Good reporting of a simple idea that me and my under-graduate colleagues discussed 30+ years ago!
This is not a "new" theory -- rather it is simply new reporting of an old idea.
A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#12The Paper is here http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v10/n11/abs/nnano.2015.2... It's actually pretty easy to read and interesting! I first saw this here: http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life-in-... Nautilus, Quanta Cosmos... all of them great publications for futurists
I've seen a similar theory published before: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/86/2013047....
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#13I have my own theory about how life and entropy interrelate. I think total entropy in the universe starts at zero and will end at zero. This is because 'order' must be considered 'negative entropy'. As the universe evolves over time patterns in molecules and behaviors of molecules begin to occur. Starting with particles, atoms, molecules, compounds, planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. Physics doesn't drive just randomness, but it also drives order.
So you ask what is the ultimate MOST NEGATIVE entropy that exists? Life. Specifically brains. Life forms are the most ordered things in the universe (non-random/order). Brains are massively large negative entropy locations in the universe. If you total up all positive entropy and negative entropy the balance out to zero. The reason is because the laws of physics don't change and DO create patterns.
You can even study this "Zero Entropy" law in Conway's Game of Life. As the randomness increases over time to does the 'order', and i argue that the roughly cancel out. It's a kind of 'information conservation' at work here. If no new information is added into a system, it cannot gain or lose entropy, because all the random events are creating 'patterns' and by definition a pattern is an non-randomness and therefore negative entropy.
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution probably goes back before cells. The first living thing would have to be a self-replicating molecule that uses energy. Different forms of this self-replicating molecule would have different reproductive success. There is a not-unpopular theory that the original form of life on earth was an RNA molecule. RNA is a special molecule, because it can both act as a store of data, and as an enzyme for catalyzing re…
Going further back, are planets and stars forming also part of evolution?
I suppose it would depend on the context of the discussion.
Evolution can be defined as a gradual development of some thing. This thing does not necessarily have to be defined as life. Since celestial formations develop from a starting state then yeah, they can be considered evolution.
In the context of the conversation as it pertains to life, I would imagine that a discussion of evolutionary life would start at the moment a given thing becomes capable of change as it replicates.
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#15I have my own theory about how life and entropy interrelate. I think total entropy in the universe starts at zero and will end at zero. This is because 'order' must be considered 'negative entropy'. As the universe evolves over time patterns in molecules and behaviors of molecules begin to occur. Starting with particles, atoms, molecules, compounds, planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc. Physics doesn't drive just ra…
What you describe is not your theory, it's pretty much conventional understanding of what life is in terms of thermodynamics -- a local capsule of low entropy. It's just that in formal treatment of thermodynamics, there is no negative entropy, there is just high entropy and low entropy. Also, the total entropy of the universe is largely irrelevant. This view is nothing new. What is new (or claimed to be new) about the work reported here is what drives the emergence of these capsules of low entropy.
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#16An interesting question to ask is how far does it go up the emergence ladder. E.g. do the organisms dissipating more energy have better chances of survival? Or perhaps even whether industries producing more infrared radiation are the most effective ones? Ultimately (if this is true) - would it be possible to increase efficiency of a complex system (social, financial, computational - doesn't matter) by consciously shi…
>E.g. do the organisms dissipating more energy have better chances of survival? in general, no. E.g., a child with a high fever will dissipate more energy than a child without a fever over the same time period. who is more likely to survive? We can even consider a specific type of dissipation that an organism uses to store memories (longer lifetime of memory = less reversible = requires more dissipation), there's no…
Let me reframe my question this way: given the child you mentioned, would he/she be better off in life if you construct and provide such a framework where that child could consume and dissipate more energy than other children?
That is, can we control (not just predict) the outcome by manipulating dissipation patterns?
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#17This theory strikes me as teleological rather than explanatory-- it explains phenomena in terms of their effects rather than their causes. Effects come afterwards, so they can't be the explanation for something that's already happened. Really I do not see what this idea is supposed to add. Darwinian evolution is a perfectly complete, tight, and verified explanation for the existence and complexity of life.
> Effects come afterwards, so they can't be the explanation for something that's already happened.
actually theory of emergence of dissipative structures in the energy flows is kind of showing that the energy flow, i.e. 2nd law is the cause, not the effect
>Really I do not see what this idea is supposed to add.
even without showing it as a cause, there is still important role of these works is to show compatibility at all stages and scales of the life process with the basic physics laws like the 2nd law. We kind of intuitively know that this is true, yet to be shown scientifically true is still a pretty big work.
>Darwinian evolution is a perfectly complete, tight, and verified explanation for the existence and complexity of life.
Does it explain clearly and in all the details why we have RNA and those 20 amino acids instead of some other structure and those amino acids that has recently been and will be more in future synthesized in the lab? "Better fit" is obviously a right answer, yet it doesn't provide any details on what specifically was better "fit" with "what". It is like Archimedes law - we still have huge field of naval engineering resulting in multitude of hulls, etc.. despite the law itself being "complete, tight, and verified explanation".
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#18An interesting question to ask is how far does it go up the emergence ladder. E.g. do the organisms dissipating more energy have better chances of survival? Or perhaps even whether industries producing more infrared radiation are the most effective ones? Ultimately (if this is true) - would it be possible to increase efficiency of a complex system (social, financial, computational - doesn't matter) by consciously shi…
> increase efficiency of a complex system (social, financial, computational - doesn't matter) by consciously shifting the radiation it emits to the lower end of the spectrum
You take energy too literally here. You could say a spoiled child has evolved to be an efficient money dissipation system.
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#19How far back does evolution go? Is it the time the first cells were created? Or does it go even further back?
Evolution is a mathematical model - any time you have a replicating configuration of something and a selection pressure, you have evolution.
Reading this article I realized that entropy is actively eliminating systems that are not efficient enough at compensating (various non-living chemical structures), making it much more profitable to be one of the systems that can compensate against it (living cells). By overcoming this threshold of entropy, life has gained resiliency. Without the constant destructive effect of entropy, probably there could be no life. Life is both created and destroyed by entropy.
On a parallel note, deep learning neural nets rely on randomness in connectivity and order of examples, and sometimes just consumes random numbers and turn them into coherent images or sounds. Entropy/randomness is essential in Reinforcement Learning in the exploration-exploitation dilemma - we need to discover the space of possibilities, and in order to do that we need randomness. Interesting how chaos is tangent with intelligence and life, it is practically creating a space for them.
Re: A New Physics Theory of Life (2014)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evolution probably goes back before cells. The first living thing would have to be a self-replicating molecule that uses energy. Different forms of this self-replicating molecule would have different reproductive success. There is a not-unpopular theory that the original form of life on earth was an RNA molecule. RNA is a special molecule, because it can both act as a store of data, and as an enzyme for catalyzing re…
Going further back, are planets and stars forming also part of evolution?
I would say no, because they are not self-replicating things.
A part of the definition of living things is that they reproduce. That reproduction (with variation) is a necessary precursor to evolution. Stars and planets do not reproduce themselves, so they cannot be said to undergo selective evolution.