Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
3 Natural and Biotic Things—Lethal Gap or Irrational Compromise
Conceptual Aspects of the Common Extrema in Biology and Physics
Figure 6.1 The autocatalytic nature of the
processes of free energy dissipation in
chemo-prebiotic, biological, and biosocial
areas of evolution leads to close
exponential growth of energy dissipation,
which has been illustrated previously. The
dissipative processes in the area of purely
physical processes have a character of
relaxation and a decrease of rate of energy
dissipation to zero. To show the unity of
all natural processes, the continuation of
these curves and the resulting curve
comprises some bell-shaped form. One
can note that the area under this curve has
the dimension of the product of energy on
time—the action. This indicates that this
area also strives to a minimum.
turn, assumes nonmechanical organization of physical systems: Physical matter at
the levels of intensive evolution could be represented by organized, nonmechanically similar living matter ways of organization.
This suggests that physical motion in its evolution passes the stages that are
similar to those observable in the chemo-prebiotic area in its development of dissipative interaction with the environment. But the result of this is an almost nondissipative relationship to the external world that physical systems demonstrate. Such a
consideration into biological processes and their evolution may show final, idealized results as a quasi-physical form of the organization of the dissipative relation
to the environment that is characterized by an absolute or nearly absolute denying
of dissipation—energy consumption of biosocial and technological processes on
the next stages of evolution.
Such a denying of the evolutionary impasse for living nature assumes the evolution of living forms up to a physical-like, similar mechanic level, and it assumes
further instability of this quasi-mechanical motion by new levels of organization.
Such mutual assumptions indicate certain recognition of evolutionary unity of
biotic and physical things. Moreover, it seems to be the only possible denial of evolutionary impasse of the biosocial area in an energy-dissipative sense. It proceeds
from the assumption that there is a reduction of energy costs (energy expenditure)
in time in the evolution of a biosocial system. The consumption of energy in such a
system would tend toward zero, which (allowing for the internal organization of
dissipative systems) corresponds to the level of organization of physical systems
when energy for their existence is not consumed at all.
The above point of view also assumes the existence in living matter of
post-socio-biotic forms of organization, when the rate of energy dissipation (consumption) for these stages continually decreases. On the other hand, it assumes the
presence in the physical forms of motion of the internal nonmechanical degrees of
freedom, during which the evolution of the physical forms of matter motion passed.
The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics
Therefore, the above model of energy evolution of the interaction of motion in
material forms can formally be represented as a continuous curve on the diagram,
as evolution of biosocial processes of energy dissipation up to physical levels
(Figure 6.1). Such a model can be referred to as a “continuous” model.
The framework of the above consideration of energy dissipation seems to offer a
natural “alternative” model of possible intercoordination of the evolution of living
and nonliving branches of the material world. Effectively, this model rejects the
extreme approach of the least action principle or the principle of rapid dissipation
of energetic instability. This “alternative” model is based on the denying of the
path suggested above for the continuous synchronization of the “live” and “nonlive” branches of development of energy dissipation. The diagram of development
of rate of dissipation in time, Figure 6.1, formally shows a certain gap, a curve
This model suggests the evolutionary impasse of living matter, which is a recognition of the accidence of the biotic forms, their temporality in a completely physically and mechanically stable nature. We should emphasize that it is the apotheosis
of an exclusively mechanistic matter and exclusive stability of mechanical forms of
its motion. This seems to be a model of thermal death, when some earlier predetermined forms of motion have greatest primary favor, and their stability is absolute.
It emphasizes the evolutionary accident of the emergence of the live branch of evolution, the living forms of motion in nature.
The “alternative” model of coevolution of the biosocial and physical forms of
dissipation is based on the complete independence of the evolution of living and
nonliving forms of motion. It is also based on the basic impossibility of the evolutionary shift of biological systems into a physical level, when their life-supporting
energy consumption can be compared to the interaction of physical systems within
the environment. It, therefore, also assumes the standard evidence: the nonexistence
of dissipative and evolving internal organization for the physical forms, which is
similar to the biosocial forms. Such a model seems to be natural enough from the
rational point of view; however, it also fatally breaks off the living and the nonliving branches of nature. But on the other hand, to what extent is rationality rational
Thus, of the two above opposite models of coevolution of dissipative processes,
or models of global realization of the least action principle, the first model is preferable in terms of harmony. Though it is irrational, it does not break with the theories
of biological and physical evolution. There are a number of rather strong assumptions in this model, such as the assumption about the existence of nonmechanical,
biological-like stages in physical evolution, through which the physical systems
evolve in the process of interaction—although only for very short times in terms of
the Plank extent. This assumption, however, can make the model lethal due to its
extreme irrationality. At the same time, there is no logical and aesthetic perfection
for this “alternative” model, which is also rarely combined with the truth.
Conceptual Aspects of the Common Extrema in Biology and Physics
In summary, the above consideration of the realization of the least action
principle within the framework of continuous or “alternative” models in the infrastructure may seem either reliable or irrational. However, if we limit ourselves only
to phenomenology, the following regularities seem to be justified:
1. Instability of material motion: relative stability of certain material forms and relative
instability of others.
2. The fundamental nature of motion as transition, transformation, and evolution of instability and nonequilibrium into a more equilibrated, stable state.
3. The extremely fast character of this transition to stability and to equilibrium (expressed in
the least action principle).
4. The ordered character of this transition, providing extremely fast increase of equilibrium,
stability, order, and information.
5. The emergence and form of extreme process by rejection of its stability, through a generation of a new nonequilibrated process of interaction of material forms of motion, via the
ordered form of the disorder production. New nonequilibrium is also the source of new
changes, and it creates an open-end evolution of the matter forms with an unforeseen
These five theses can probably complete the present models that deal with the
unpredictable evolutionary changes in nature.
Main Conclusions and Remaining
Thus, the ideology of the maximum energy dissipation principle, which can be
considered as a particular case of the least action principle, and the corresponding
optimal variational technique turned out to be very constructive—both phenomenologically and formally, in terms of mathematic unification of physics and biology.
On the ideological basis of these principles, it is possible to conceptually formalize
the reasons and character of the occurring phenomena in these two opposite areas
by several notions. The constructivism of these principles is determined by the
energy and penalty interpretation. The maximum energy dissipation/least action
principle can be considered as a combinational principle that determines the process proceeding from previously given harmony, which Norbert Wiener described
as creation of the structural variety of material forms that is by no means impossible to predict beforehand. From the different examples and generalizations discussed above, one may present the key characteristics of this process, which has
infrastructure and infra-organization going into infinity:
Matter can be treated as being in a nonequilibrium, and it is in some sense unstable. With
the quantitative measure of nonequilibrium/instability, one can say the penalty for staying
in an unstable state can be characterized energetically.
Motion is the aspiration of matter to equilibrium, to stability.
Matter’s aspiration to stability is carried out extremely rapidly according to the least
action/maximum energy dissipation principle.
The extremely fast striving is possible in an ordered way only, in a synergetic and cooperative manner, with informational support and informational cognition of these ways.
The extremely fast striving creates new forms of instability that can be treated as new
forms of matter: It is also accompanied by the transformation of the material forms of
In this way, the physical and biological worlds are closely united by energetic
extremeness. It is the extremeness of the interconversion processes of free energy
that can be treated in a generalized sense, and the inequilibrity/instability is characterized by its dissipation. In this sense, free energy can be treated as a penalty for
being in nonequilibrated, unstable states.
However, at the same time, a number of questions remain. They are related to
the limit of the mixed up known states of substance, forms of energy, and space
and time. They can be referred to, to some extent, as “beyond the limit.” Once the
four-dimensional space-time form was discovered, the superhot bunch of supermatter has evolved through a large variety of states, very quickly leaving its initial
The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385187-1.00007-1
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics
nonequilibrium according to the least action/maximum energy dissipation principle.
The early material stages of evolution of this bunch may be considered as the
stages that spread on the lowest formed stable three-dimensional space. One of the
latter known organizational stages of matter became a biosocial state. Thus, within
the framework of human social information cognition and informational mapping,
which arises for “life support” at these latter stages, it is possible to raise a number
of rather “beyond the limit” questions, related to the origin of the Big Bang and to
the character of laws occurring prior to its “splashing out”:
Why did the “beyond the limit” world (which could be considered as a physical vacuum)
or its part turn out to be in nonequilibrium, or to be unstable?
Did the character of its phenomena obey the least action/maximum energy dissipation
principle in the above widely formulated sense?
What nature did the forms of prior existence (before Big Bang) of physical world space,
substance, time, and energy have before their conversion to conventional low-dimensional
Was the world expediently converted on the existing space-time hypersurface, and is it a
certain experiment carried out by a higher-dimensional (not only in the sense of dimension) Creator? Is the Creator physically located beyond the border of the physical vacuum
and beyond the above-mentioned space-time limit?
What sort of evolutionary mega-trends could exist beyond the biosocial form of
It is probably impossible to give the answers to these questions without considering the detailed operating mechanisms of the least action/maximum energy dissipation principle, i.e., to be limited only by phenomenology, in the framework of
Within the biological and physical perspective, is the phenomenological relationship between physical and biological worlds limited only by the extreme character of energy transformation? It was mentioned that the extreme utilization of
nonequilibrium/instability means the regularity of this process; and moreover, it
means the informational support (informational cognition) of it. In this sense, a
question is: Does there exist, along with energy and penalty unity of the world, any
similar informational unity that supports/provides ordered dissipation? At the same
time, it is known that any transfer or transcription of the information from various
information codes and languages always results in some losses. So the information
at one level of organization of processes does not always bear target opportunity
and does not always have significance for another level of organization. Therefore,
perhaps in a sense, in which the energetic unity of the world exists, there is no
information unity, even if matter is actually overfilled with information. It seems
that information divides the world while energy unites it.
And the vital informational question: Up to what level and up to what limiting
information code can information be reduced, compressed in its transcription for
transfer from one level of organization to another, without functional and valuable
Main Conclusions and Remaining Questions
The questions related to the regulative infrastructure of the extreme realization
of the least action principle are interesting and need to be clarified:
What are the common regularities of information contribution in the materialization of
the extreme strategy of biological and physical systems, and do they have a general
What are the limitation regularities of different kinds of information mapping and informational cognition accompanying the extreme strategy?
Is the information mapping in a general sense carried out by the social system of Homo
sapiens limited? If yes, how?
Does information participate in organization of known physical interactions?
What is the role of information mapping in the realization/triggering of initial instability
of the physical vacuum?
And one more question: Are these questions out of the scope of some limiting restrictions
on the biosocial way of information mapping? These restrictions are determined by energetic opportunities, i.e., the limits of short and long periods and distances and scales of
energy consumption in a general sense. Are we approaching from the perspective of the
above-stated informational limitations a systemic understanding of a possible absolute
border, both in the scope of energy consumption potential of Homo sapiens and in its
Eastern wisdom states that the truth lies between the words and the lines. The
problem is to find suitable words and lines. However, the author believes that this
space between the lines does not contain the above-mentioned limitations regarding
informational mapping and cognition. Moreover, this space has the capacity to correct the lines themselves—lines that do not ever describe the truth precisely enough.