-
Marchesk
4.6khttps://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/01/13/79-sara-imari-walker-on-information-and-the-origin-of-life/
Sean Carol interviews physicist Sara Imari Walker on the role of information in life and its origins. Around 57:45, Sara tells Sean that she doesn't think the Standard Model is up to the task of explaining life, because at the scale of chemistry, the physics of information emerges. Sean mentions a paper by Mark Bedau which argues that the weak emergence is when the higher level properties of whatever systems like life could have been in principle simulated by a computer prior to life.
Strongly emergent properties would not have been capable of being stimulated by full knowledge of the microphysics. Sara defends strong emergence by nothing that the Standard Model is an equation written by humans, which emerged from human minds. She says the desire is to reduce biology to physics, but physics (as a field of human knowledge) emerges from biology.
Sara then mentions math and the question of why it's so useful in physics. In her view, math is form of information that evolved out of biology. The reason it's so effective for us is because it's the kind of information that's the most copyable between different physical systems, and thus is well suited for computation. Math is an abstraction that human minds evolved that's really good at being put into different kinds of media.
Thus the Standard Model is based on the emergent biological information abstraction. Sara mentions it being a loop between our probing regularities at tiny scales and the biology that produced the abstraction used to understand it. But this loop is not included in the Standard Model. It's similar in some ways to the observer problem in QM. It's a recursive problem.
Therefore, information can be seen as a strongly emergent physics underlying life forms. I skipped over the earlier discussion on the origins of life and information, which is rooted in chemical possibilities and reproducing a small space of chemical reactions. It's interesting to hear a physicist explain various conceptual difficulties and possibilities touching on physics, chemistry, abiogenesis, astrobiology, information, math and philosophy. -
SophistiCat
2.2kI listened to that podcast, and I found that part of the talk obscure (and my impression was that so did Sean). -
Marchesk
4.6kSean thinks the universe is mathematical (from the Tegmark podcast), so naturally he thinks emergentism is weak, since all macro properties could in principle be computed in advance, given everything is math in his and Tegmark’s view.
Sara’s views are a bit more complicated. It helps to take into account her views on information and life’s emergence earlier in the podcast. I think math being an emergent abstraction is more believable that some of Tegmark’s views. -
Marchesk
4.6kCould you explain about information in physics? Is it related to information theory? Or is it a whole different thing? — frank
My understanding is that Dr. Walker is proposing an additional physics for what she calls information, but is open to it being something else. Basically something that would explain the emergence of life from chemistry (abiogenesis), and provide a better definition for life.
What I understood is she thinks that this is the result of life preserving/reproducing a small subset of complex chemical chains and reactions from the vast possibilities of molecules that could form. I need to go see if she explains her views elsewhere.
But the thing that stood out to me was the idea that information was strongly emergent because our understanding of physics is the result of biological emergence, which is not included in the physics. -
Wayfarer
22.5kShe replied straight out 'no' when asked if the standard model of particle physics can explain the origin of life. So implicitly she's rejecting Sean Carroll's physicalist thesis, which is that everything can be reduced to physics.
I've been reading an exponent of biosemiotics, Marcello Barbieri, in a paper called What is Information? (The question is posed in respect of the biological information encoded in DNA and the implications of that, not in respect of information science.)
Barbieri also believes that physics cannot account for the origin of life, on the basis that the molecules that characterise all living systems are the product of a code. And there's no analogy for that code in the standard model of physics.
In spontaneous molecules, [i.e. those which can be accounted for in terms of physics and chemistry] the order of the components comes from within the molecules, from internal factors, whereas in genes and proteins it comes from without, from external templates. This amounts to saying that a molecular system becomes a ‘maker’ when it starts using templates in the production of objects. The difference between spontaneous and manufactured molecules, in short, is a reality because it is an experimental fact that genes and proteins are template-dependent objects. ...This makes us realize that the physicalist thesis is wrong because it is only spontaneous processes that are completely described by physical quantities.
He goes on to say that living systems are essentially digital, in that they convey discrete units of information, and linear, in that the sequence of the information is essential to its efficacy. And again none of this can be accounted for by non-organic chemistry and physics. -
Marchesk
4.6kMakes sense to me, but strong emergence is still spooky. However, her explanation sounded like it was an epistemological problem, not a metaphysical one. In that it's our understandiing of the natural world which is incomplete. But I could be wrong and Dr. Walker thinks it's a new ontological addition to the universe once there is chemistry.
I'll have to read the Barbeiri paper and see what he says about it. -
Wayfarer
22.5kI have been reading up on panspermia. It's the theory that life originates from interstellar material that reigns down on the earth through meteorites and fragments of comments. Even the name says a lot - 'panspermia' meaning 'containing all kinds of seeds'. So part of the modern panspermia mythology is that the Earth, say, after 'incubating' for a few billion years, becomes a kind of fertile ovum for the propogation of life, due to the presence of proto-organic materials, water, temperature, carbon and so on. And then:
.
"Did the earth move for you, too?' (credit)
For some reason, I find it more conceptually satisfying than abiogenesis, because it conforms to the primeval mythology of Earth/Mother Sky/Father in the origin of life.
Sorry for the random aside. -
Wayfarer
22.5kthey're alternative theories. A-biogenesis posits a kind of primeval chemical reaction which spontaneously generates the first living systems, panspermia posits that proto-organic forms exist throughout the cosmos. Me, I don't think the 'origin of life' will ever be discovered, not that my opinion counts for anything.
Anyway - worth reading that Barbieri article. Makes an interesting point about what makes life, life. -
SophistiCat
2.2kSean thinks the universe is mathematical (from the Tegmark podcast), so naturally he thinks emergentism is weak, since all macro properties could in principle be computed in advance, given everything is math in his and Tegmark’s view. — Marchesk
Tegmark was on Carroll's podcast, but I don't think Carroll has endorsed his idea. Carroll is a good interviewer, in that he is receptive to all ideas and tries to get his interviewees to make their strongest case. But that doesn't mean that he agrees with everything they say.
Anyway, I don't see much of a connection between mathematical universe and weak emergence.
Sara’s views are a bit more complicated. It helps to take into account her views on information and life’s emergence earlier in the podcast. — Marchesk
I didn't find that it helped, to be honest. But I've looked at her publications; she has a number of papers on top-down causation in biology, some with Paul Davies, who has also been interested in this topic. That would probably speak to "strong emergence."
Emergence is a tricky topic, as evidenced even by the number of articles with titles like "Emergence," "What is Emergence?," "Making Sense of Emergence," etc. that have come out over the decades.
Sara then mentions math and the question of why it's so useful in physics. — Marchesk
She explored this theme here: The Descent of Math. -
Marchesk
4.6kTegmark was on Carroll's podcast, but I don't think Carroll has endorsed his idea. Carroll is a good interviewer, in that he is receptive to all ideas and tries to get his interviewees to make their strongest case. But that doesn't mean that he agrees with everything they say. — SophistiCat
Not everything, but he agreed with Tegmark on our universe being mathematical. Agreed that he's a good host.
Anyway, I don't see much of a connection between mathematical universe and weak emergence. — SophistiCat
In Sara's podcast, Carol mentioned Bedau's paper on emergence, where weark emergence is anything that could in principle be simulated before it emerges. A mathematical universe would be computable, so that would make any phenomena weakly emergent. Sara says she doesn't think life can be simulated.
But I've looked at her publications; she has a number of papers on top-down causation in biology, some with Paul Davies, who has also been interested in this topic. That would probably speak to "strong emergence." — SophistiCat
She does mention that a little bit in the podcast about how our gaining knowledge of physics allows us to develop technologies that would not have otherwise come into existence. Downward causation would be the other part of strong emergence. Causation though is it's own controversial subject.
She explored this theme here: The Descent of Math. — SophistiCat
Thanks for the link. -
schopenhauer1
10.9k
You should read Incomplete Nature by Terrence Deacon. It perhaps fleshes out themes this physicist brings up. -
tim wood
9.3k
Flies have between three and four thousand "lenses" in their eyes. This useful for detecting motion. If anything moves, everything moves. But I wonder how a fly would count. How would it cognize one, for example? And two or three would be hopeless. So I find some justice in her claim. On the other hand, while the possibility of reason may have evolved out of biology, that is not to say that it is biology - or even what else it might be. We, for example, were once a ratty kind of creature, but we aren't that now, at least most of us. In sum, I find it not credible that the truths that underlie math, or reason itself, are functions of biology.In her view, math is form of information that evolved out of biology. — Marchesk -
SophistiCat
2.2kIn Sara's podcast, Carol mentioned Bedau's paper on emergence, where weark emergence is anything that could in principle be simulated before it emerges. A mathematical universe would be computable, so that would make any phenomena weakly emergent. Sara says she doesn't think life can be simulated. — Marchesk
For there to be any kind of emergence, the universe must be "mathematical" in the weaker sense of having an all-pervading structure. The varieties of emergence are different takes on that structure. It would be safe to say that up to this point Carroll is on board with Tegmark (who does take a stronger position), but so is practically everyone involved in this conversation. -
ChatteringMonkey
1.3kFor there to be any kind of emergence, the universe must be "mathematical" in the weaker sense of having an all-pervading structure. The varieties of emergence are different takes on that structure. It would be safe to say that up to this point Carroll is on board with Tegmark (who does take a stronger position), but so is practically everyone involved in this conversation. — SophistiCat
He's a strong proponent of Hume, as he has alluded to many times. If he believes in a mathematical universe, he comes at it like an empiricist rather than a rationalist... if that makes sense. -
Marchesk
4.6khe's a strong proponent of Hume, — ChatteringMonkey
Yeah, I just listened to his podcast with Ned Hall on laws of nature and possible worlds. Sean identified as a Humean in challenging the anti-humean position Hall was explaining. But more to elicit a clear understanding of causation. It was an interesting discussion. However, it raised more questions than it answered. It does seem like Carol prefers the simpler explanation, which is physics is describing regularities and patterns in nature, not some additional causal force.
I think when he agreed with Tegmark on our universe being mathematical, he meant it could be fully described by math without leaving anything out. Which means it can be simulated in principle by a full understanding of the microphysics. -
SophistiCat
2.2kI think when he agreed with Tegmark on our universe being mathematical, he meant it could be fully described by math without leaving anything out. Which means it can be simulated in principle by a full understanding of the microphysics. — Marchesk
That's not the same thing. This would be reductionism, which is a much stronger position than just holding that the universe can be described with mathematics. Proponents of strong emergence, downward causation, autonomy of sciences also believe that the universe is "mathematical" - they just think that the mathematical description cannot be built from the bottom up. -
Marchesk
4.6kIn the Sara podcast at 57:36, Sean says we know that Standard Model of particle physics and asks whether that isn't enough. He says he thinks that's where they're going to diverge in their opinions, and expresses surprise that she thinks the Standard Model wouldn't be enough to explain life.
Do your really think the core theory, the Standard Model of physics is not up to the task of explaining life? — Sean Carol"
Sounds pretty reductionist. At 59:00 he mentions the Mark Bedau paper on weak versus strong emergence based on being able in principle to simulate higher level properties in advance. Sean Carol is the one who brings that up. And then he said he was a big believer in weak emergence. So he's using Mark Bedau's criteria for emergence in contrast to Sara's view.
It's not really any different from logical supervenience where the microphysics necessarily entails any emergent pheneomena. There are no surprises given perfect knowledge in advance. -
Gnomon
3.8k
Sara Imari Walker is a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist, who is exploring the dark space between physics and biology. She is an editor, and one of the 30+ authors, of the 2017 book, From Matter to Life : Information and Causality. Most people today think of Information as the inert data processed by computers. But physicists have recently learned that Energy (causation) is also a form of Generic (all-encompassing) Information : the power to enform, to create.My understanding is that Dr. Walker is proposing an additional physics for what she calls information, but is open to it being something else. Basically something that would explain the emergence of life from chemistry (abiogenesis), and provide a better definition for life. — Marchesk
That concept is at the root of my own philosophical worldview : Enformationism. These concepts are still on the frontiers of Science, so may sound a bit fringey and mysterious. But it opens doors to a broader and deeper understanding of the physical and biological and mental aspects of our world. :nerd:
From Matter to Life : Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/from-matter-to-life-sara-imari-walker/1124576284
Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html -
Gnomon
3.8k
Panpsychism is also an ancient explanation for Life and Mind in the world. But my modern myth of creation involves what you could call : "Pan-Informationism". It assumes that the power to enform (causation; energy) is inherent in the world --- in Gaia, if you like --- not an import ; no consort needed. That theory is based on the current science of Information, as the Single Substance of the world. :cool:panspermia . . . For some reason, I find it more conceptually satisfying than abiogenesis, because it conforms to the primeval mythology of Earth/Mother Sky/Father in the origin of life. — Wayfarer
Gaia inseminated by Uranus : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia
Information : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html -
Wayfarer
22.5kYeah, I get that, but ever since I read Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingha's book Intelligent Universe back in the 1980's, panspermia has appealed to me as an alternative to abiogenesis. (The latter is still active and publishing, albeit something of a lone voice.) And that link to Greek mythology is intriguing! But I'd better leave it, it's definitely off topic for this thread.
However, as I've said before, 'information' is not proper basic substance (in the philosophical sense), because it has too many meanings. Any biological science has to accomodate information, but what 'information' means in the context is the topic of the Marcello Barbieri paper I mentioned above.
Oh, and I very much liked Sara Imari Walker from what I heard. Especially when she said the 'standard model' was a product of biology (i.e. human) :-) .
There are no surprises given perfect knowledge in advance. — Marchesk
That's where Barbieri claims that the emergence of codes - RNA and DNA in particular - is genuinely novel, and can't be predicted on the basis of physical or chemical laws alone. -
Gnomon
3.8k
Yes. That's why I define and expand-upon the many meanings of Information in my thesis and blog. :smile:However, as I've said before, 'information' is not proper basic substance (in the philosophical sense), because it has too meaning meanings. — Wayfarer
Information, what is it? : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html
Substance versus Non-substance :
* Aristotle divided his encyclopedia into two volumes based on fundamental categories of human knowledge : discussion of objective substances (Matter, physical) and subjective non-substances (Form, mental). “Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form.” A technical term for this ancient doctrine is Hylomorphism (matter + design).
* Physical Scientists typically assume that the appearance of design is merely an illusion due to the complexity of material objects, and to gaps in our knowledge of specific causal events in the history of evolution, that the brain naturally attributes to agency.
* We can fill those gaps with more assumptions : either a simplistic unbroken causal chain of mundane physical “substance” (turtles all the way down), or a more analytical sequence of events, such as Aristotle’s 4 causes: Material (substance), Formal (shape, pattern), Agent (force), and Final (teleological intent). It’s the fourth cause that causes scientists to pause.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes:
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page74.html -
magritte
553Aristotle divided his encyclopedia into two volumes based on fundamental categories of human knowledge : discussion of objective substances (Matter, physical) and subjective non-substances (Form, mental). “Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form.” A technical term for this ancient doctrine is Hylomorphism (matter + design). — Gnomon
The student of Aristotle usually begins with the Categories; and the first thing that strikes him is the author’s unconsciousness of any distinction between grammar and metaphysics, between modes of signifying and modes of being. When he comes to the metaphysical books, he finds that this is not so much an oversight as an assumed axiom — C.S. Peirce -
Marchesk
4.6kI agree that modern physics has rendered traditional materialism obsolete. And John Wheeler is one physicist who's proposed an It from Bit view. But I don't know what it means for information to be fundamental, as opposed to fields or particles or spacetime.
Information seems to me to have something to do with repeatable patterns that emerge from the fundamental physics. -
Marchesk
4.6kThat's where Barbieri claims that the emergence of codes - RNA and DNA in particular - is genuinely novel, and can't be predicted on the basis of physical or chemical laws alone. — Wayfarer
That's interesting. My question is what to make of strong emergence. Something completely unpredictable and novel comes into existence when the right conditions obtain for the fist time? -
Wayfarer
22.5kI've never been persuaded by theories of emergence. I don't think Barbieri mentions the term in his paper either. He mentions the work of Hubert Yockey, whose famous book is Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life. (I took it out once, but it’s a very advanced book requiring expert knowledge of information science and biology to read.) He says that Yockey declares that the question of the origin of life is unknowable. (Philosophically I am OK with that, but then I’m someone who is comfortable with unknowables, and I know that not everyone is.)
In any case, I think it’s quite sensible to put the question of ‘ultimate beginnings’ to one side. I think it’s probably near to one of Kant’s antinomies.
But I will say this. Sean Carroll is a committed materialist. And here’s a point about that. On the one hand, he says in his book The Big Picture, that there is only one world, the natural world. But on the other hand, Carroll is one of the chief protagonists, in the popular press at least, of both multiverse/string theory, and also of Everett’s many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Maybe someone who has a much higher level of skill in mathematical physics will be able to figure out why this is not a contradiction, but to me, simpleton I am, it seems glaring. (See this review.) -
Marchesk
4.6kYou mean supporting both String Theory and MWI is a contradiction? I realize they are different kinds of multiple worlds, with MWI just being based on taking the Schrödinger equation equation at face value, no ten dimensional vibrating strings of energy needed.
Sabine Hossenfelder would not approve:
The title is a bit provocative. She has strong opinions. I think metaphysics is a better term than "religion".
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum