Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 404 posts

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#371

Post by namaria »

saiya-jin wrote: post #370
namaria wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this view at all. We are what we are. Entropy is a concept in our mind and heat death is a very particular phenomenon that depends on the systems experiencing it being very specifically defined in ways that the Universe cannot be. We are. Descartes had the right idea. The experience of consciousness is irreducible. To say "we are atoms thinking" and variations thereof is utterly meaningless. All wo…

> A universe without consciousness experiencing it really exists? As long as we don't discover something truly novel this is how reality of this universe looked like before we came since its creation. And it fared just fine.

> since its creation

Interesting turn of phrase about a supposed reality deprived of consciousness. Created.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#372

Post by ajuc »

bmitc wrote: post #367
ajuc wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways for the matter on the moon to dissipate energy faster than moon dust. We could build a moon base for example. It doesn't do it. In fact as far as we know - most of the space in the universe is doing the dissipation in a very inefficient way. Which means the theory that it will do it simply because of the "selection pressure" is empirically wrong. Let's say a huge asteroid sterilized Earth 100 years ago…

> Which means the theory that it will do it simply because of the "selection pressure" is empirically wrong. Again, this is not true. We have empirical evidence that life on Earth began as soon as it could. And the universe doesn't spontaneously do things as you're wishing it to do to support your argument. > Let's say a huge asteroid sterilized Earth 100 years ago. What could the life do to outcompete that? That doe…

> And the universe doesn't spontaneously do things as you're wishing it to do to support your argument.

That's the whole point. The theory reduces to "if conditions are right life will happen" which moves the whole predictive power to the "conditions are right" and leaves the theory with 0 value added.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#373

Post by hackinthebochs »

creer wrote: post #336
scirpaceus wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also an argument that didn't sit well with me when I heard Guillaume Verdon / Beff Jezos on his recent Lex podcast state that the universe wants to produce more entropy, and that life evolved the way it has because it's more efficient at producing heat and entropy than, say, a rock. Perhaps he said that loosely as a figure of speech, because it should be obvious (religious beliefs aside) that the universe doe…

Yes, this "want" of pop science is annoying. I don't see anything lacking with simply using something like "enables", "allows". An environment with sticks allows evolutionary paths that can use sticks. A world with pools of high energy makes it easier for energy-using systems to develop there as opposed to outside of them. A world with light - go figure - makes it possible for light-using systems to subsist.

>Yes, this "want" of pop science is annoying. I don't see anything lacking with simply using something like "enables", "allows".

This misses the fact that the laws that guide the evolution of the universe are such that its evolution is "aimed towards" increasing entropy. This aim then entails what states are more likely over time, i.e. such states that increase the capacity for increasing entropy. It's not just an incidental fact that entropy increases, but that this trajectory is baked into the laws of nature. But the conceptual dual of an aim is a goal or a "want". So while not literally true, I think using intention terminology is more correct and insightful than leaving out any talk of goal-oriented behavior.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#374

Post by zoogeny »

namaria wrote: post #346
zoogeny wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say: "We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition" I mean, you probably don't even realize that this view is influenced by Kant. You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. For example, from the Wikipedia article on Critique of Pure Reason [1], Kant's major work: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a criti…

It's a fairly narrow view if you think I shouldn't philosophize unless I conform in full to all YOU have read.

I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it.

To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then someone mentions Einstein, and you respond that you couldn't be bothered understanding the general theory of relativity because the math is too hard.

I mean, no one is saying you should read Einstein, just that Einstein had some things to add to the ideas of gravity that are worth considering. And if you want any theory of gravity that you have baked up on your own to be taken seriously, you will find that others will expect you to show some familiarity with his theories. And further, there is a wealth of material on his theories that does not require you to engage directly with the esoteric math.

The same is true about Kant (although, to be fair this is philosophy and not physics, so he didn't supplant Descartes in the same way Einstein did Newton). He added explicitly to the question about the bounds of knowledge with respect to experience. So if you are making claims about that subject then it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some familiarity with his contribution.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#375

Post by namaria »

zoogeny wrote: post #374
namaria wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fairly narrow view if you think I shouldn't philosophize unless I conform in full to all YOU have read.

I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it. To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then som…

> So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger.

> You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism.

You kept putting me down because my ideas don't jibe with your readings. Now you're comparing philosophy with physics.

I am trying stay away from such pedantic bibliographic review. You keep appealing to authority to minimize my contributions. This is why I didn't want to go down this road. Thanks for dragging me.

> your viewpoint is well over 200 years old

Hate to break this to you but the ideas I'm talking about are well over 3000 years old. Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#376

Post by qingcharles »

illuminant wrote: post #361
blueprint wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"life is the process from birth until death" "life is the way to make anything happen to you" without a body (via life), a consciousness cant do anything

It is amazing this (perhaps pithy) comment is so down voted, yet you do make one very appropriate observation. Without a body a consciousness cannot do anything. The obvious answer the so-called-science occult refuse to entertain is that consciousness is the universe inflecting itself and life is a subjective scope of potential capacitating this consciousness. Life is the vessel and consciousness the universe peering…

What's a body? It doesn't have to be anything more than ones and zeros.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#377

Post by gcanko »

jiggawatts wrote: post #294
wanderingstan wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been a while, but in this vein I enjoyed Chaitin’s Toward a Mathematical definition of “Life” : http://home.thep.lu.se/~henrik/mnxa09/Chaitin1979.pdf Blew my mind as I started to wrap my brain around information theory.

The Lex Fridman interview with Lee Cronin "Controversial Nature Paper on Evolution of Life and Universe" really opened my eyes. I find myself agreeing with the essential points Lee lays out, that there is a mathematical / physics-based definition for life or life-like systems such as advanced AI and robotics. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGiDqhSdLHk

I’ve always had the feeling that consciousness is part of the fabric of reality just like time and gravity.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#378

Post by zoogeny »

namaria wrote: post #375
zoogeny wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I'm pointing out a few facts including that your viewpoint is well over 200 years old, that specifically Kant addressed it and influenced the entire discussion around it, that it is clear you haven't considered his or any other philosophers rebuttal to it. To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then som…

> So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger. > You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism. You kept putting me down because my ideas don't jibe with your readings. Now you're comparing philosophy with physics. I am trying stay away from such pedantic bibliographic review. You keep appealing to authority to minimize my contributions. This is why…

> Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition.

Perhaps, yet how would you know if you refuse to engage with it?

I'm not sure how to respond when someone insists on remaining ignorant of alternative viewpoints and then suggests that any attempt to point out relevant arguments against their position is victimizing them.

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#379

Post by [deleted] »

mekoka wrote: post #333
lutusp wrote: post #164

"Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe? (arxiv.org)" Easily answered: * We don't know how consciousness comes into being, indeed we can't rigorously define it or unambiguously identify its presence or absence. * We believe we have it, but we aren't sure whether other animals and/or objects possess it. * Therefore, based on Occam's razor, we may provisionally assume that all ma…

Hardline materialism is indeed dying and the presumption that all matter possesses a degree of consciousness currently has two major undercurrents: panpsychism and idealism. Most scientists that operate under the assumption that consciousness, as we experience it, is an emergent property align toward panpsychism, matter and consciousness somehow being co-primitives in the ontology to kickstart reality. But there are…

[deleted]

Re: Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

#380

Post by lioeters »

bmitc wrote: post #296
lioeters wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I'm familiar with the work of Ilya Prigogine, and the first linked article is one of my favorites that I've read several times. The relationship between life and entropy is a fascinating topic for sure.

It seems we've talked at each other then, haha.

Oh I didn't notice you were getting downvoted up there in the parent comment, it wasn't me! :)

Anyway, I'm now going back to read Prigogine's book, Order Out of Chaos. It's also brought me around to think and study more about self-organization and emergent properties of complex systems.

About "A New Physics Theory of Life", and the idea that life exists because "the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties".. I see this is what you meant by "entropy is the process that drives life".

> Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize.

Re-reading the article, I'm struck by how entropy and organization are, seemingly paradoxically, two sides of the same coin. It feels like there's something profound there, some principle that explains many phenomena at different scales all at once.

Post reply on HN