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.
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