Information, Life, Math and Strong Emergentism
https://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.
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.
Comments (45)
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.
Could you explain about information in physics? Is it related to information theory? Or is it a whole different thing?
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.
I need to do some more research.
Yeah, it's a bit dense and obscure. I'll try to do more research as well. It sounds interesting, though.
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.
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.
I'll have to read the Barbeiri paper and see what he says about it.
"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.
Anyway - worth reading that Barbieri article. Makes an interesting point about what makes life, life.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Marchesk
She explored this theme here: The Descent of Math.
Quoting SophistiCat
Not everything, but he agreed with Tegmark on our universe being mathematical. Agreed that he's a good host.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting SophistiCat
Thanks for the link.
You should read Incomplete Nature by Terrence Deacon. It perhaps fleshes out themes this physicist brings up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote=Sean Carol"]Do your really think the core theory, the Standard Model of physics is not up to the task of explaining life?[/quote]
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.
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.
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
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:
Gaia inseminated by Uranus : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia
Information : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html
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) :-) .
Quoting 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.
Yes. That's why I define and expand-upon the many meanings of Information in my thesis and blog. :smile:
Information, what is it? : http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html
Substance versus Non-substance :
[i]* 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:[/i]
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page74.html
Information seems to me to have something to do with repeatable patterns that emerge from the fundamental physics.
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?
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.)
Sabine Hossenfelder would not approve:
The title is a bit provocative. She has strong opinions. I think metaphysics is a better term than "religion".
No - that saying there is ‘only one world, the natural world’ contradicts both of those ideas. Doesn’t it?
As has already been mentioned, Sean is a Humean about causation. So there are just regularities. Those might be in logical relation to one another, like a mathematical system. That's the only way I can think to make sense of causeless patterns. Otherwise, why would we expect the universe to remain uniform? Why would the patterns have obtained all this time?
Yeah, OK, that does sound reductionist. But I must confess that there is a lot of muddle and controversy in this bundle of concepts: reductionism, emergence, supervenience, downward causation, autonomy, etc. Better philosophers than Sean Carroll have been trying to make sense of this mess and still there isn't anything like a settled opinion, not even on on their meaning.
Physics, matter, physicalism, and materialism belong to entirely distinct logical universes that do not intersect. Obsolete is a value judgment coming from personal intuitions that in this case cannot possibly be applicable to independent world systems. None of them can ever be refuted or obsoleted either logically or empirically.
Meaningful patterns are indeed one aspect of Generic (universal ; all-encompassing) Information. But there are many more forms of Information (the power to enform, to create). Other emergent phases of Information are Energy and Matter. That abstract Information can be converted into measurable Energy is not as well-known as the fact that Energy can then be converted into Matter (E=MC^2), and vice-versa. But it's an idea on the cutting-edge of quantum physics. It appears that Information is much more than Shannon's empty vessels of data. Generic Information is a Protean shape-shifter --- the pattern-morphing potential of evolutionary creativity. :nerd:
Is Information Fundamental? : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
Fundamental Principle of Information-to-Energy Conversion : The bit of information is equivalent to a quantum of minimum energy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.6052.pdf
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794
https://figshare.com/articles/presentation/ENERGY-INFORMATION_EQUIVALENCE_PRINCIPLE/12479180/1
It's true that Aristotle had nothing to say about Semiotics, or Semiosis, or Semiology in his Metaphysics. But he also had nothing to say about Quantum Mechanics in his Physics. So, what point was Pierce making in the quote? Semiology may be merely a further reductive analysis of Aristotle's symbols and motifs. :cool:
Aristotle on Rhetoric : Being capable of grammar is not the same property as being rational,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Quoting Marchesk
Seems like you could say the same thing about biology. The question is whether or not the scales and levels of the universe are epistemological or ontological.
The Puffer-fish boudoir looks like a creative work of art. So, it might be an example of the creativity of Evolution, as discussed in the Purposes of Creativity thread on this forum. However, some of us may not think of blind random evolution as a creative process. That notion might imply teleology. But compare the original state of the universe (raw energy) with its current state (civilization, technology, art, etc) and it's hard to deny that there is some general creative constructive impulse behind the behaviors of even "dumb" animals. Hegel called that historical competitive progressive self-transcending creative movement, The Dialectic. In my thesis, I call that impulse, EnFormAction. :smile:
Creative Evolution : Creativity in humans may be merely a more highly developed form of evolutionary Adaptability, which allows animals to survive and reproduce. If so, its primary purpose is to out-live the less-adaptable competition. But humans have taken that competitive trait to a higher level. In animals, most of their creative acts are genetically inherited. They follow a trial & error heuristic that seem erratic, but increases their odds of finding food or sex or power,
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/478349
Does Competition Make Us More Creative? : https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/does-competition-make-us-more-creative
Dialectic : The notion that history conforms to a “dialectical” pattern, according to which contradictions generated at one level are overcome or transcended at the next, . . .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-history/History-as-a-process-of-dialectical-change-Hegel-and-Marx
It sounded like she was saying that biology is ontological and physics is epistemological.
Physics, biology and chemistry are different views of the same thing. Each view is dependent upon the present goal, so I think that the emerging levels and scales are epistemological in nature.
An amalgam of physical states IS a chemical state. An amalgam of certain chemical states IS a biological state.
Probably both. She looks at Biology and Physics, not as separate realms (scales & levels) of reality, but as different ways of looking at the same world. Those disciplines differ on how closely they examine their subjects. Since the subject-matter of Biology is visible and tangible, that science is more like ordinary Knowledge (epistemology) of concrete material objects. But Physics studies subjects that are typically invisible and intangible (electrons ; fields), hence seem closer to the essence of reality (Ontology). The primary subject matter of Physics (energy) is what the ancients would call "Spirit" (essence ; Soul).
In an interview with John Horgan, Stuart Kaufman -- also associated with Santa Fe Institute -- notes that, "No laws entail evolution of biosphere". Then, he says, "Evolution creates the very possibilities into which it becomes, without "selection" "acting" to achieve the very adjacent possible opportunities into which it becomes". This ironic-sounding statement is reminiscent of Terrance Deacon's notion of Causal Absence. What he's implying here is that Evolution is inherently creative, and not just pre-determined by the past. So, when novel things emerge from the heuristic evolutionary process, it's not an accident -- it's what evolution does. Kaufman is primarily a Biologist, but he also "expands Physics" into Biological domains. :smile:
Kaufman Interview : [i]that some sort of anti-entropy, order-generating force
remains to be discovered.[/i]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-seeker-stuart-kauffman-on-free-will-god-esp-and-other-mysteries/
Note -- that "anti-entropy" force is what I call Enformy
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Causal Absence : Constitutive absence: A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html
Well, they all look the same so there’s limited creativity from the individual puffer-fish. It is thought that females evaluate the size and regularity of the sculpture to assess the size and fitness of the males.
What amazes me is the mathematical precision of the sand sculpture, the several concentric circles, radial furrows and all.
Yes. For most animals, their "creativity" is learned by long evolutionary development, and passed-on genetically. So their "art" tends to be repetitive and conventional. But, as in Bower Birds, females tend to force competitive creativity by selecting the male's creation that has the difference-that-makes-a-difference, such as a shiny or colorful object to catch the discriminating eye. Such artistic behavior is not just a "way to get girls", it's also an emergent non-biological (mental) trait that enhances reproductive fitness.
In humans though, there may be some artistic inheritance, but creativity is also passed-down memetically. People imitate their heroes, and sometimes surpass them in imagination & creativity. Artificial human culture, and creativity, moves along much faster than natural evolution. But culture also builds upon the foundation established by the heuristic (exploring many options) evolutionary process. :smile:
Bower Bird Creativity : https://dragonflyissuesinevolution13.wikia.org/wiki/Creativity_for_attracting_a_mate-Australian_Bowerbirds