Towards a Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matte
Dec 4, 2020 22:00:40 GMT
jonbain likes this
Post by sirphilosophia on Dec 4, 2020 22:00:40 GMT
I have a developed what I currently find as a best working Definition of Living vs inanimate matter, which I'd like to see if others can either find problems with or support for with well reasoned, constructive discourse.
This is intended to be a scientific definition, so holding up to serious philosophical scrutiny is a first step, as I tighten and adjust it as a best working scientific theory. Accordingly, I'm looking for, and will be responsive to, high caliber scrutiny and discourse. Depending on how the commentary goes, I can, upon request, give concrete examples of applying my proposed scientific definitions to common corner case examples of a virus and crystal growth. I omitted that here for the sake of clarify and brevity in the starter post.
Under my proposed 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.
As we know dictionary definitions on this are circular and useless, and current best scientific definitions are incomplete and flawed at best.
My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action (PLA)". For those unfamiliar with it, here is the Wiki primer on that:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action
My proposed definition of Non-living things:
any grouping of matter or energy which on average collectively always takes the path of least action in every environment and situation, resulting in a tendency of monotonic increased entropy and decreased potential energy over time.
======================
My proposed definition of Living organisms:
any organization of matter which is configured to redirect or enact kinetic energy (KE) to avoid the path of least action in at least one environment and situation, wherein the enacted kinetic energy of the organism tends to increase the organism's total internal energy over time thereby reducing its net entropy and perpetuating its unique, non-least-action existence, by self-directed reproduction of a similarly living kind as itself, and wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy (PE) is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity. When the organism is sentient, the deviant path generally taken may be considered to be a sentient path of action which reflects an relatively inefficient work path to attain a certain increase in the organism’s total (especially internal) energy, wherein its total energy is comprised of its physical potential energy (such as muscle, fat, size growth, reproduction, etc.), any internal energy gradients, and its mental potential energy (accumulation of potentially useful information, knowledge, wisdom, or stable and functional personality, higher intelligence, etc.), thereby resulting in more productive, coherent, lower entropy handling and avoidance of unfavorable environmental and life situations or outcomes. Living organisms bear the unique hallmark ability of modifying themselves in a manner to redirect and/or create kinetic energy to systematically increase their total energy greater than any kinetic energy expended in their metabolic process.
NOTE: the intuitive gist of what I'm saying above wrt PLA is that the physical laws of motion drive, and thus predict, the motion of inanimate matter, whereas animate (i.e., living) matter, in contrast, is the driver's seat manipulating and controlling the physical laws of motion towards a self-determined, unpredictable, path for which there are no physical laws of motion which can predict where or what state of configuration the living matter will end up in even if you perfectly know all the environmental forces and dynamic conditions in its phase/configuration/action space/time. In this way, any matter which deviates from that predicted by PLA exhibits an act of living primitive free will for which no inanimate matter is capable of. Also, note that this act of living primitive free will conceptual could come before the matter attains the rest of the requirements to be sustainable, living matter, which may be how (dead) matter explores paths towards sustainable (e.g., sentient & reproducing) living configurations and processes, thereby bootstrapping the path from dead to living matter.
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 prescribe. 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 prescribe.
Details:
======================
Note that I originally did not see the utility to include the ability to replicate themselves Because under my framework that is just another way to increase one's potential energy; However, I added explicit self replication and no external control limitations to exclude AI robots and Man-made machines in general. Further note, that I currently am not so interested In debating whether man-made machines can never be considered alive. So, for the sake of argument And simplicity here, let's assume that Man-made Machines can never be considered alive. That is not to say, At least according to my current thinking, that they cannot be sentient beings in my framework, however. I know that has Many contradictions, yet it would confound things too much to go down that rabbit hole at this early point.
TECHNICAL NOTE on PLA: For those familiar with physics and PLA there is a technical argument as to why the PLA can never apply to modeling systems under "intelligent control". That is, PLA is based upon Lagrangian mechanics which requires Lagrangian mathematical object that satisfies certain constraints, which mainly are that the variables are functions only depending on time, a constraint equation is known, and the systems modeled must have constraints that are all holonomic. I posit that there are no Lagrangian mathematical descriptors that are possible for living mater because, clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" given that the "intelligent" matter purposefully reconfigures itself to contextually change forces and KE acting on it, which means their equations of motion are not functions depending of time, but functions of context. Hence, I posit that PLA can never apply to modeling such systems under "intelligent control", and my above definition relies upon this observable as fact to distinguish from inanimate matter.
I'm Look forward to high caliber scrutiny and discourse on this...
This is intended to be a scientific definition, so holding up to serious philosophical scrutiny is a first step, as I tighten and adjust it as a best working scientific theory. Accordingly, I'm looking for, and will be responsive to, high caliber scrutiny and discourse. Depending on how the commentary goes, I can, upon request, give concrete examples of applying my proposed scientific definitions to common corner case examples of a virus and crystal growth. I omitted that here for the sake of clarify and brevity in the starter post.
Under my proposed 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.
As we know dictionary definitions on this are circular and useless, and current best scientific definitions are incomplete and flawed at best.
My definitions are based on the physics "principle of least action (PLA)". For those unfamiliar with it, here is the Wiki primer on that:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action
My proposed definition of Non-living things:
any grouping of matter or energy which on average collectively always takes the path of least action in every environment and situation, resulting in a tendency of monotonic increased entropy and decreased potential energy over time.
======================
My proposed definition of Living organisms:
any organization of matter which is configured to redirect or enact kinetic energy (KE) to avoid the path of least action in at least one environment and situation, wherein the enacted kinetic energy of the organism tends to increase the organism's total internal energy over time thereby reducing its net entropy and perpetuating its unique, non-least-action existence, by self-directed reproduction of a similarly living kind as itself, and wherein the means or goal to Self-replicate or gain potential energy (PE) is not programmed or directed by an external consciousness or entity. When the organism is sentient, the deviant path generally taken may be considered to be a sentient path of action which reflects an relatively inefficient work path to attain a certain increase in the organism’s total (especially internal) energy, wherein its total energy is comprised of its physical potential energy (such as muscle, fat, size growth, reproduction, etc.), any internal energy gradients, and its mental potential energy (accumulation of potentially useful information, knowledge, wisdom, or stable and functional personality, higher intelligence, etc.), thereby resulting in more productive, coherent, lower entropy handling and avoidance of unfavorable environmental and life situations or outcomes. Living organisms bear the unique hallmark ability of modifying themselves in a manner to redirect and/or create kinetic energy to systematically increase their total energy greater than any kinetic energy expended in their metabolic process.
NOTE: the intuitive gist of what I'm saying above wrt PLA is that the physical laws of motion drive, and thus predict, the motion of inanimate matter, whereas animate (i.e., living) matter, in contrast, is the driver's seat manipulating and controlling the physical laws of motion towards a self-determined, unpredictable, path for which there are no physical laws of motion which can predict where or what state of configuration the living matter will end up in even if you perfectly know all the environmental forces and dynamic conditions in its phase/configuration/action space/time. In this way, any matter which deviates from that predicted by PLA exhibits an act of living primitive free will for which no inanimate matter is capable of. Also, note that this act of living primitive free will conceptual could come before the matter attains the rest of the requirements to be sustainable, living matter, which may be how (dead) matter explores paths towards sustainable (e.g., sentient & reproducing) living configurations and processes, thereby bootstrapping the path from dead to living matter.
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 prescribe. 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 prescribe.
Details:
======================
Note that I originally did not see the utility to include the ability to replicate themselves Because under my framework that is just another way to increase one's potential energy; However, I added explicit self replication and no external control limitations to exclude AI robots and Man-made machines in general. Further note, that I currently am not so interested In debating whether man-made machines can never be considered alive. So, for the sake of argument And simplicity here, let's assume that Man-made Machines can never be considered alive. That is not to say, At least according to my current thinking, that they cannot be sentient beings in my framework, however. I know that has Many contradictions, yet it would confound things too much to go down that rabbit hole at this early point.
TECHNICAL NOTE on PLA: For those familiar with physics and PLA there is a technical argument as to why the PLA can never apply to modeling systems under "intelligent control". That is, PLA is based upon Lagrangian mechanics which requires Lagrangian mathematical object that satisfies certain constraints, which mainly are that the variables are functions only depending on time, a constraint equation is known, and the systems modeled must have constraints that are all holonomic. I posit that there are no Lagrangian mathematical descriptors that are possible for living mater because, clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" given that the "intelligent" matter purposefully reconfigures itself to contextually change forces and KE acting on it, which means their equations of motion are not functions depending of time, but functions of context. Hence, I posit that PLA can never apply to modeling such systems under "intelligent control", and my above definition relies upon this observable as fact to distinguish from inanimate matter.
I'm Look forward to high caliber scrutiny and discourse on this...
