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
"

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!

It's like saying the laws of thermodynamics are wrong because a forming planet clearly lowers entropy by pressing particles into a sphere. — Echarmion

bad example. 2nd law covers that by saying the entropy had to shift to outside of the lowered entropy system. my virus example is not shifting PLA anywhere. PLA completely does not apply to predict the virus path or behavior or future potential energy.

If a situation falls outside a model, it does not violate it. It's — Echarmion

if you think something always applies to everything possible (as said for PLA) then that expectation is violated and the scope of (PLA) applicability become much more limited (e.g., not to control under algorithmic intelligence). that is what I mean.

Are you under the impression that a missile cannot be explained by physics? All of the things you named can be physically described, and each step conforms (presumably) to the known laws to a large extent. The fuel in a rocket is just another source of energy that, if activated, will naturally affect the path it takes.

The only thing that's missing from a purely materialistic take would be the internal act of choosing. — Echarmion

nope. see my above. physics does not apply to contextual algorithms under self control that have the ability to gain and not spend PE when PLA would ask for it (efficiently) back. those can manipulate physics and environment to serve their needs/goals, not be completely controlled/limited by local physical dynamics, can shift physics limits to other parts of the (dead) system. locally alive using physics to beat/avoid physics in achieving its goals, which goals are greater than what PLA would have dictated otherwise.

Again, the laws of physics don't apply? — Echarmion

sure. why does that hurt your head? what laws of physics apply to intelligence or consciousness???

Which would imply any change of conditions would violate the PLA, but as I noted outside energy doesn't need to come from a sentient source. — Echarmion

no. only changes where the matter inefficiently spends addition KE and employs intelligence to reconfigure its own matter and redirect its own KE against all the natural forces, and resist giving up its PE when PLA would otherwise dictate it. I say no inanimate matter can do that combo. Please give me your best example of inanimate matter can do that combo. thx.

Control is only necessary if you intend the eventual part to align with the desired part, which incidentally is how I would describe having a "will". But the principle of least energy only tells you what path an object will actually take, not whether that path conforms to some goal. — Echarmion

so see above. You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it, so PLA obviously does not apply to predicting the path of a virus, but does perfectly for a dust particle. Thus, among satisfying other requirements, my definition says a virus is alive, and a dust particle is inanimate.

Why would any control be necessary? Clearly particles have been subject to the influx of energy from some source, so as to change their paths, before life was around? — Echarmion

dead particles have no choice but to flow with the forces and energy that completely dictate their motion under PLA. please explain exactly why a virus particle behaves and achieves its goal compared to a dust particle which blows aimlessly in the wind, and you'll start seeing what I mean. PLA completely predicts where the dust particle will end up once you know all the forces and fields acting on it. You can never know, not even statistically, where a virus particle will end up even if you know all the forces and fields acting on it. See what I mean???

This is a quote from a lecture from Feynman, available online, on the principle of least action:
In other words, the laws of Newton could be stated not in the form F=ma but in the form: the average kinetic energy less the average potential energy is as little as possible for the path of an object going from one point to another. — Echarmion

sure, but does not apply to my example as I mentioned above. Clearly, the goal of changing the missile's trajectory from natural ballistic to instead take the path of most action required spending KE and negentropy not accounted for by PLA as it brings new forces and dynamics to the equation governing the objects motion, for which there is no Lagrangian equation that can be formed to model. Thus, the PLA simply cannot be applied to those non-Lagrangian dynamics (i.e., it is violated) at some point during the path transformation process, when path motion was actively changed from natural ballistic to the new controlled path of most action . I'm all ears, how otherwise...

Note that for a given "path of least action", the start position, end position and the time it takes to get from one to the other are given. So if you're going to add kinetic energy from the outside, one of these variables needs to change. — Echarmion

no. that only works if all the forces on object are a constant field throughout the path, such that a Lagrangian equation can be formed. no dice! violates PLA per my above.

But by adding excess kinetic energy, you obviously change the entire flightpath and so rather than violating the PLA, you have simply moved from one path to another, both being the paths of PLA for the given input of kinetic and potential energy. — Echarmion

no. when the ballistic motion turned into motion that defied gravity it required excess PE and free will control of exactly how and where to and when to enact and direct converting PE to KE. And, as pointed out by SophistiCat here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9765/scientific-definition-of-an-action

PLA only applies where motion/actions are dictated purely by Lagrangian dynamics as the general mathematical model. So, please explain what dynamics model can account for "turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against the downward force of gravity"? There is no Lagrangian model that covers that dyanmic (Sentient) behavior, so PLA is violated, esp. b/c it required inefficiently spending addition KE and intelligence to reconfigure the matter and redirect its own KE against all the natural forces. I'm all ears how anyone explains otherwise...

Why would I do this if I have no purpose in mind? I don't see how the result could be useful. — Echarmion

sorry to break it to you, but that is what all definitions do. Maybe you are not aware, but the human mind is completely structured to define and categorize everything into distinct and distinguished groups whenever it can. If you are not interested in that defining endeavor then philo of mind may not be your strong suit.

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.

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.

Personally I would prefer a long essay if it is at least self-contained. — Mijin

these are top level, minimal definitions based on very simple observables. So, no essay needed. PLA was the only concept most will not know, so the Wiki answers that.

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.

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

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

The way I understand it, that principle is a law of physics, so any actual physical process will conform to it. It's not strictly possible to will an action that takes a path not in conformity with the principle of least action. — Echarmion

according to my definitions, an object can deviate from PLA if it has at least "primitive free will" and excess PE to spend, at very high cost, to avoid PLA. For example, if you balletically shoot a missile from the ground into the air it must follow the PLA path under the force field of gravity making a parabolic path back down to the ground. However, when you turn on the missile's rocket booster and change the control surfaces to redirect air lift forces to point upward, then the missile has redirected and powered itself to exactly to go completely against PLA, indeed it is taking the path of most action, going directly upward against gravity, and can continue to do so until it burns all of its PE (fuel) to achieve the least KE efficient motion possible. My definition says that no inanimate matter can do this on its own. This behavior is the hallmark of a living being involvement.

Please show me any examples which violate the PLA as I describe and have no living being involved, or how you figure my above is all consistent w/ being dictated by the PLA.

thx.

There is no way to prove freedom except by exercising it, but to put it in doubt is to refrain from exercising it, thus proving its inexistence through a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Rafaella Leon

I completely disagree with that type of thinking and conclusions. When any matter violates the PLA at any given point then you know it has a type of free will to do so.

It would be useful to first know why you want to define free will. That is, for what kind of consideration is it necessary to establish whether or not something has or is acting according to free will. — Echarmion

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.

hope this helps you for context.

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.

A dictionary definition of "understand" is "perceive the intended meaning of". Another dictionary says "to grasp the meaning of". — Daemon

Curious, and hypocritical, that to support your arguments you use definitions which are circular, so very flawed, because one would need to know already what perceive" or "meaning" is so as to know what the true definition of 'understand' is. However, when I try to ground definitions away from such useless circular ones, you said that is a circular endeavor that is doomed to fail as we can not define a partial truth before knowing the full truth.

You should not cite things that you don't believe in as useful truths for the sake of arguments.

care to revise your position on that?

If the semiotic relation between symbols and physics is formally irreducible - at the level of mathematical proof, as has been argued by CS Peirce, Robert Rosen, Howard Pattee, etc - then that trumps the more limited claim of TMs as "universal computers". — apokrisis

I think you make many great points on this thread, which I tend to mostly agree with in spirit, if not exact details. If not formally, how does semiotics best deal with bridging physics to the symbols via and over the epistemic cut? Can you point me to the latest, best research white paper you think would answer that for me?
thx.

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.

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'...

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.

Your hypothesis is "A virus fits the correct definition of 'alive'". But this can only be confirmed or falsified if we already know the correct definition. — Daemon

no. these are called best working definitions, which have verifiable consequences when combined with broader theories and observations.

This is a philosophy forum. — Daemon

yes, and that is where counter-examples or logical flaws are made, esp. in the nature and implications of the definition if it were assumed to be true. Apparently, you are not a good philosopher, and/or have little knowledge on the subject. thanks for trying. best wishes....

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...

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'.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Hi. I'm not interested in a philosophical debate on your idea that no definition can ever be made before you "know in advance what the correct definition is." I suggest you create a discussion on that topic in the Philo of science b/c the whole scientific method is premised on starting w/ a Hypothesis, which is defacto a glorified and uncertain, initially maybe false, definition. I am a scientist, so I'm fine with that process. everyone else will always be stuck to the confines of what they "know". Good luck with that!

In any case, if you look at a fluid on the level of a fluid rather than as an ensemble of particles, compression is an increase in potential energy, just like compressing a spring is. You can look at a lower level and see it as an increase in kinetic energy instead, but you can always do that for any potential energy. — Pfhorrest

BTW, Wiki defines PE the way I learned and understand it, which does not include your reinterpretation. In a spring, you have no KE, all the PE forces come from elastic stretching of the molecular bond of the solid. A gas has no analogy to that. You need particle statistical ensemble math to estimate the outward force all the KE of the particles will push back with as you try to compress it, and as you compress the gas it will cool so it looses KE and pressure drops too. That is how air conditioners cool air. So, I don't think you got that thinking right. In any case, that is an example of why I'll stick with my PE or Negentropy def.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
In physics, potential energy is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.[1][2]
...
Since the work of potential forces acting on a body that moves from a start to an end position is determined only by these two positions, and does not depend on the trajectory of the body, there is a function known as potential that can be evaluated at the two positions to determine this work.
...
Potential energy is the energy by virtue of an object's position relative to other objects.[5] Potential energy is often associated with restoring forces such as a spring or the force of gravity. The action of stretching a spring or lifting a mass is performed by an external force that works against the force field of the potential. This work is stored in the force field, which is said to be stored as potential energy. If the external force is removed the force field acts on the body to perform the work as it moves the body back to the initial position, reducing the stretch of the spring or causing a body to fall.

Glad to see you responding to feedback so positively! That’s a refreshing change for this forum. — Pfhorrest

Meritocracy! I'm almost 100% results oriented kind of person. I play to win (true results). So, I do my best to check any ideologies I may have at the door. I suspect that most people w/ purported strong Philosophies come mostly w/ strong ideologies...

BTW, tomorrow I'll be making a post in Mind Philo cat. re "Scientific Def of 'Action'...", following a similar format and building upon concepts in my OP here. I look forward to your continued very keen insights and constructive critiques, even when we will (usually) inevitably diverge at some point on approaches/theories.

cheers!

So wherever you have something at a higher energy state than it possibly could be, with some potential for its energy to be dissipated somewhere else that’s presently at lower energy, you have a low-entropy condition. — Pfhorrest

can you think of the best example of a living organism which stores/uses internal PE in the way you are saying re controlled pressure gradients using internal imbalances of KE to do work for them? The only kind I can think of is an air bladder in marine fish, which control the bladder air volume to do more efficient locomotion work in changing/keeping their water depth in the ocean/lakes. Is that the kind of internal KE/entropy gradient used by living organisms to do real work w/o technically storing PE?

I think you are right, so I just added ", any internal energy gradients, " to my OP def. to cover that kind of PE.

thx again.

thanks for explaining! I find that I understand and agree with all your points. That said, I'm going to stick w/ my CYA (hedging) approach and just claim both are required in the "and/or" to cover all situations. My instinct here is that you cannot define it in terms of pure entropy changes b/c what equations do we have to quantify the work potential of an entropy gradient of water lifted up off the ground by so many feet? However, we have clear and easy PE equations to exactly calculate that. So, you may be right in the theoretical abstract, and semantics, but in practice do we have entropy equations to calculate all kinds of work potential in terms of entropy diffs only? Please point me to such equations!

that said, may boil down to semantics since we seem to agree on the substance of my proposed definition framework b/c you def. talks about 'energy gradients' if I recall right. So, the way you've explained 'energy gradients' above would cover both diffs in PE and diffs in Entropy. right?

what about the rest of my definition requirements?

thx.

entropy of that entire system (volume and its surrounding environment together) increases. — Pfhorrest

isn't that another way of saying that the mass of the system stayed the same, thus no PE change but there was an entropy change, so PE not always tied to entropy, which is what I'm getting at?

My original example was considering the volume of gas, and probably some additional equipment, apart from its environment. Pumping gas into, or heating up the gas in, the volume, relative to the surrounding environment, increases the potential energy there — Pfhorrest

I can much more follow your spring example than gas. So, I'll reply to that one in more detail. However, can you please explain to me exactly where you are proposing that external heat energy transferred from outside is stored in an ideal gas? As I point out, I only see the gas' KE increasing w/ no way to store PE, and even if it could (e.g., molecules attract somehow) I figure any PE would increase would decrease the gas' entropy. So, please tell me exactly how the gas gains PE w/ injected heat energy. thx.

Forming chemical bonds (making sugar out of CO2 and water using photosynthesis, for example) also both increases local entropy and stores potential energy. — Pfhorrest

sure, but there are just as many ways to increase PE while decreasing entropy; e.g., storing free electrons into a chem-battery should reduce total entropy (except for resistive losses). So, the key I'm saying is that entropy gradients alone does cover all cases where living matter can avoid PLA over time.

And under my own theory, things that don't technically increase the potential energy of the living system, but just reduce its local entropy, still count. — Pfhorrest

If you read my comments above to apokrisis you'll I implicitly agree with that, esp. for local avoidance of PLA. However, globally, I'm saying excess PE is what enables getting past canyons where there are no entropy gradients to exploit for work. It is really an obvious point when you think about it. When you get up and walk from here to there you are not primarily exploiting any entropy gradients you are burning chem-bonds PE and converting to KE b/c no entropy gradients to exploit. Now, if you want to jump off a cliff to get KE w/o burning any of your PE, you can do that too!

BTW, I'm currently defining many other Sentience related terms. My latest is "action" and "free will". In wordsmithing 'action' I realized that I had to include entropy option as well, so you might like it better, as I think you are right on that part. I copied that part of my 'action' definition (in progress) to amend my OP. So, see this new part in my OP:

In other words, the self-enacted kinetic energy of inanimate matter must always 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 dictate. 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 negentropy than it started with, thereby preserving the most potential energy or negentropy possible against that which the Principle of least action would otherwise dictate.

but because it's now out of equilibrium with its environment, that still creates a stored energy gradient that can be used to do work, as gas from the environment rushes back into the volume. — Pfhorrest

Ah, so what you mean by gas PE is really a pressure gradient between 2 selectively connected reservoirs w/ on pumped to high pressure from another to low pressure. is that it? no other PE possible w/ gas, right? However, is that really defined as PE b/c all the hi gas pressure you are calling PE is all from the molecules KE. In physic PE c an have no motion, so that is why I never can understand what you mean by gas having PE to do thermodynamics work.

it has a lower-energy state it will try to get to, which we can use to make it do work. — Pfhorrest

that is not how entropy is defined. Entropy is degree of non-random spreading throughout all possible micro-states. nothing to do w/ moving to "a lower-energy state". moving to "a lower-energy state" is the domain of PE under PLA and minimum PE principle. Please clarify why I'm wrong on this.

great discussion... thanks!