performed by Living vs inanimate matter. For those unfamiliar with it, here is the Wiki primer on that:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

For better background and context behind this post on "Action", it is intended to ground the meaning of 'action' I employed in my prior post "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter", which you can see here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p1

-=========================
Here is my proposed Scientific definition of an "Action":

Action: the result of any thing (e.g., piece of matter, causally organized configuration of matter, and/or free energy) which redirects, enacts, creates, transforms, or transfers some kind of energy (that it controls) upon itself or another configuration of matter or energy, which self-enacted energy results in a change of state or configuration within the energy/matter-space-time region within which the matter/energy exists or can affect. When the subject of action is inanimate matter, the self-enacted energy is kinetic energy which must result in the inanimate matter taking the least energetically costly action path towards giving up, from that within its possession, the most potential energy or negentropy possible without giving up any additional kinetic energy beyond that which the Principle of least action would prescribe. When the subject of action is animate (i.e., living) matter, the self-enacted energy is kinetic energy which, within some finite time, must result in the animate matter making at least one energetically inefficient action that results in gaining at least some more internal potential energy and/or internal negentropy than it started with, thereby preserving the most potential energy or negentropy possible against that which the Principle of least action would otherwise prescribe.
-=========================

So, one aspect of this approach is to tie an "Action" to energy and certain types of work that may result. This will support a much broader theory and other definitions to come.

NOTE: everyone commenting here should make sure that any analysis/critique considers the fact that inanimate objects make 'actions' too. So, you have to be very careful to not limit your self/mind only to intentional acts of 'action'.

I'm Look forward to high caliber, preferably technical, scrutiny and discourse on this...

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Sir Philo Sophia

I find the definition is difficult to understand because your use of undefined ambiguous terms like "piece of matter", and "free energy". So it appears like you have something like "free energy which...transfers some kind of energy...which...results in a change...".

Wouldn't your definition for "action" be a lot simpler, and say essentially the same thing if it was worded something like this: "anything which results in a change"?

tim wood

↪Sir Philo Sophia

All thinking is based in presuppositions, and sorting them out and sometimes even being aware of what they are is not-so-easy. But it's the job you have to do. Or not doing, default to simplicity - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with simplicity. MU's on the right track, it seems to me:

"anything which results in a change" — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if he, on reading closely his own words, would accept an alteration to "that which causes change" - this being definitional. Among the benefits of simplicity is the shearing away of excess. In this case leaving only the word "cause" to be either more fully explicated or itself accepted as definitional.

The ideas behind the emphasis on definitional being of course only that as a definition, it is not the naming of something found, but instead the establishment of a meaning in a context, a term of art - how well it works to be determined.

philosopher004

Under my below definitions, for example, a virus is alive and takes actions towards a goal. So, if you do not regard a virus as a living being making intentional actions then you have to point out exactly where/how my definition is flawed, and argue why a virus is inanimate matter, not making selective decisions to make an action or not. — Sir Philo Sophia

Virus is considered non-living(although not completely) totally on a biological basis. It is because the lack of cytoplasm, lack of cell division etc.. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life".

Sir Philo Sophia

undefined ambiguous terms like "piece of matter", and "free energy". So it appears like you have something like "free energy which...transfers some kind of energy...which...results in a change...". — Metaphysician Undercover

those are very defined in physics. yet, you might be right re simplification. I can always simplify later. BTW, I added 'free energy' b/c pure quantum systems (like pure energy photons) also take 'actions' which have to also collapse to classical actions that follow PLA. So, my def has to cover all to be fundamental to any 'action' taken in the universe.

Sir Philo Sophia

It is because the lack of cytoplasm, lack of cell division etc.. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life". — philosopher004

that is a false general definition of life. It is purely anthropomorphic. See my factual arguments made in comments in my last post for more exactly why and how, which are currently spread out on page 2 here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p2

if you have any technical counterpoints to any of those arguments, I'm all ears. Yet, if you are just repeating 'common wisdom', I'm not so interested. thx.

Sir Philo Sophia

All thinking is based in presuppositions, and sorting them out and sometimes even being aware of what they are is not-so-easy. — tim wood

my definition does not require any thinking, so your comment does not seem to be an on-topic, valid critique. please quote specific parts and why you find it false or imperfect. thx.

Sir Philo Sophia

In this case leaving only the word "cause" to be either more fully explicated or itself accepted as definitional. — tim wood

I would tend to disagree with that. I'd say that there is no "cause" unless you observed and effect, so you cannot separate the two, they come as a pair. a 'cause' that made no observable 'change', was not a 'cause' of anything...

Sir Philo Sophia

The ideas behind the emphasis on definitional being of course only that as a definition, it is not the naming of something found, but instead the establishment of a meaning in a context, a term of art - how well it works to be determined. — tim wood

I am not (yet) proposing a theory here. Often, before theories can be created, we must first come up with broad definitions which set the metes and bounds and framework from which theories may be motivated and formulated.

I am a scientist, and I think you are misunderstanding meaning and purpose of "definition". I think you are missing the fact that definitions do much more than just being a semantic term of art, and should please focus on the merits, or not, of my black & white classification definitions. Nor is it meant here to be a causal theory, law or formula.

Please keep clear in mind that my proposed definition of 'Action' is not meant to measure the degree or causal dynamics of any system, only whether an 'Action' was made or not. So, your concern here is moot, as the goal here is not to create a 'term of art'. Instead, as I'm sure you know, the first job of scientific inquiry is to accurately define terms, at least to the binary (B/W) level to define the minimum observable properties of the class, and how to categorize something as belonging to that class or not. In that way, my definition has closure, in that if the matter/system has/performs the properties/dynamics which I call for then it has made an 'action'.

tim wood

my definition does not require any thinking, — Sir Philo Sophia

I believe that with this you have said everything anyone needs to know about your purposes and understanding.

Sir Philo Sophia

I believe that with this you have said everything anyone needs to know about your purposes and understanding. — tim wood

Correct. I am not limiting to human "action" as you seem to be, which, BTW, in many instances, may not require thinking either. inanimate objects make 'actions' as well. So, you should broaden your philo horizons...

jgill

Wouldn't your definition for "action" be a lot simpler, and say essentially the same thing if it was worded something like this: "anything which results in a change"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

I am a scientist — Sir Philo Sophia

Having made that statement you are obliged to supply details.

my definition does not require any thinking — Sir Philo Sophia

Another gem from this forum. :grin:

Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. — jgill

Yes, well I think that a definition should be the starting point for a scientific inquisition, not the final say. The next step would be to inquire into the two aspects of that simple definition, what is "change", and what does "results in..." entail (maybe cause).

Sir Philo Sophia

↪Metaphysician Undercover

excellent. now, you are the first here to be going in a constructive, potentially fruitful, direction... I'm all ears...
esp. on any problematic counter-examples or if logical flaws are made, esp. in the nature and implications of the definition if it were assumed to be true...

cheers.

Sir Philo Sophia

↪Metaphysician Undercover

also, as I mention above, everyone here should make sure that any analysis/critique considers the fact that inanimate objects make 'actions' too. So, you have to be very careful to not limit your self/mind only to intentional acts of 'action'...

BC

↪Sir Philo Sophia

Full disclosure: I don't much care how you, or someone else, defines "action". However, as a confessed uninterested party, I would make this suggestion: Simplify.

Why?

The longer, more elaborate, and maybe rococo the definition, the more opportunities for misunderstanding, misconstrual, definitions of the words used to define the term under discussion, unproductive quibbling, and so on.

At some point the lengthy definition departed the road and ended up in the weeds.

Wouldn't your definition for "action" be a lot simpler, and say essentially the same thing if it was worded something like this: "anything which results in a change"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I like MU's definition better than yours. His may not be the best definition possible, but with a glance I can entertain his definition and think about it.

Practice prudent parsimony.

tim wood

inanimate objects make — Sir Philo Sophia

How?

Sir Philo Sophia

↪tim wood

read the Wiki on PLA. all inanimate mater takes actions that are dictated by the principle of least action. So, in that realm, actions are defined by physics, including pure quantum systems that explore all potential actions they could make.

I should point out that in pure quantum state systems there is no entropy change so they make no 'action' (incl. in my definition) until they collapse to make an observable 'result' according to the classical PLA path (per QED).

Hope that helps make more sense of what I mean there.

SophistiCat

I am not going to comment on the "definition," but for those who are actually interested in science, action can be defined in any theory that admits a Lagrangian formulation. Lagrangian dynamics applies to a very important class of theories in physics and other sciences. Invariances of the action integral under continuous transformation were the subject of the famous theorems of Emmy Noether, who related them to symmetries and conservation principles, such as conservation of energy.

Because Lagrangian dynamics is a general mathematical model that is applicable in multiple contexts, action cannot be given a single physical definition that will cover all applications. This is a feature, not a bug. A general definition could be something like "the integral with respect to time, along a possible history or trajectory in configuration space of the system, of a quantity with the dimension of energy" (Butterfield).

A classic introduction to the concept in physics is Feynman's lecture on the principle of least action.

Sir Philo Sophia

action can be defined in any theory that admits a Lagrangian formulation. Lagrangian dynamics applies to a very important class of theories in physics and other sciences. — SophistiCat

excellent and keen comment! Thanks! However, it, unfortunately does not apply at all to any actions performed by a sentient being, so not useful for Sentient actions. Only good for inanimate matter actions (because inanimate matter has no free will so must succumb to give up its PE and/or negentropy according to Lagrangian formulations).

Because Lagrangian dynamics is a general mathematical model that is applicable in multiple contexts, action cannot be given a single physical definition that will cover all applications. This is a feature, not a bug. — SophistiCat

what would you say is the form the Lagrangian takes in describing the mental action path a Sentient being does on its own mental state (e.g., a mental simulation, decisions, change of emotive states, imagination paths, etc)? under my definition those mental acts are all actions that have to violate PLA at least once, thus have no general Lagrangian formulation under my definition.

tim wood

action can be defined in any theory — SophistiCat

Amen, and a small point. Anything can be defined by anyone anyway they choose to define it - whether any good a different topic. Insofar as the definition is a text intended to convey a definite meaning, wrt to that text the language matters, is in fact the first and arguably only thing that matters.

In literature is the concern for le mot juste, the right word. I imagine in the sciences as well, perhaps as the correct word. And do the sciences have their own phrase for that?

tim wood

not useful for Sentient actions. Only good for inanimate matter actions — Sir Philo Sophia

By - using - what metric can you tell the difference?

I'm dogging you not for your ideas, but for language. Indeed, your ideas won't arrive until packaged in the right language. I also think you have not entirely understood your own project. Definition and description are two different things. Are you describing or defining?

Now there is some evidence that English is not your first language. In that case I apologize for being blunt and instead both admire and congratulate you for multi-lingual abilities I do not have. But that's between us. Your definition will be a much more demanding and unrelenting master.

Sir Philo Sophia

By - using - what metric can you tell the difference? — tim wood

as stated in the def., violating the PLA at least once.

Sir Philo Sophia

I also think you have not entirely understood your own project. Definition and description are two different things. Are you describing or defining? — tim wood

both generally, but mostly defining initially. the goal of all these formative scientific definitions is to apply in any context and only be based upon external observables irrespective of the means the entity employs to achieve the observable functional behavior or expressed property required by my definition. Think of the goal like categorizing a bin of unknown objects as one kind or another (apples or oranges) according to the most simple observable definition that works and is practical to implement.

see this part of my OP:
"So, one aspect of this approach is to tie an "Action" to energy and certain types of work that may result. This will support a much broader theory and other definitions to come."

Descriptions are just means to enable the various limitations in my claimed distinguishing definitions of each class and categories of matter/beings/behavior, which I do have as well, yet not to post at this time.

hope this helps you for context.

Outlander

Seems to me nearly anything we'd experience here can be grouped into two or three categories.

Forward action (negentropy?): mixing vinegar and baking soda, a volcanic eruption, water turning into steam, a generator slowly reaching peak production, working out, etc.

Stagnation (plateau, static positioning [which I've heard doesn't truly exist absolutely. it can appear as so for thousands of years or more, like a mountain, but in some tiny way it's either getting bigger/gaining energy or losing it]: like the concept of a still image or fossil frozen in subzero temperatures.

Backward action (entropy): steam turning back into water, losing muscle mass, an active turbine slowing down after being turned off, etc.

Any thoughts on this? Technically one can argue both entropy and negentropy are both actions just in opposite directions whereas true stagnation is obviously the only true non-action, which again some say doesn't truly exist. Basically, to define something, you have to define what it's opposite is first, or at least be aware of it when validating your own, ie. what is and what isn't.

Sir Philo Sophia

Basically, to define something, you have to define what it's opposite is first, or at least be aware of it when validating your own, ie. what is and what isn't. — Outlander

you make some very interesting points! thanks.

no doubt, physics forces everything to make actions on a global basis, yet not at every moment in time or local place. For an imperfect/simple example, when you shoot a bullet up into the air, at the very top of the bullet's maximum PE there is a moment, however brief, when the bullet stalls and stays in place w/o any macro KE and is pure PE, at that point and moment it makes no "action" even if in its next moment it will make a downward KE action. Just like 2nd law does not mean that there cannot be local pockets and moments of negentropy, just that they cannot last long unless you continually input energy (and intelligence!) to keep them that way; e.g., trapping an atom with lasers/mag field suspends and freezes it in a vacuum at near absolute zero Temp, thus no motion or action can be made by the Atom.

tim wood

all these formative scientific definitions... to... only be based upon external observables — Sir Philo Sophia

And this is description not definition.

I suggest to you an exercise - not easy. Take some simple (is best) fact of science that you know - anything at all will do. And then ask yourself how you know. And keep asking. Pretty quickly you will hit a ground level at which you cannot claim to know, but can only presuppose, take for granted as sine qua non for your knowledge.

Sooner or later you shall have to go through this exercise if you're to be any kind of scientist. And imo you need just this kind of deconstruction exercise as part of these efforts of yours to define. It is as if you have tangled many ropes in an attempt to tie knots, not knowing how to tie them. Best to untangle the lines and lay them apart to start again. At the least you might revisit notions of describing and defining to be clearer on the differences between them, and how and why clarity there matters.

Here's a place to start:

as stated in the def., violating the PLA at least once. — Sir Philo Sophia

How do you know? And in case you do not understand the question, which seems to me likely, my point is that you don't know, but rather presuppose and define, and confuse that with description and knowledge.

Sir Philo Sophia

Here's a place to start:
as stated in the def., violating the PLA at least once.
— Sir Philo Sophia
How do you know? And in case you do not understand the question, which seems to me likely, my point is that you don't know, but rather presuppose and define, and confuse that with description and knowledge. — tim wood

thanks for your vague attempts to be helpful and constructive here. As I pointed out to philosopher004 above, see my factual arguments made in comments in my last post for more exactly why and how, which are currently spread out on page 2 here, search for "virus":
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p2

In that prior posts I gave a virus as an example of clearly violating PLA by observables. I suggest you fully read my comments and explanations on that page of that thread

then reframe your critiques/concerns with any intelligent counterpoints you can muster to mine made there.

thx.

tim wood

a virus is alive and takes actions towards a goal.... and argue why a virus is inanimate matter, not making selective decisions to make an action or not. — Sir Philo Sophia

"A virus is alive." Arguably. Arguably not. Are you describing or defining?

"and takes actions towards a goal." Kindly make clear exactly how a virus "takes actions," "towards," " a goal."

"Argue why a virus is inanimate matter." Why? Has anyone suggested that a virus is inanimate matter?

"making selective decisions to make an action or not." What in the world causes you to think any of this as anything reasonable to think or say about viruses? One must conclude from this you do not know what you're talking about. Viruses, at the edge on the border between what is considered alive v. not alive, do not decide, do not select, certainly do not make selective decisions, certainly do not think or do anything like thinking, do not "make" anything,

Whatever it is you think you mean here or are trying to say, you haven't said it.

Sir Philo Sophia

One must conclude from this you do not know what you're talking about. Viruses, at the edge on the border between what is considered alive v. not alive, do not decide, do not select, certainly do not make selective decisions, certainly do not think or do anything like thinking, do not "make" anything, — tim wood

Clearly you did not read my comments on the cited page re virus. Or, you are unable to understand that they are simply highly contextual, molecular state-machine programs. Obviously, that molecular program makes countless selective state-machine, algorithmic decisions to execute the entry and hijacking of cells. So, clearly, you do not know what you are talking about here. Not too different than computer programs, which we all know can make goal directed (i.e., intentional) decisions to take real actions in the real world. wake up!

Sir Philo Sophia

certainly do not think — tim wood

who said thinking is required to make an 'action'??? clearly, you do not understand what an 'action' means. I warned you against this fallacious thinking in my OP. See:
"NOTE: everyone commenting here should make sure that any analysis/critique considers the fact that inanimate objects make 'actions' too. So, you have to be very careful to not limit your self/mind only to intentional acts of 'action'."

and you obviously are clueless what 'action' means in physics, as I tried to school you on in my OP, here:
"My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action" to distinguish/categorize the types of 'actions' performed by Living vs inanimate matter. For those unfamiliar with it, here is the Wiki primer on that:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action
"

Towards a Scientific Definition of an "Action"

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions