Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
3 Natural and Biotic Things—Lethal Gap or Irrational Compromise

3 Natural and Biotic Things—Lethal Gap or Irrational Compromise

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

Conceptual Aspects of the Common Extrema in Biology and Physics



Dissipated energy/penalty



“Alternative”

model



“Continous”

model



Proto-



Biosocial

area



Pure

physical

area

Time



373



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.



374



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.



6.3.2



“Alternative” 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

“alternative” model.

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

enough?

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



375



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

diversity.



These five theses can probably complete the present models that deal with the

unpredictable evolutionary changes in nature.



Main Conclusions and Remaining

Questions



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

previous stability.



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.



378



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

space-time?

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

organization?



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

phenomenological consideration.

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

losses?



Main Conclusions and Remaining Questions



379



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

character?

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

information mapping/cognition?



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.



Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

3 Natural and Biotic Things—Lethal Gap or Irrational Compromise

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)

×