Entropy vs. Anti-Entropy (How DNA Defeats the Blackhole)

[tonylang]

The ideas in my original post speaks to the really interesting and historically troublesome questions that goes somewhat past the question of how is life implemented in nature and goes beyond to the more philosophical question of why. Why would nature implement life at all? This ‘why’ is a cause and effect notion not some warm and fuzzy explanation. Although many would seek a meaningful narrative to explain the existence of life, I for one know better. Nature appears to be fundamentally cause and effect.

However, the primary and more interesting question at least for this forum would be the ‘how’. How is life implemented in nature? What are the specifics of this likely anti-entropic process that has altered the state of matter in this universe in this fascinating fashion? Some may say we already have all the explanation we need. Many in the world today, both religious and scientific truly believe this, albeit for very different reasons. Some say that the individual experience of life does not reoccur or that such a process cannot be a natural scientifically describable process. Nonetheless, for those who suspect or have reasoned that this, your experience of life which obviously has occurred, also can reoccur and if so, this possibility mandates a practical scientific description for the abstraction and separation and linkage of individual to available, viable species. It is your imaginations that I hope to stimulate. This perspective suggests a natural process which governs the selection and the assignment of form to each instance of individual life, you. This then requires that such a process be a scientifically describable implementation of natural laws.

The natural processes outlined in the Instantiation of Life by Natural Entanglement (not yet presented here) proposes, perhaps for the first time, a plausible scientific mechanism for the natural implementation of a living being, an aspect of life every human has felt, believed, ignored or suspected to be true for as long as humankind could fathom such notions. And from which scientifically testable experiments may eventually be produced.

 

[Daecon]

The standard line is that living things grow in complexity as they develop, but that this process is strictly local. The universe as a whole continues to increase in entropy. At least that's the standard line.

But where's the evidence? No one says that the early universe was full of complex structures and processes and that ever since then its features have become, on average, less and less complex. The scientific model points to just the opposite: The early universe was diffuse, lacking interesting structures. As time went on, the features of the universe--atoms, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters, and creatures and societies and industrial civilizations--grew in complexity. The pattern seems to be that the universe as a whole is becoming less and less entropic. That is, the universe behaves like a creature.

Think how organized the atoms in a crystal are. They have low entropy.

Things don't have to be complex to have low entropy, they just have to be ordered.

 

[sideshowbob]

No one says that the early universe was full of complex structures and processes and that ever since then its features have become, on average, less and less complex.

Again, entropy is not about "complex structures"; it's about energy. The energy of the universe is becoming less concentrated. When it is completely "flat" - i.e. when energy can no longer flow from A to B (when it's all at the 'bottom of the hill") - the universe will be "dead".

That is, the universe behaves like a creature.

No. A creature takes in energy from outside. The universe does not.

 

[Daecon]

Ah, my mistake. I thought I'd heard that entropy was about order and chaos, it's heat energy isn't it?

 

[wellwisher]

Entropy is a state function in that an entropy value is connected to a particulate state of matter. One can measure the entropy of frozen water versus liquid water, each under specific conditions. Each state will have a unique entropy value. Energy can be absorbed or released by matter, to change the state, but this energy is not entropy and entropy is not energy, per se, because entropy is a composite of matter and energy all wrapped in a given state.

Energy is a particle and wave, but entropy is neither a particle or wave but a state function. There is no energy difference whether we roll any of the six sides of a dice; all are equally possible. However, each side will define a given entropy state of matter. Entropy is not just energy, but also has the character of a unique state. With information it takes the same energy to send any text of the same size but each has unique character.

A random number generator may use one microwatt of energy per cycle, with each cycle, using this same energy can give a new number state. Entropy is far more diverse than energy quanta.

An interest example of anti-entropy, to use the term in this topic, is music. Music converts some of the wide variety of possible sounds entropy states, into a new ordered state. The song is a state of given entropy, with the entropy lowering within the brain, as the sum of many entropy states, decreases into the composite.

The excitement we feel when we hear the new top hit, is the neural energy that is released as the entropy falls in the brain. This energy output gives us energy and enthusiasm. This all comes back to the basics of water and oil and how they tend to mutually exclude. Certain information will trigger separations into lower entropy states. The memories of the excitement linger.

 

[tonylang]

The classical ideas of thermodynamic entropy although essential in many practical technological applications, cease to exist at and below the atomic level. So attempting to describe the existence of life in these terms requires some implausible assumptions. Firstly one must accept that in nature individual life (you) is only defined at the cellular level where DNA is functionally implemented. In other words one must believe that nature does not have a mechanism or basis for distinguishing individual life once that individuals DNA has dissipated. This suggests that you and I and all instances of life begin and end with ones cellular DNA. This is logically and empirically inconsistent.

There are examples of living individuals with identical DNA, twins who are clearly not the same individual even when they are physically connected as are Siamese twins. More pointedly however, If any one or all of your trillions of cells were responsible for uniquely defining and distinguishing you from any other living being then separating even a single cell from your holistic body would cause you to lose your current identity (become someone else) or else terminate you as a living individual. However since all life in our ecosystem loses, replaces, transforms and exchanges our entire body mass daily over the course of a few short years, this also invalidates this belief.

Thirdly, this untenable notion violates the principle of re-occurrence of natural phenomena which states that for any natural phenomena to occur there must exist natural mechanisms which by their existence will also permit that phenomena to reoccur given appropriate circumstance. In other words whatever caused the big-bang can cause other big-bangs. Whatever causes nova and super-nova can cause other instances of both. Whatever caused and permits life here can and probably has caused life elsewhere. Further, whatever caused you can cause you again. The universal basis for this postulate of consistency in the laws of nature is the observed consistency of the fine structure constant in this universe.

Any individual life that can occur can reoccur. This last point mandates that you do not end with your DNA/RNA or with your thermodynamic, entropic biology. That nature must indeed have mechanisms known or unknown which serves to define or instantiate you from all other existing or possible instances of life, and such a mechanism must be an essentially immutable and reoccurring property of either this universe or of nature. This feature necessarily exists below the cellular and molecular level into the quantum realm.

 

[arfa brane]

From the wiki link posted by exchemist about information entropy and thermodynamic entropy:

a direct connection can be made between the two. If the probabilities in question are the thermodynamic probabilities $$ p_i $$: the (reduced) Gibbs entropy σ can then be seen as simply the amount of Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, given its macroscopic description.

Or, in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more". To be more concrete, in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the minimum number of yes–no questions needed to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.

Furthermore, the prescription to find the equilibrium distributions of statistical mechanics—such as the Boltzmann distribution—by maximising the Gibbs entropy subject to appropriate constraints (the Gibbs algorithm) can be seen as something not unique to thermodynamics, but as a principle of general relevance in statistical inference, if it is desired to find a maximally uninformative probability distribution, subject to certain constraints on its averages. (These perspectives are explored further in the article Maximum entropy thermodynamics.)

If there really is a theoretical connection, then it should be testable. Here, you would need to be able to show that some thermodynamic system (a Gibbs ensemble) is equivalent to some algorithmic system in terms of their entropies (over time, or over the paths of particles, or somesuch). That is, you would need to define temperature. pressure, etc, algorithmically and show that it corresponds to the thermodynamic definitions. I'm pretty sure Baez has had a go at this, so, you could look for papers.

 

[sideshowbob]

There are examples of living individuals with identical DNA, twins who are clearly not the same individual even when they are physically connected as are Siamese twins.

Computers that come from the factory identical do not stay identical. Even if the hardware remains identical, their "personalities" can become very different in different environments. There's no woo explanation necessary for that.

 

[tonylang]

Computers that come from the factory identical do not stay identical. Even if the hardware remains identical, their "personalities" can become very different in different environments. There's no woo explanation necessary for that.

No one has specified what existing theories or natural mechanisms they believe act in nature to position and locate each individual life in this space-time. So let us engage if you will in a very practical real life scenario;

Earth is gone. Complements of some natural occurrence, you name it, perhaps a rouge primordial black hole that happens to be passing through our solar system which then sends the earth into direct collision with Jupiter. Or perhaps there is a giga-solar flare which perturbs earth’s orbit sending it careening into the sun. Result? All that you and I and your pet salamander were, every cell and every DNA molecule, every atom that was on or in the earth is now ionized nuclear fuel within the sun. The Darwinian evolved chemistry and biology that many fall back upon to describe life, particularly human life, on earth has ceased to exist in this solar system along with its thermodynamically described, Gibbs-free energy processes once used to represent the entirety of earth life.

Additionally, imagine if you will that there is life elsewhere in this universe. Let us imagine there exists at least one other evolved ecosystem (ECO-2) capable of hosting Darwinian life. Different from earth but governed by the same laws of physics and biology and thermodynamic processes that manifested earth’s ecology. This planet orbiting a viable star may be located anywhere in this universe since the laws of physics are expected to be consistently applied throughout. Also for this anecdote let us say that this other bastion of life is some 10 billion light years from earth’s sun. A distance so vast it would take much longer than the age of the big-bang to relativistically travel that distance, assuming of course there were any classically defined remnants of one’s biology left to make the journey.

Like earth ECO-2 has been around for awhile and hosts its own set of Darwinian evolved biological forms likely different from anything that existed on earth. Also, for the comfort of some, let us assume one other unessential embellishment; let us say that ECO-2 also hosts intelligent forms of life (Yes with personalities). Different from human beings but similar to us in that they are sentient, self aware, intelligent, and have a handle on science and technology as did we. One the other hand let us not assume intelligent life. There is only wild life in ECO-2. :0)

Regardless, the question becomes; could you or I or any individual formerly hosted by earths ecology ever find oneself a part of ECO-2’s ecology? Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could make the immediate jump to reinstantiate to ECO-2? If you adhere to the classically understood, Gibbs-free energy etc. thermodynamically describable, relativistic ally constrained mechanisms to explain life writ large then you are forced to say no, (please correct me if not so), and in so doing you would necessarily ignore most of nature. Because in that view, clearly some aspect of what biologically, thermodynamically, chemically, defined ones singular existence must relativistically travel to bridge the unbridgeable distance between your last physical location, earth’s solar system, and ECO-2’s.

What scientifically accepted, none ‘woo’, mechanisms addresses this very practical scenario of our reality? What biological understanding may describe how one may naturally assume some other form in another location perhaps billions of light years from where one’s life, your biology, your chemistry, your matter last existed. While keeping in mind that the earth, and indeed the body you now occupy is just such another viable location in this space-time. Classical mechanisms simply cannot address this scenario but there are plausible natural scientifically understood non-classical (quantum) mechanisms that can describe and account for the above reality.

 

[origin]

What biological understanding may describe how one may naturally assume some other form in another location perhaps billions of light years from where one’s life, your biology, your chemistry, your matter last existed.

There is no science that could describe such a scenario. The scenario you are describing is called science fiction.

 

[tonylang]

There is no science that could describe such a scenario. The scenario you are describing is called science fiction.

Perhaps there is no misunderstanding on your part of what is being asked of this very realistic scenario, but the reference to ‘science fiction’ suggests there may be some. So please permit me to restate the question;

Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2 just as we were born on earth to species indigenous to earth’s ecology.

This is not a technological question but a query about how the science (known or unknown) of nature operates given that in the scenario the human form has become extinct.

 

[origin]

Is the nature of life in this universe such that one could find oneself naturally born to ECO-2 in the form of a species indigenous (present or future) to ECO-2 just as we were born on earth to species indigenous to earth’s ecology.

It sounds to me that you are asking if I existed before I was born and/or will I exist after I die. If that is the crux of what you are asking then the answer is that there is absolutely zero evidence of that. Therefore that is not science but instead science fiction or if you like philosophy.

This is not a technological question but a query about how the science (known or unknown) of nature operates given that in the scenario the human form has become extinct.

When humans become extinct they will be gone never to return - that is what exctinction explictly implies.

 

[tonylang]

Naturally invasive scenarios such as this one don’t reveal questions posed by individuals but questions posed by nature. Such scenarios essentially ask; how could it be otherwise? They reveal their own answers to any species sufficiently developed to comprehend and honestly confront the question.

The crux or point of this scenario is even more fundamental and profound than those two very relevant insights; it is the inescapable conclusion that a living being must involve an ultimately scientifically describable naturally recurring component that is separate and distinct from its physical form. Complements of some non-relativistic discretely quantifiable property of nature which is also likely not indigenous to this universe but instead is native to the underlying ‘metaverse’ if it is to also instantiate life not just within the systems and galaxies of this universe but also beyond this space-time.

I’m not claiming these ideas are science. No insight is science until it becomes science. New ideas, knowledge, and understanding are not handed down to mankind from some superior source, it is and always has been individuals that dare to think and are willing to see nature differently that will often be the source of new understanding.

 

[exchemist]

[QUOTE="tonylang, post: 3280282, member: 281221"
The crux or point of this scenario is even more fundamental and profound than those two very relevant insights; it is the inescapable conclusion that a living being must involve an ultimately scientifically describable naturally recurring component that is separate and distinct from its physical form.

I’m not claiming these ideas are science. No insight is science until it becomes science. New ideas, knowledge, and understanding are not handed down to mankind from some superior source, it is and always has been individuals that dare to think and are willing to see nature differently that will often be the source of new understanding.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing here that anyone would see as being an "insight". You may claim there is a non-material, recurring component to all life but all it seems to be is an assertion. If it were true, what would it explain, that cannot now be explained?

It very much feels as if you personally want there to be a non-corporeal element to life (a spirit, perhaps?). But I'm glad you now recognise this is not a scientific idea.

 

[sideshowbob]

New ideas, knowledge, and understanding are not handed down to mankind from some superior source, it is and always has been individuals that dare to think and are willing to see nature differently that will often be the source of new understanding.

The problem is that you can't update the old ideas without understanding them.

 

[tonylang]

It very much feels as if you personally want there to be a non-corporeal element to life (a spirit, perhaps?). But I'm glad you now recognise this is not a scientific idea.

You refer to scenario #2 (in post #75), I must admit I do find it to be the more intellectually interesting of the two possible scenarios, although I would prefer to think of myself as airing agnostic on the subject. Likewise it is clear that you tend toward scenario #1. While everyone is certainly entitled to a preference fortunately individual preference and ideology and desire should play no part in comprehending the implications of the scenario in post #89 and #91. Objective rational, logical thought and a scientifically grounded description of ones conclusions is all that is required to see that the question, intimidating as it may be, is worth asking. Whatever the reality turns out to be all that life is, is eventually science, ‘spirits’ not required.

 

[exchemist]

There is no objective evidence for a non-corporeal element to life, and there is nothing that such a hypothesis seems to account for, that cannot be equally well accounted for without it. On these grounds, the hypothesis cannot be a scientific one.

However there is nothing to stop people entertaining such ideas as part of a system of metaphysical or religious belief, since religion is more concerned with subjective experience and emotion and frequently employs literary devices such as metaphor, in its attempts to provide as a guide to living one's life as an individual.

It is confusing this with science that is intellectually fatal.

 

[origin]

You refer to scenario #2 (in post #75), I must admit I do find it to be the more intellectually interesting of the two possible scenarios, although I would prefer to think of myself as airing agnostic on the subject.

I think what you mean is you prefer to believe scenario 2. It would be more fun than just dying and ceasing to exist. Unfortunately for you all evidence points to dead people being dead.

Likewise it is clear that you tend toward scenario #1. While everyone is certainly entitled to a preference fortunately individual preference and ideology and desire should play no part in comprehending the implications of the scenario in post #89 and #91.

I do not think scenario 1 is a preference it is a logical conclusion. Like exchemist said there is no evidence that when you die you are anything other than dead.

Objective rational, logical thought and a scientifically grounded description of ones conclusions is all that is required to see that the question, intimidating as it may be, is worth asking. Whatever the reality turns out to be all that life is, is eventually science, ‘spirits’ not required.

All evidence says dead is dead. The idea that some part of you continues on after death has zero evidential support and is only wishfull thinking.

 

[wellwisher]

There is no objective evidence for a non-corporeal element to life, and there is nothing that such a hypothesis seems to account for, that cannot be equally well accounted for without it. On these grounds, the hypothesis cannot be a scientific one.

However there is nothing to stop people entertaining such ideas as part of a system of metaphysical or religious belief, since religion is more concerned with subjective experience and emotion and frequently employs literary devices such as metaphor, in its attempts to provide as a guide to living one's life as an individual.

It is confusing this with science that is intellectually fatal.

The wild card is, science does not have a good definition of consciousness. It does not know where this phenomena called consciousness begins and where it ends or even how it works. Science knows a great deal about the brain, but not the same amount about consciousness. As I have shown before, the scientific method is not designed to look at consciousness because the method factors out all subjectivity which is a part of consciousness. It will also factor out other things that can't be reproduced in the lab, like unique dreams. These things are called soft science, because they take liberties with the scientific method.

The analogy is, we know about the computer and its hardware, but we don't know the same amount about the software that is making use of this hardware. From what we know, we assume if the computer is unplugged, nothing can be in the cloud; remote storage, because we don't see the cloud as being part of the computer hardware.

If you take a picture with your cell phone, that picture may also end up on your home computer, as well as in remote storage in the cloud. We can override that or allow it to happen. This is all done with software and the phone hardware. It may not be clearly evident by looking at the phone hardware alone, since the cloud signal will run in parallel to other things that go on in the background. With ESP, data transmission is not always easy to explain or reproduce, since we don't know enough about consciousness to know what program was used, We may not be able to reproduce this with hardware or with different software running in consciousness.

In the case of the cell phone, after we throw the phone away, the data remains in the cloud where it can be retrieved in full and/or used to populate our new phone. We need to know more about consciousness and any possible physics for remote transmission. For example, some scientists speculate parallel universes and/or multi-dimensions. Say consciousness had the physics for data transmission into cloud storage in another dimension, where time runs slower, so our data will linger. A parallel dimension does not require the data appear to move in space and time, to us. I am not saying this is what happens, only this would work. Atheist may have the choice not to allow cloud storage so they turn it off and when their cell phone dies, there is no data, due to free will. Those who prefer ethereal cloud storage may leave it on, via a based faith trigger, to allow lingering data for a new phone.

An interesting contemporary phenomena of consciousness is with internet cloud storage and the internet. So many young people have the urge to store all aspects of their lives, including selfies, almost like an instinct of self preservation in the data archives. Where is this coming from, and does it mirror an unconscious need? Does it try to compensate for remote storage turned off by atheist philosophy and the choice not to save memories/soul?

 

[tonylang]

Null hypothesis (H0): Each individual experience of life is an instance of life implemented in nature and defined by a naturally recurring process.

On this topic, for most, the first hurdle to be overcome is the acknowledgment that there is indeed a question to be asked. That is as it always has been throughout the history of human understanding. The second hurdle however, is the comprehension of the question itself. Our perspective as human beings is so clouded and fractured by our physical skills and ecological circumstances and by topographical issues of location, size and scale in this space-time, what we are currently able to see and measure reveals so little of nature. The human mind, properly utilized, followed by empirical testing continues to be our most powerful instrument.

I submit for your consideration, that the fundamental implementation of life in nature operates equally upon all forms of life, and the only life in nature (Earths Ecosystem) is the living cell. The actual process and mechanisms that permit life and being alive cannot fundamentally be defined by any evolved skill (like consciousness) possessed either by human beings or by any multi-cellular species.

Consciousness, sentience, self-awareness, personality etc. are emerged capabilities of multi-cellular organisms and seem only to be different from other evolved skills like flying and swimming and walking and speech etc. These skills and capabilities, evolved or learned, are all emerged manifestations of one’s physical (electromagnetic) from, ones species. Clearly, for any who seek to ask and eventually answer the question of this null hypothesis, one must first consider that the processes that implement life in this universe implemented it first, and for 3+ billion of years thereafter, only in the single living cell and its predecessor. Life did and would exist even if multi-cellular forms did not emerge, even if human beings cease to exist.

DNA/RNA may seem able to, but as a practical matter cannot serve as a non-relativistic unique identifier of individuality since both are influenced by the Higgs field and is as relativistically constrained as your left shoe is. One may think that every part of the cell must also fit this untenable description. Nonetheless nature’s imagination (metaphorical) far outperforms the human imagination, and what’s more, nature can make good on its muse. There