Please reframe your example "store of potential energy in a hot or high-pressure volume of gas, that you can use to do work by releasing it into the environment" to make sense in the above context. — Sir Philo Sophia

Your counterexample is including the inside of the volume and its surrounding environment as the system under consideration. In that case, energy remains constant (modulo the inevitable leakage at the edges of the environment), and the entropy of that entire system (volume and its surrounding environment together) increases.

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, like your theory says is part of the definition of life. It also pulls it out of equilibrium with its surrounding environment, i.e. decreasing its local entropy, as my theory says is part of the definition of life.

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

I basically agree with your theory, as I said in my first post in this thread. But the reason I like it so much is that it reminds me so much of my own.

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. If you had two volumes of gas at equal pressure, and used energy from photosynthesis to pump gas from one volume to the other, you wouldn't be increasing the potential energy in the system overall*, but you would be decreasing entropy, and when you let it return to equilibrium you can use that to do work.

You could also, as I said earlier, use a flow of energy (like photosynthesis, again) to pump gas out of a fixed volume, decreasing the amount of energy in the system, 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.

*(I'm actually not sure that that really wouldn't increase the total energy and hence mass of the system, because I'm pretty sure that a spring under tension technically has higher mass because of the energy it's storing).

I picked compressing gas as my example because it just seemed like a convenient non-chemical way to store energy, but think about springs instead if you want, if the entropy of the gas itself rather than the system it's a part of is distracting you. A spring under tension is out of equilibrium, it's not in the state it would naturally "want" to be in, so it takes work to put it into that state, and you can get work out of it by letting it out of that state. That's why I also mentioned water energy storage. What's important there is that water is out of equilibrium, it has a lower-energy state it will try to get to, which we can use to make it do work. Entropy isn't only about ensembles of microscopic particles. Big chunks of things moving around can change the entropy of the system they're a part of too. Anything being out of equilibrium in any way is a lower-entropy state.

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!

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? — Sir Philo Sophia

You can have a change in entropy without a change in PE, but you can’t have a change in PE without a change in entropy.

Or more to the point here, if you’re going to store up some energy inside a system for later use, that will always cause a decrease in local entropy, because you have to pull things out of equilibrium to do that. But you can also pull things out of equilibrium, in a way that can be used to do later work, without storing up energy: just reorganizing it, or even removing it, can accomplish the same thing.

both increases local entropy and stores potential energy.
— Pfhorrest

sure, but there are just as many ways to increase PE while decreasing entropy — Sir Philo Sophia

That was a typo on my part, I meant “decreases” where I wrote “increases”.

I'm saying excess PE is what enables getting past canyons where there are no entropy gradients to exploit for work. — Sir Philo Sophia

I get that, and I mostly agree with it, but I am pointing out that you can “store energy” for use like that in a way that doesn’t actually require increasing your internal energy. Say you’re a car powered by compressed air. Rather than having to take in more air from the environment and compress it (increasing your energy), you could instead pump air from inside one chamber of yourself into another, creating a vacuum and a compression tank, making no change in energy. Or you could instead just pump air out of yourself to create a vacuum, reducing your energy. In any case, when you allow things to return to equilibrium you can exploit that flow of air to turn your wheels and get up over this next hill.

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. — Sir Philo Sophia

It really depends on what level of abstraction you’re dealing with. At the deepest level everything is in constant motion at c and it is only the many momentary pauses to interact with other fields that creates the appearance of rest mass. This same phenomenon is how chemical bonds store energy, by confining the motion of their constituent particles.

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.

Entropy is degree of non-random spreading throughout all possible micro-states. nothing to do w/ moving to "a lower-energy state". — Sir Philo Sophia

Maximum entropy is where energy is spread out as randomly as possible. Any deviation from that will mean that there is some energy somewhere that is at a higher concentration than somewhere else. Moving from that lower entropy state to a higher entropy state thus always involves some high energy concentration spreading out into a lower energy state, by dissipating its energy to places that had been lower energy than it before.

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.

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.

Hi Sir Philo,

There's a serious problem with seeking a correct definition like this. In order to know if you have found the correct definition, you need to know already what the correct definition is.

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.

I can’t think of any real-world examples of biological organisms doing that. That was just a hypothetical on my part.

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

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!

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.

I do hope you'll consider what I said about definitions before you waste any more time and effort. If you're trying to correctly define "action", you will need to know in advance what the correct definition is.

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 your initial post you said:

Under my below definitions, for example, a virus is alive. So, if you do not regard a virus as a living being then you have to point out exactly where/how my definition is flawed, and argue why a virus is inanimate matter.

So in order to come up with a definition which is not flawed, one would need to know already whether a virus is alive or not; one would need to know the true definition of life. You're asking your readers to come up with a better definition than yours, but that would require them to know in advance what the correct definition of life is, or to put it another way, it would require them to know in advance whether crystals or viruses are alive.

You try to suggest that you are pursuing the scientific method, but that would require your hypothesis to be falsifiable. 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.

This is a philosophy forum.

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....