A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum (http://forum.wolframscience.com/index.php)
- NKS Way of Thinking (http://forum.wolframscience.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=5)
-- The complexity of a living cell cannot be generated with a simple program (http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?threadid=245)

Homeostatis is not the same as stasis

To answer some earlier points, it is being suggested that:

1). Cells are the atomic unit of life

2). Cells inherit all their complexity.

3). Cells are static where Dead[A] = Born[A]


In my opinion these statements are not very useful. Instead I would suggest the following:

1). The subjective 'randomly varying replicator' is the atomic unit of life.

2). Inheritance is not perfect. Cells inherit their parent's complexity plus any additional complexity conferred by mutation. In this way complexity alters over time.

3). Cellular homeostasis results from a highly dynamic set of interlocking feedback loops where the point of balance fluctuates according to data harvested from the environment.


These alterations allow us to 'restrict our arguments to the simple and clear statements'.

1). Life is the result of the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

2). Imperfect inheritance can generate from scratch all the complexities of life. The gradual differentiation of starting conditions is responsible for the variation and complexity we observe.

3). A cell is not a closed system. Homeostatis is not the same as stasis. Cells do not remain in a 'steady state' but respond to their immediate and extended environment.


Over time both the internal state of a cell and the starting conditions it confers on its progeny can and do change.

Jonny

The cell is the atom of life

Homeostasis was coined by the French physiologist Claude Bernard (1813 – 1878). Despite continuous turnover, for short periods of time, our (adult) body does not change its appearance. You may experience homeostasis by watching a lake. Despite continuous water inflow and outflow, for short periods of time its surface remains constant.

In a lake homeorhesis (rhesis = flow) might be more appropriate. I apply it also to describe the flow of material and cells in the body. For every cell born one has to die Dead[cell] = Born[cell]

http://www.what-is-cancer.com/paper...eamorganism.htm

Since cells beget cells {omnis cellula e cellula) they inherit their features as well as their complexity. As cells mature their complexity is affected by outside factors. This additional complexity is not inherited. We may therefore distinguish between the inherited cell complexity, or genotype, and acquired complexity, phenotype.

These concepts were tested experimentally and are therefore valuable.

It seems to me that the concepts which you raised cannot be tested experimentally. Like:
1). The 'randomly varying replicator' is the atomic unit of life.
3). Cellular homeostasis results from a highly dynamic set of interlocking feedback loops where the point of balance fluctuates according to data harvested from the environment.

I agree with you that:
2). Inheritance is not perfect

Evolution 101

You said "[cells] .. inherit their features as well as their complexity".

I think it would be more accurate to say that cells inherit their starting conditions. From the genes arise the cell and it is the random alteration of the starting conditions coupled to a selective environment that leads to the gradual accumaltion of complexity.

You also questioned whether my statement 'The 'randomly varying replicator' is the atomic unit of life' is verifiable. Let me assure you that it has been. Here is a break down:

1). That life consists of replicators (sexual and asexual) is not in question (see cell biology)

2). That replicators vary randomly via mutation has been demonstrated succesfully (see geneticts)

3). That non-random selection pressure kills some replicators while promoting others is supported by experimental evidence (see Darwin).

Therefore it follows that "Life results from the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators".

Unless you are religious then you can have no problem with this statement because it is far from controversial. Rather is a restatement of the founding principle of biology.

Finally. You suggest that homeostatic regulation via feedback has not been tested experimentially. I beg to differ and cite the science of cybernetics and biochemistry in my defence.

Jonny,

>Therefore it follows that "Life results from the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators".

>Unless you are religious then you can have no problem with this statement because it is far from controversial. Rather is a restatement of the founding principle of biology.

I'm not religious, but I have a problem with the statement. I think of life as everything that is observed. Like a cloud. A cloud isn't the result of replicators, I don't think.

Of course, in the context of biology you'd get less disagreement, but in science at large how can you say your statement is verifiable when what we've really done is simply take for granted an arbitrary defintion of life that agrees with the conclusion we want?

A non random answer to a randomist

I agree with you that “cells inherit their starting conditions”

You said :”it is the random alteration of the starting conditions coupled to a selective environment that leads to the gradual accumulation of complexity”.

Who showed experimentally that the alterations are random?

I agree with you that: 1). That life consists of replicators (sexual and asexual) is not in question (see cell biology)

You wrote 2). That replicators vary randomly via mutation has been demonstrated succesfully (see geneticts)

You might be interested in my criticism of genetics:
http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/bewareofgene.html

That replicators vary randomly via mutation has NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED! It is an ASSUMPTION. Please look at the other thread which deals with randomness.
http://forum.wolframscience.com/sho...s=&threadid=167

The next statement is obvious: "3). That non-random selection pressure kills some replicators while promoting others is supported by experimental evidence (see Darwin)."

Your conclusion reminds me of arguments by scholastic philosophers. You decided that randomness exists and “Therefore it follows that "Life results from the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators". Yet randomness does not exist as such it is in the eye of the beholder.

You said: “Finally. You suggest that homeostatic regulation via feedback has not been tested experimentially. I beg to differ and cite the science of cybernetics and biochemistry in my defence.”

The existence of homeostasis is obvious to any physician. Yet it is not based on negative feedback!!

My dear friend you are brainwashed with randomness. Look at your organism there is nothing random in it! Take my advice if a doctor treats you with randomness, ask a non random one for a second opinion.

Chaos and creativity

Although creativity is linked with complexity. Not every complexity may be regarded as creative. Take for instance the evolution of the logistic equation and its progression to chaos. Some chaotic regions reveal structure, while other resemble noise.

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~ldb/seminar/logdiffeqn.html

Wolfram’s book depicts evolving chaotic CA which might be regarded as creative, yet their structures appear and vanish. Creativity involves more than a turnover of unexpected structures. In order to be relevant these creations ought to persist for a while. When this happens creativity becomes an innovation.

The growing embryo displays both kinds of creativity. Areas of intense cell turnover and fleeting structures are embedded in regions of innovation where the limbs are formed.

I developed a CA system in which rapid turnover and innovation occur side by side. As the CA evolves its cells (bits) continually change. Despite being chaotic it ultimately settles down and maintains its appearance.

http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/ca/ca126.htm

A river illustrates the notion of bounded chaos. Its water changes chaotically, while its banks are relatively stable.

The first universal computer

The Sepher Yetzirah, or Book of Creation, is one of the oldest Jewish religious texts to be found outside the Bible. It was written between the 3rd -6th century. It elucidates how God permuted and transformed the 22 letters of the Hebrew Alphabet to form the foundation of his creation and how he combined these letters to generate the words by which "He depicted all that was formed and all that would be formed."

The Book of Creation is an interesting attempt to handle complexity.

According to a Jewish legend God actually consulted the Book of Creation during his creation, and the book illustrates that creation proceeded algorithmically. The 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet were placed in a circle and permutated. As the circle oscillated back and forth, the words emerged and were transformed into real objects. The algorithm is illustrated in Chapter 4:16. Stones means letters, and houses are groups of letters.

“Two stones build 2 houses
Three stones build 6 houses
Four stones build 24 houses
Five stones build 120 houses
Six stones build 620 houses
Seven stones build 5040 houses
From here on go out and calculate
that which the mouth cannot speak
and the ear cannot hear”.
http://members.fortunecity.com/patrickm/231kaplan.htm

Several centuries later Alan Turing defined a universal machine that is able to simulate any other Turing machine. Some computer experts regard our universe as a huge Turing machine. According to Church-Turing thesis it is generally assumed that an algorithm must satisfy the following requirements:

1.The algorithm consists of a finite set of simple and precise instructions that are described with a finite number of symbols.
2.The algorithm will always produce the result in a finite number of steps.
3.The algorithm can in principle be carried out by a human being with only paper and pencil.
4.The execution of the algorithm requires no intelligence of the human being except that which is needed to understand and execute the instructions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-Turing_thesis

Although Turing’s algorithm seems better than that of the Book of Creation, God did use neither algorithm. He knew that nothing proceeds faster than the speed of light and with these algorithms it may take eons until his creation will be completed. Not that eons should disturb the timeless almighty. He was simply more creative than a Turing machine. He first thought of his creation, he then said “Let there be. . “ and created us in a parallel fashion.

http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/ca/ca01.htm

Simplification

Complexity as such is uninteresting. Yet it poses a threat to our existence. Imagine being placed in a complex maze when you desperately search for the way out otherwise you might starve to death. In order to save yourself you have to simplify and look for a pattern which points the way out.

Our interest in complexity is driven by the urge (need) to simplify it. One way to grasp it is by creating complex systems in order to simplify them. The more difficult the simplification, the more interesting is the system. The ease of simplification may thus serve as a measure of the system complexity.

Let's start with the complexity of the class-4 in Wolfram’s book (p. 231) which is easily simplified. You generate a CA set which displays calss-4 complexity and apply the following transformation. For every state, sum up its elements and you will get a number. In this way you may simplify any evolving CA in Wolfram’s book into a series of numbers.

The Mandelbrot set is somewhat more complex. It has two simplifying features. It is self similar, and has a fractal geometry.

What about noise which generates unpredicatable patterns? In a previous section it was mentioned that whenever noise is multiplied by itself it does not become more complex. Thus noise cannot generate complexity. In addition noise does not exist as such in nature and therefore does not pose a threat to our existence.

Life cannot be simplified at all. Any attempt to simplify it generates inconsistencies.

http://www.what-is-cancer.com/papers/ca/ca0.htm

Worship of One, God?

The instant anything exists (as opposed to not existing) you have the concept of binary, therefore numbers and mathematics. That means infinite complexity explodes from the most simple condition possible: Is or Is Not. ('There is no try' - Master Yoda)

The Universe is fundamentally binary and what we see as particles, waves and even our consciousness is merely the result of huge persistent structures of 'on-space' and 'off-space' interacting. (Are these words or just pixels?)

We know all life is biology, all biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is maths, all maths is binary patterns. Everything is binary patterns.

Ultimately, it's blatantly obvious complexity needs no designer because then God could not exist (being complex as he is) and neither could anything else. Logic (and NKS) confirms that all you need is a 1 and a zero, something and nothing, and bang! Infinity.

Maybe God tried to tell us all along? "I am the One..."

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum, et mathematica"

<Quote>
We know all life is biology, all biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is maths,
all maths is binary patterns. Everything is binary patterns.
</Quote>

Who "we"?
Chemists don't beleive chemistry is physics.
Physicists don't beleive physics is math.
Methematicians don't beleive math is binary patterns.
I can't even agree that life is biology - it
depends what definition of "life" and "biology"
we are using.

Gershom, I think I have a useful tool in development that you can use for looking at cellular automata as a kind of body. Go to "Cellular Automata with Live Input".

The Royal 'we'

Vasily Shirin, you are of course correct. I should have said, "I reckon" rather than, "We know." Especially on a math-related forum. My apologies.

Anyway, I still reckon!

__________________
"Cogito ergo sum, et mathematica"

The One is neither a number nor anything which we can grasp

Hi Mark,
I suggest that you brush up your theology. Do you really mean that the One is a one of a binary number?
The One is the “infinite” and “timeless” of Western and Eastern Religions. In order to be grasped by finite beings like you he created the world in which we live and endowed us with the language of mathematics with which you may regard the One’s creation as a finite binary computer.

http://www.what-is-cancer.com/paper...ndtheology.html
http://www.what-is-cancer.com/paper...minddisease.htm

The logic "A is B, B is C, ..., Y is Z, and Z is just a bunch of bits" is an essence of Wolfram's philosophy, it's not Mark's invention.
I would rather beleive that A is not B,
even if it appears to be made of Bs. To explain the stability of atom, people had to introduce special force that keeps the thing together. Do we know how many additional laws and forces should be introduced to explain properties of proteins? (Even properties of crystals cannot at this moment be fully explained by known forces - as far as I know). So, here's my conjecture:
Every entity (that deserves the title of entity) has properties that cannot be deduced from properties of its parts.
I suspect this conjecture in fact has very ancient origin, but don't know who was the first to mention it - Platon?

- Have a look at the B.Fuller Synergetics. He defines synergy also as the “behavior of integral, aggregate, whole systems unpredicted by behaviors of any of their components or subassemblies of their components taken separately from the whole.” (101.01-102.00, Synergetics)

http://www.bfi.org/synergetics/index.html

Fuller's Synergetics differs greatly from synergetics notion as self-organization of complex systems, used for ex. in Russia. Fuller assumes geometric neighborhood relations as basic reason for complex behavior.

I haven't found references to Plato at the BFI site.

__________________

Nature plays a slider game with rhombic dodecahedra.