You're not getting it. I leave you to your physics. It's your language that's out-of-order, and to the extent that it calls your thinking itself into question.

Obviously, that molecular program makes countless selective state-machine, algorithmic decisions — Sir Philo Sophia

No. Decisions they do not make. Informally, the distinction does not really matter because most folks will suppose they know what you mean. But you want

.... a scientific definition. — Sir Philo Sophia

And that's not going to happen with the language you're using and how you use it. But here I leave you to it.

And that's not going to happen with the language you're using and how you use it. But here I leave you to it. — tim wood

so, why don't you be constructive, and propose language fixes that keep the spirit of my approach in tact? otherwise, you are not helpful, and just rhetoric.. like any art critique who cannot make their own art.

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

My point wasn't that you can define action however you want. It was rather the opposite: action has an established definition in Lagrangian dynamics. But Lagrangian dynamics is just a mathematical framework that is applied differently in different contexts. Once you define your Lagrangian (a mathematical object), then the definition of action follows straightforwardly from that. But how the Lagrangian is cached out in physical terms is going to vary from one theory to another. It is one thing in non-relativistic classical mechanics, another - in relativistic classical mechanics, yet another in quantum mechanics, etc.

Here is a random example from the literature:

This paper proposes a theory for understanding perceptual learning processes within the general framework of laws of nature. Neural networks are regarded as systems whose connections are Lagrangian variables, namely functions depending on time. They are used to minimize the cognitive action, an appropriate functional index that measures the agent interactions with the environment. The cognitive action contains a potential and a kinetic term that nicely resemble the classic formulation of regularization in machine learning. A special choice of the functional index, which leads to forth-order differential equations---Cognitive Action Laws (CAL)---exhibits a structure that mirrors classic formulation of machine learning. In particular, unlike the action of mechanics, the stationarity condition corresponds with the global minimum. Moreover, it is proven that typical asymptotic learning conditions on the weights can coexist with the initialization provided that the system dynamics is driven under a policy referred to as information overloading control. Finally, the theory is experimented for the problem of feature extraction in computer vision. — Cognitive Action Laws: The Case of Visual Features

Here the Lagrangian formulation is given to a mathematical model of a perceptual learning process. The action here doesn't even have the units of energy x time, as it usually does in physics. But given the context of the model, it is unambiguously defined.

I am not going to comment on the OP "theory" with regard to animate vs. inanimate matter, which he somehow wants to cram into the definition of action. I was just giving some context on how action is actually defined in mainstream science for those who may have chanced on this thread.

I am a scientist — Sir Philo Sophia

Having made that statement you are obliged to supply details. — jgill

???

Guess you may not be a professional scientist. No big deal. :roll:

MU provided this:

anything which results in a change — Metaphysician Undercover

I quibbled a bit and suggested this:

that which causes change — tim wood

Outlander this:

Forward action (negentropy?): Stagnation (plateau, static positioning, Backward action (entropy): — Outlander

And @SophistiCat instructs us all.

It's a word you want to define, "action." I favour mine, "that which causes change." It leaves but two words to further explicate, "cause" and "change." And I'm pretty sure you'll find explicating these two a good day's work, or even several days, with plenty of room for qualification and excursus. Of course you shall have to come to an understanding of these terms, which ought to be an education in itself.

Or as a challenge: if "action" is that which causes change, then at the least you should have little problem laying out "cause" and "change." Can you do it?

Once you define your Lagrangian (a mathematical object), then the definition of action follows straightforwardly from that. But how the Lagrangian is cached out in physical terms is going to vary from one theory to another. It is one thing in non-relativistic classical mechanics, another - in relativistic classical mechanics, yet another in quantum mechanics, etc. — SophistiCat

I disagree with you on that.

PLA simply does not always apply. So, it is wrong as a universal principle as it can never apply to predicting or modeling "intelligent control" situations. PLA prescribes the exact path the object has to take if you know the starting and ending locations and a constant force field that acts on it. So, I'll give you a simpler example: You can never predict where a human piloted glider will end up landing, even though it expends no KE beyond that which PLA proscribes and is motion is completely determined by PLA at each moment, but PLA does not apply (i.e., becomes useless as a predictive equation) when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to change forces acting on it (e.g., changing glider control surfaces) towards its goal (e.g., gaining more PE or choosing where to land), hence no Lagrangian dynamics equation is possible, so no PLA application is possible. Moreover, it is impossible to know the path the piloted glider took even if you knew the starting and ending locations and every molecule of air flow information, b/c the configuration and "intelligent" program control and configuration of the control surfaces at every point along the true path are never knowable ex-post facto. Thus, PLA can never apply to modeling such "intelligent control" situation.

So, please propose the type of Lagrangian mathematical object that would model such "intelligent control" situations which otherwise render the PLA useless in those situations?

Let me make it more simple for you: there are no laws of motion which govern the motion of a particle under contextual algorithmic/programmatic (i.e., "intelligent") control. So, it is nonsense to say PLA (or any physics laws of motion) describes the path which any living matter must take. Hence, the soundness of my definition!!!

In more detail, that is, I say there are no Lagrangian mathematical descriptors that are possible b/c Lagrangian mechanics requires variables that are functions depending on time and requires a constraint equation and only applies be applied to systems whose constraints are all holonomic. Clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" as I've explained it (e.g., when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to contextually change forces and KE acting on it), which means their equations of motion are not functions depending of time, but functions of context. Hence, PLA can never apply to modeling such systems under "intelligent control". Seems obvious to me, but if you can evidence otherwise, I'm all ears...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
One or more of the particles may each be subject to one or more holonomic constraints; such a constraint is described by an equation of the form f(r, t) = 0. If the number of constraints in the system is C, then each constraint has an equation, f1(r, t) = 0, f2(r, t) = 0, ... fC(r, t) = 0, each of which could apply to any of the particles. If particle k is subject to constraint i, then fi(rk, t) = 0. At any instant of time, the coordinates of a constrained particle are linked together and not independent. The constraint equations determine the allowed paths the particles can move along, but not where they are or how fast they go at every instant of time. Nonholonomic constraints depend on the particle velocities, accelerations, or higher derivatives of position. Lagrangian mechanics can only be applied to systems whose constraints, if any, are all holonomic. Three examples of nonholonomic constraints are:[11]when the constraint equations are nonintegrable, when the constraints have inequalities, or with complicated non-conservative forces like friction. Nonholonomic constraints require special treatment, and one may have to revert to Newtonian mechanics, or use other methods.

Here is a random example from the literature:

This paper proposes a theory for understanding perceptual learning processes within the general framework of laws of nature — SophistiCat

Nice reference, however, that approach only works with a Lagrangian b/c it is a pure function of time and the dynamics of their learning processes are only applicable to those have stochastic gradients, which does not apply to the general (e.g., Genetic) algorithm programs/learning behavior control systems, such as a molecular program of a virus.

Clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" — Sir Philo Sophia

Seems obvious to me — Sir Philo Sophia

I am curious, is this your personal theory about animate matter, or did you read it somewhere?

I should note that of course there are other senses of "action," and one can also come up with their own definition for some purpose. I only insisted on this particular definition from physics because that was the context set by the OP (although he then wanders from it a bit).

I am curious, is this your personal theory about animate matter, or did you read it somewhere? — SophistiCat

my personal one, part of building a much grander theory of sentience.