'The purpose of life is to disperse energy " Virtually all organisms, including humans, are, in a real sense, sunlight transmogrified, temporary waypoints in the flow of energy. Ecological succession, viewed from a thermodynamic perspective, is a process that maximizes the capture and degradation of energy. Similarly, the tendency for life to become more complex over the past 3.5 billion years (as well as the overall increase in biomass and organismal diversity through time) is not due simply to natural selection, as most evolutionists still argue, but also to nature's "efforts" to grab more and more of the sun's flow. The slow burn that characterizes life enables ecological systems to persist over deep time, changing in response to external and internal perturbations. Ecology has been summarized by the pithy statement, "energy flows, matter cycles. " Yet this maxim applies equally to complex systems in the non-living world; indeed it literally unites the biosphere with the physical realm. More and more, it appears that complex, cycling, swirling systems of matter have a natural tendency to emerge in the face of energy gradients. This recurrent phenomenon may even have been the driving force behind life's origins."' www.edge.org/response-detail/10674
Believe it or not, the first place I heard about your theory on entropy and biological systems was in Dan Brown's new book Origins. When I read the chapter that described your theory, I immediately put my book down to google you and your theory to see if it was something real or some fiction Dan Brown had conjured up. To my delight, everything in the book was spot on. I really thing you are on to something, the origin of life and complex organisms arose as en-tropic dispersal devices.
Jajaja. When I read about that, I just equated the theory with my theory of duality as a principle and manifested in many ways and showing one mechanism: reciclyn. (Reciclaje). But that was not new. Gnostisism, taoism already talk about that but of course without explaining the details of the mechanism. And that was Mr England work.
Funny how different places lead to this. I came across it in a talk from a communist scientist talking about thermodynamics and life within a history of scientific materialism.
"a greater diversity in the ecosystem aids greater assimilation and efficiency of solar energy while at the same time it requires or implies tighter cooperation", Modelo Para Valorar la Atribucion de Sustentabilidad 2003
Amazing that I understand this. Very useful because of early conditions on earth. Hot surface, presence of liquid water, availability of life building elements and minerals for making complex biological molecules.
The energy is passed on from trophic level to trophic level and each time about 90% of the energy is lost, with some being lost as heat into the environment (an effect of respiration) and some being lost as incompletely digested food (egesta). Therefore, primary consumers get about 10% of the energy produced by autotrophs, while secondary consumers get 1% and tertiary consumers get 0.1%. This means the top consumer of a food chain receives the least energy, as a lot of the food chain's energy has been lost between trophic levels. This loss of energy at each level limits typical food chains to only four to six links.
I dont recognize some mathematical symbols being used here and some im familar with being used in unfamiliar ways like pi with a subscript. Is there a resource anyone recommends if id like to understand the math in greater detail?
Too much talking - could have just cited Viscount Ilya Romanovich Prigogine’s ❤discovery that the second law of thermodynamics works in reverse for open systems. His discovery explains evolution, increasing organization of transportation systems and so much more.
when applied to social systems, it could potentially mean that we will never have peace as a stable end state as war is always a higher entropy and faster energy dissipative process? It may explain why humans tend to revert to violent wars time and again, with no regard for the lessons learnt from past wars!!!
not quite, if we destroy life, that's not favorable for dissipation anymore. On the other hand, if the civilization grows more technologically advanced, we can spread extra planet, utilize more energy and so forth.
Assuming solar radiation is the external energy source, could a life form utilizing photosynthesis actually increase, as assumed in the theory, the solar energy absorbed by the earth if the organism wasn't there?
Sounds plausible: consider boreal forests. They increase the absorption capacity of solar irradiance. Some say that reforestation in northern climates actually accelerates global warming overriding the contribution to sequestering carbon. Also, a white snow covered tundra reflects more sunlight than a wintry forest. Another example is green algae. Deep green oceans full of algae, while absorbing more CO2, also absorb more sunlight, warming the oceans faster. The whole issue of global warming is a none equilibrium phenomenon, and indeed driven by life on the planet. We barely have a clue how it can regulate itself after we screwed it up.
I think so. Imagine the opposite, if Earth was just a ball of naked rock. The sun would directly heat the Earth a lot more, although the overall energy absorbed would be less. So the Earth would just be a great heat sink where the added heat would end up stored deep down by convection, making it less entropic. Let that energy be used inefficiently by a tree to grow, and you get a lot more dispersal. I suppose the direct opposite of life is therefore a crystal that just sits and absorbs and stores energy. And that would explain why life is 'pointlessly' beautiful/complex, our purpose according to the laws of physics is to waste as much energy as possible.
@@greenwoodorganics4681 that is the purpose of life, essentially. Facilitating the heat death, like a catalyst. I never assumed the surface being bare rock and be dark, like the basaltic rock. I always imagined the lifeless planet surface to be something like sand dunes, which would reflect even more.
Pi is continum of séquences Just look the Space in the middle of the numbers 3,1(2,3)4(3,2)1(2,3,4)5(6,7,8)9(8,7,6,5,4,3)2(3,4,5)etc but there is more toi see
Jeremy, why is there no some sort of life formations on Mars, it has similar non-equilibrium thermodynamic properties to Earth. I am not trying to say that life forms on Mars should be similar to our planets, but following the logic of your theory - some sort of life, adopted to the environment, should have been developed there.
You are missing very important points, Dear O Zaza. These reactions needs some conditions to be expontaneous: water, some metals, and a specific solar (atmosphere) filter. And there is lots of specific factors that were importante, in a contingency way, to the development of very organized sistems from very simple sistems that we not enven know yet. The transition of mechanisms is a very important point. The origin of life is not as simple as having similar non-equilibrium thermodynamic properties. The composition of the pre-biotic Earth was crucial for this whole enviromental of molecular evolution. :)
The replicators mustn't replicate perfectly. There is a fidelity limit beyond which the system evolution stops.. Mutation mechanisms producing higher work variants is critical
I wish I could give you this advice: drop it all and get M.O.A.T. built. Angels know all. We got you good. (I had a part too in doing this. - Billy M.).
Oh professor, do you truly believe, That the second laws of thermodynamics, Are the driving force behind evolution's weave? If so, then let us all laugh together, At the irony that unfolds in this endeavor. Physics, biology, and religion entwined, In a dance of knowledge, intertwined. But can we truly find the answers we seek, In the laws of thermodynamics, so unique? The second law speaks of entropy's rise, Of disorder increasing as time flies. But can this explain life's intricate design, The complexity that evolution defines? In physics, we study matter and its motion, While biology explores life's grand notion. And religion seeks to understand the divine, Yet all three may have different paths to define. To laugh at oneself is a humbling act, To question our beliefs and face the facts. But in this laughter, let us not forget, That knowledge is a journey, not a final set. So professor, if you truly believe, That thermodynamics drives evolution's weave, Laugh not at yourself or these disciplines three, But embrace the questions that set us free. For in the pursuit of truth and understanding, We may find connections that are expanding. And though our paths may diverge and sway, Together they shape our collective way. So let us laugh with curiosity and grace, As we explore the mysteries of time and space. For in this laughter lies a deeper truth, That knowledge is vast and ever aloof.
I don't understand why people think that life is low entropy. If entropy is boring/simple things breaking apart and recombining to form more complex, weird, unpredictable, random things, then life is the highest entropy stuff ever. We living things are messy, crazy, wonderful creatures, turning a boring, predicable state of things into a chaotic state. We animals have way higher levels of disorder than, say, a rock. The number of possible states that I can be in is far higher than the number of possible states that a rock can be in, right? (Especially when you include brain states.)
You're considering the rock and yourself as single entities. Entropy is related to the fundamental particles in your statistical theory, in this case atoms. Your atoms are much more precisely arranged than those of a rock, and so in the bulk your entropy is relatively much lower than that of the rock.
@devin buercklin I don't see anything about entropy meaning "low output" (of what? "relative to energy involved". Entropy is the number of elements in a system, basically. There's some more complex math to it, but really, that's it. The more atoms in an object, the more entropy it has. There isn't anything about "disorder" because "disorder" can only be subjective, as in an order you don't like. All orders are order. 11111 is just as much an order as 11001 and 00001. Randomness is when all orders are equally probable. Or all happen, somewhere, somewhen. Which is likely how reality works.
There is simply no place for religion in mainstream science today. If Jeremy England were not religious, (His denomination or sect has nothing to do with this), he would have a Nobel Prize by now. No kidding. >
Does this time-symmetry holds for macroscopic processes such as life?. My doubt is because he says it's a basic symmetry property of the matter we know, but i've read its not quite general. Thanks
Lecture begins: 3:47
'The purpose of life is to disperse energy
" Virtually all organisms, including humans, are, in a real sense, sunlight transmogrified, temporary waypoints in the flow of energy. Ecological succession, viewed from a thermodynamic perspective, is a process that maximizes the capture and degradation of energy. Similarly, the tendency for life to become more complex over the past 3.5 billion years (as well as the overall increase in biomass and organismal diversity through time) is not due simply to natural selection, as most evolutionists still argue, but also to nature's "efforts" to grab more and more of the sun's flow. The slow burn that characterizes life enables ecological systems to persist over deep time, changing in response to external and internal perturbations.
Ecology has been summarized by the pithy statement, "energy flows, matter cycles. " Yet this maxim applies equally to complex systems in the non-living world; indeed it literally unites the biosphere with the physical realm. More and more, it appears that complex, cycling, swirling systems of matter have a natural tendency to emerge in the face of energy gradients. This recurrent phenomenon may even have been the driving force behind life's origins."'
www.edge.org/response-detail/10674
move over handwaving talks - this one is whole arm waving
Believe it or not, the first place I heard about your theory on entropy and biological systems was in Dan Brown's new book Origins. When I read the chapter that described your theory, I immediately put my book down to google you and your theory to see if it was something real or some fiction Dan Brown had conjured up. To my delight, everything in the book was spot on. I really thing you are on to something, the origin of life and complex organisms arose as en-tropic dispersal devices.
Jason Rollo Ha! Same here!
Jajaja. When I read about that, I just equated the theory with my theory of duality as a principle and manifested in many ways and showing one mechanism: reciclyn. (Reciclaje). But that was not new. Gnostisism, taoism already talk about that but of course without explaining the details of the mechanism. And that was Mr England work.
Sadly enough, majority people will recognize for the same.
Me too.
Funny how different places lead to this. I came across it in a talk from a communist scientist talking about thermodynamics and life within a history of scientific materialism.
"a greater diversity in the ecosystem aids greater assimilation and efficiency of solar energy while at the same time it requires or implies tighter cooperation", Modelo Para Valorar la Atribucion de Sustentabilidad 2003
Amazingly laymen friendly talk for such a complicated subject. Superb lecturer.
Amazing that I understand this. Very useful because of early conditions on earth. Hot surface, presence of liquid water, availability of life building elements and minerals for making complex biological molecules.
The energy is passed on from trophic level to trophic level and each time about 90% of the energy is lost, with some being lost as heat into the environment (an effect of respiration) and some being lost as incompletely digested food (egesta). Therefore, primary consumers get about 10% of the energy produced by autotrophs, while secondary consumers get 1% and tertiary consumers get 0.1%. This means the top consumer of a food chain receives the least energy, as a lot of the food chain's energy has been lost between trophic levels. This loss of energy at each level limits typical food chains to only four to six links.
Now I dont see the Aristoteles spontaneous life generation theory obsolete anymore, just a few adjustments at the jar and you got a living fly.
He also didn't subcategorize the things we agree are alive-- are dead bears alive, or only live bears?
Do you know "Thermodynamique de l'évolution" by François Roddier ?
I dont recognize some mathematical symbols being used here and some im familar with being used in unfamiliar ways like pi with a subscript. Is there a resource anyone recommends if id like to understand the math in greater detail?
Too much talking - could have just cited Viscount Ilya Romanovich Prigogine’s ❤discovery that the second law of thermodynamics works in reverse for open systems. His discovery explains evolution, increasing organization of transportation systems and so much more.
Cool that in his What is Life lecture in Sweden (Solna, Karolinska Institute), there is a skeleton by his side or its shadow the whole time... : )
when applied to social systems, it could potentially mean that we will never have peace as a stable end state as war is always a higher entropy and faster energy dissipative process? It may explain why humans tend to revert to violent wars time and again, with no regard for the lessons learnt from past wars!!!
not quite, if we destroy life, that's not favorable for dissipation anymore. On the other hand, if the civilization grows more technologically advanced, we can spread extra planet, utilize more energy and so forth.
What about introductory literature on the subject? Or should we just look at the guy's articles?
Assuming solar radiation is the external energy source, could a life form utilizing photosynthesis actually increase, as assumed in the theory, the solar energy absorbed by the earth if the organism wasn't there?
Sounds plausible: consider boreal forests. They increase the absorption capacity of solar irradiance. Some say that reforestation in northern climates actually accelerates global warming overriding the contribution to sequestering carbon. Also, a white snow covered tundra reflects more sunlight than a wintry forest. Another example is green algae. Deep green oceans full of algae, while absorbing more CO2, also absorb more sunlight, warming the oceans faster. The whole issue of global warming is a none equilibrium phenomenon, and indeed driven by life on the planet. We barely have a clue how it can regulate itself after we screwed it up.
I think so. Imagine the opposite, if Earth was just a ball of naked rock. The sun would directly heat the Earth a lot more, although the overall energy absorbed would be less. So the Earth would just be a great heat sink where the added heat would end up stored deep down by convection, making it less entropic. Let that energy be used inefficiently by a tree to grow, and you get a lot more dispersal.
I suppose the direct opposite of life is therefore a crystal that just sits and absorbs and stores energy.
And that would explain why life is 'pointlessly' beautiful/complex, our purpose according to the laws of physics is to waste as much energy as possible.
@@greenwoodorganics4681 that is the purpose of life, essentially. Facilitating the heat death, like a catalyst.
I never assumed the surface being bare rock and be dark, like the basaltic rock. I always imagined the lifeless planet surface to be something like sand dunes, which would reflect even more.
There is 3 universelle condition on every thing, double, proportion direction,Hope it s help your mental to make correct choice ,PSM13.
Pi is continum of séquences Just look the Space in the middle of the numbers 3,1(2,3)4(3,2)1(2,3,4)5(6,7,8)9(8,7,6,5,4,3)2(3,4,5)etc but there is more toi see
loving your lecture! Thank you!!
Jeremy, why is there no some sort of life formations on Mars, it has similar non-equilibrium thermodynamic properties to Earth. I am not trying to say that life forms on Mars should be similar to our planets, but following the logic of your theory - some sort of life, adopted to the environment, should have been developed there.
You are missing very important points, Dear O Zaza.
These reactions needs some conditions to be expontaneous: water, some metals, and a specific solar (atmosphere) filter. And there is lots of specific factors that were importante, in a contingency way, to the development of very organized sistems from very simple sistems that we not enven know yet. The transition of mechanisms is a very important point. The origin of life is not as simple as having similar non-equilibrium thermodynamic properties. The composition of the pre-biotic Earth was crucial for this whole enviromental of molecular evolution. :)
No water. No magnetic field to protect from the solar wind.
Also.. are we sure about no life existing on mars?.. like underground water pockets containing extremophile bacteria..
Question. Why does life seem only to have emerged once on planet earth?
Because it probably didn't. :-)
Does anyone got the reference articles he mentioned?
Superb - great insights
Awesome talk.
Great lecture!
Love from Prasoon Kumar 🥰
twitter.com/lifelikephysics
The replicators mustn't replicate perfectly. There is a fidelity limit beyond which the system evolution stops.. Mutation mechanisms producing higher work variants is critical
I can't have children so if anyone has any question about what it's like to be a system that lacks self replication hmu
Battery recharge: 8:01
David Silver sent me here
8:02 ghost
Is mankind driving itself and maybe the planet to annihilation in keeping with the concepts presented here?
ruclips.net/video/5fXN7x7a5So/видео.html a poetic examination of the meaning of life
@@lukostello Very good!
annihilation defeats the purpose
JBSG nothing else.
I wish I could give you this advice: drop it all and get M.O.A.T. built. Angels know all. We got you good. (I had a part too in doing this. - Billy M.).
Oh professor, do you truly believe,
That the second laws of thermodynamics,
Are the driving force behind evolution's weave?
If so, then let us all laugh together,
At the irony that unfolds in this endeavor.
Physics, biology, and religion entwined,
In a dance of knowledge, intertwined.
But can we truly find the answers we seek,
In the laws of thermodynamics, so unique?
The second law speaks of entropy's rise,
Of disorder increasing as time flies.
But can this explain life's intricate design,
The complexity that evolution defines?
In physics, we study matter and its motion,
While biology explores life's grand notion.
And religion seeks to understand the divine,
Yet all three may have different paths to define.
To laugh at oneself is a humbling act,
To question our beliefs and face the facts.
But in this laughter, let us not forget,
That knowledge is a journey, not a final set.
So professor, if you truly believe,
That thermodynamics drives evolution's weave,
Laugh not at yourself or these disciplines three,
But embrace the questions that set us free.
For in the pursuit of truth and understanding,
We may find connections that are expanding.
And though our paths may diverge and sway,
Together they shape our collective way.
So let us laugh with curiosity and grace,
As we explore the mysteries of time and space.
For in this laughter lies a deeper truth,
That knowledge is vast and ever aloof.
e/acc
I don't understand why people think that life is low entropy. If entropy is boring/simple things breaking apart and recombining to form more complex, weird, unpredictable, random things, then life is the highest entropy stuff ever. We living things are messy, crazy, wonderful creatures, turning a boring, predicable state of things into a chaotic state. We animals have way higher levels of disorder than, say, a rock. The number of possible states that I can be in is far higher than the number of possible states that a rock can be in, right? (Especially when you include brain states.)
You're considering the rock and yourself as single entities. Entropy is related to the fundamental particles in your statistical theory, in this case atoms. Your atoms are much more precisely arranged than those of a rock, and so in the bulk your entropy is relatively much lower than that of the rock.
@@thiocarbamoyl And yet, a lifeform's existence and actions produce a lot more entropy than a rock's 'actions'.
@devin buercklin I don't see anything about entropy meaning "low output" (of what? "relative to energy involved".
Entropy is the number of elements in a system, basically. There's some more complex math to it, but really, that's it. The more atoms in an object, the more entropy it has. There isn't anything about "disorder" because "disorder" can only be subjective, as in an order you don't like. All orders are order. 11111 is just as much an order as 11001 and 00001.
Randomness is when all orders are equally probable. Or all happen, somewhere, somewhen. Which is likely how reality works.
There is simply no place for religion in mainstream science today.
If Jeremy England were not religious, (His denomination or sect has nothing to do with this), he would have a Nobel Prize by now.
No kidding.
>
Does this time-symmetry holds for macroscopic processes such as life?. My doubt is because he says it's a basic symmetry property of the matter we know, but i've read its not quite general. Thanks