Skip to main content
Life == Information

In this post I will challenge what we mean by the word "life". Biological things are "alive" by definition, and by this we mean complex biological entities which can reproduce themselves. Added to this are biological viruses, which are on a less firm footing, since they are essentially parasites which can only reproduce in a host.

Although we may die, our cells may not, for example our hair and fingernails carry on growing after our death. We can also think of ourselves as the sum our our genes, which live on in our relatives.

Since computing we also have other things which are life-like, though we may not immediately call them "alive". Artificial life is where various types of life (or pattern) are simulated in a computer, and are perhaps bred for fitness using genetic algorithms. We also have Conways "Game of life" where spontaneous patterns emerge (and potentially reproduce) in a computer.

There are other things which are life-like, yet are not considered alive. Computer viruses sponteneously copy themselves. You even have mutating computer viruses in order to defy detection by anti-virus programs. Computer virus kits can create variations on the same virus. Computer viruses are subject to the same pressures of natural selection which biological organisms are subject to. If a virus is "fit" and avoids detection by anti-virus software, is small, has good mechanisms to reproduce itself on a wide variety of platforms, it is a "fit" virus which will become more widespread.

Ordinary computer software can also be considered to be "life". There are long "genomes" (in this case machine code) which inhabit our hard disks and spread via marketing by their manufacturers, reviews and by word-of-mouth. I see that Firefox/Mac OSX/Picassa whatever is fantastic and I reproduce the software on my own computer. We also have aspects of software, such as the way a menu-system works, or a particular algorithm, language or database package which makes software more "fit" and causes it to be more successful.

We also have memes: ideas which spread via human cooperation. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins. Ideas also compete for our favour. There is the flat-earth meme vs the spherical-earth meme. Heliocentric vs geocentric. Islam vs Christianity. Capitalism vs socialism. Black or silver hifi. Classical or modern. Hedge or fence. Picasso or Da Vinci. Iron or bronze.

All of these ideas are competing against one another in the minds of its hosts, namely us. Simple things like what is good to eat or wear compete on their effectiveness and benefit to us. An idea may be particularly appealing to a group of people, for example the church may be particularly attached to the common-sense idea of a flat earth, and there are several references in the Bible to a flat earth. A religious idea may bring with it a sense of identity, morals and purpose which makes it very appealing to its hosts even though it may in fact be totally false.

With modern technology we have the power not only to eradicate smallpox, but also to sequence it and store it on computer. One could then reconstruct smallpox from its sequence. Is smallpox really dead if it could still be reconstructed? Does it matter if its medium is silicon or paper instead of biological molecules for a while?

The problem I have is that biological, carbon-based life is given a special status. I would argue that there is nothing magical about carbon-based life. Yes, at the moment it certainly has the most interesting, but at the end of the day it is still a pattern in a medium. What about all of these other types of "life" which appear so life-like yet we overlook it? Is it because life is in fact so widespread that we never stop to question?

This leads me to my conclusion. All of these different types of life have one thing in common: they are information. Information is subject to exactly the same pressures as biological life: it is copied; it competes; it is subject to natural selection; it mutates; it requires a medium; it can die. When coming up with an umbrella term for all of these forms of "life" we see that it is exactly the same as information.

The nice thing about information is that it is an abstract term. It is subject to mathematical study in the form of information theory. We are not boxed in with worrying about philosophical questions like what does it mean to die? From an information-centric point of view, yes a whole load of information disappears as our bodies decompose, yet at the same time the information in our genome lives on in others. We have managed to discover the underlying concept.

Finally I urge you to see how much information is around you. I cannot cast my eye on anything without realising that it contains a huge amount of information. Each item you see is fit for purpose. The information that went into each design is the result of a long process of selection and refinement.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel...