7 ms·

What Is Life? (1944) [pdf]

109 points by MichaelAO 9y ago

thruflo22 9y ago
This is a brilliant book, clear, succinct and insightful. Part of the canon on our understanding of what life is / what it means to be animate instead of inanimate. Other books on the intangible quality of being alive: - At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman - The Timeless Way of Building by Christopher Alexander - Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter
kevmo 9y ago
This is a book full of good questions and poor answers. Or, as the biologist Max Perutz more scathingly put it, "Sadly, a close study of [Schrodinger's] book and of the related literature has shown me that what was true in his book was not original, and most of what was original was known not to be true even when the book was written."
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  I think HN should have a rule that no one makes a general critique without including some specifics.
  - theoh 9y ago
    Here's a reference I just found without any effort, from an occurrence of the above quote in Freeman Dyson's Origins of Life. GP comment does not deserve to be downvoted: a solid searchable reference was provided. https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Fqsd-v4LcwC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=close+study+of+%5BSchrodinger%27s%5D+book+and+of+the+related+literature+has+shown+me+that+what+was+true+in+his+book+was+not+original,+and+most+of+what+was+original+was+known+not+to+be+true+even+when+the+book+was+written."&source=bl&ots=yorJ8bz9HX&sig=zWo6OazrFQPgPEQEJo8J3y7iz2Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsj7Cbo63WAhWKKsAKHTaXB40Q6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=close%20study%20of%20%5BSchrodinger's%5D%20book%20and%20of%20the%20related%20literature%20has%20shown%20me%20that%20what%20was%20true%20in%20his%20book%20was%20not%20original%2C%20and%20most%20of%20what%20was%20original%20was%20known%20not%20to%20be%20true%20even%20when%20the%20book%20was%20written.%22&f=false https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Fqsd-v4LcwC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3...
  - kevmo 9y ago
    I'm cool with that critique of my answer and will be more specific next time I post such a critique.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    I'm not the person you're replying to, but I also didn't think much of the book. I read it 13 years ago, so it's hard for me to remember specifics of my criticisms.
fernly 9y ago
Interesting. He argues his way to this principle of genetics: > And the gene is most certainly not just a homogeneous drop of liquid. It is probably a large protein molecule, in which every atom, every radical, every heterocyclic ring plays an individual role, more or less different from that played by any of the other similar atoms, radicals, or rings. He seems not to have known of (or at least does not cite) some of the points listed in the Wiki summary of the history of DNA research[1] which would have been extant in 1944. Watson/Crick/Franklin published in 1953, and Schrödinger (d. 1961) must have been delighted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research
pella 9y ago
context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F more: "A New Physics Theory of Life" https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122 https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o... HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103215 "An MIT physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties." "Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place. In Schrödinger’s day, they could solve the equations of thermodynamics only for closed systems in equilibrium. In the 1960s, the Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine made progress on predicting the behavior of open systems weakly driven by external energy sources (for which he won the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry). But the behavior of systems that are far from equilibrium, which are connected to the outside environment and strongly driven by external sources of energy, could not be predicted." or: http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life-in-physics http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life-in-...
- westoncb 9y ago
  After reading the Nautilus article, my understanding of England's 'dissipation-driven adaptation' is: a physical account of why life-like structures would likely occur (and persist) even at levels far more basic than what we would call organisms. The basic structure (of his system) follows that of natural selection and evolution in that there is an element of randomness constructing forms, and something environmental which determines fitness of competing forms—but it differs in what constitutes fitness. In England's theory, we should expect irreversible, dissipative systems to persist simply because of their irreversibility; if they could be reversed, they would return to an indistinguishable part of the background from which they emerged. If his theory is true, there is a natural 'inclination' at a more basic material level for life-like structures to emerge, so the probability of life evolving 'randomly' is more likely than we had reason to believe before. Furthermore, it gives us more general criteria for attempting to manually 'evolve' life-like systems, since we mimic life a more basic level than genetics (aiming to produce things with high likelihood of being irreversible). (I'd appreciate any correction on parts I may have gotten wrong!)
DanielleMolloy 9y ago
Most of this book should be read from a historical point of view. It is also great to read thoughts written by the scientific minds of the 20th century, whose thought processes often went much deeper than today's scientists, trapped in a miscalibrated incentive system can go. However, if you read just a little of "What is Life?", read chapter VI on Schrödingers idea how living matter is related to negative entropy / information. This is said to contain remarkable thoughts until today, and I met two professors in computational biology by now who told me how this chapter inspired them at the beginning of their career. To those who enjoyed this one I strongly recommend Heisenbergs "Der Teil und das Ganze".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yters 9y ago
Data processing inequality would suggest a breakdown in complex structure as entropy increases.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 9y ago
Slight tangent. Some of the comments here made me think of a great video on entropy vs. complexity by minutephysics: https://youtu.be/MTFY0H4EZx4 https://youtu.be/MTFY0H4EZx4 It's actually part 3 of 5 from a short miniseries with Sean Carroll. I recommend the whole thing if you are interested, it is quite well done.
- chrisvalleybay 9y ago
  Wow! That's a great series. Thanks for sharing it. It really changed how I view the world.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    My pleasure!

109 points by MichaelAO 9y ago

This is a brilliant book, clear, succinct and insightful. Part of the canon on our understanding of what life is / what it means to be animate instead of inanimate. Other books on the intangible quality of being alive: - At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman - The Timeless Way of Building by Christopher Alexander - Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter

kevmo 9y ago

This is a book full of good questions and poor answers. Or, as the biologist Max Perutz more scathingly put it, "Sadly, a close study of [Schrodinger's] book and of the related literature has shown me that what was true in his book was not original, and most of what was original was known not to be true even when the book was written."

woodandsteel 9y ago
I think HN should have a rule that no one makes a general critique without including some specifics.
- theoh 9y ago
  Here's a reference I just found without any effort, from an occurrence of the above quote in Freeman Dyson's Origins of Life. GP comment does not deserve to be downvoted: a solid searchable reference was provided. https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Fqsd-v4LcwC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=close+study+of+%5BSchrodinger%27s%5D+book+and+of+the+related+literature+has+shown+me+that+what+was+true+in+his+book+was+not+original,+and+most+of+what+was+original+was+known+not+to+be+true+even+when+the+book+was+written."&source=bl&ots=yorJ8bz9HX&sig=zWo6OazrFQPgPEQEJo8J3y7iz2Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsj7Cbo63WAhWKKsAKHTaXB40Q6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=close%20study%20of%20%5BSchrodinger's%5D%20book%20and%20of%20the%20related%20literature%20has%20shown%20me%20that%20what%20was%20true%20in%20his%20book%20was%20not%20original%2C%20and%20most%20of%20what%20was%20original%20was%20known%20not%20to%20be%20true%20even%20when%20the%20book%20was%20written.%22&f=false https://books.google.ie/books?id=1Fqsd-v4LcwC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3...
- kevmo 9y ago
  I'm cool with that critique of my answer and will be more specific next time I post such a critique.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  I'm not the person you're replying to, but I also didn't think much of the book. I read it 13 years ago, so it's hard for me to remember specifics of my criticisms.

fernly 9y ago

Interesting. He argues his way to this principle of genetics: > And the gene is most certainly not just a homogeneous drop of liquid. It is probably a large protein molecule, in which every atom, every radical, every heterocyclic ring plays an individual role, more or less different from that played by any of the other similar atoms, radicals, or rings. He seems not to have known of (or at least does not cite) some of the points listed in the Wiki summary of the history of DNA research[1] which would have been extant in 1944. Watson/Crick/Franklin published in 1953, and Schrödinger (d. 1961) must have been delighted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research

pella 9y ago

context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F more: "A New Physics Theory of Life" https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122 https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o... HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13103215 "An MIT physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties." "Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place. In Schrödinger’s day, they could solve the equations of thermodynamics only for closed systems in equilibrium. In the 1960s, the Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine made progress on predicting the behavior of open systems weakly driven by external energy sources (for which he won the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry). But the behavior of systems that are far from equilibrium, which are connected to the outside environment and strongly driven by external sources of energy, could not be predicted." or: http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life-in-physics http://nautil.us/issue/34/adaptation/how-do-you-say-life-in-...

westoncb 9y ago
After reading the Nautilus article, my understanding of England's 'dissipation-driven adaptation' is: a physical account of why life-like structures would likely occur (and persist) even at levels far more basic than what we would call organisms. The basic structure (of his system) follows that of natural selection and evolution in that there is an element of randomness constructing forms, and something environmental which determines fitness of competing forms—but it differs in what constitutes fitness. In England's theory, we should expect irreversible, dissipative systems to persist simply because of their irreversibility; if they could be reversed, they would return to an indistinguishable part of the background from which they emerged. If his theory is true, there is a natural 'inclination' at a more basic material level for life-like structures to emerge, so the probability of life evolving 'randomly' is more likely than we had reason to believe before. Furthermore, it gives us more general criteria for attempting to manually 'evolve' life-like systems, since we mimic life a more basic level than genetics (aiming to produce things with high likelihood of being irreversible). (I'd appreciate any correction on parts I may have gotten wrong!)

DanielleMolloy 9y ago

Most of this book should be read from a historical point of view. It is also great to read thoughts written by the scientific minds of the 20th century, whose thought processes often went much deeper than today's scientists, trapped in a miscalibrated incentive system can go. However, if you read just a little of "What is Life?", read chapter VI on Schrödingers idea how living matter is related to negative entropy / information. This is said to contain remarkable thoughts until today, and I met two professors in computational biology by now who told me how this chapter inspired them at the beginning of their career. To those who enjoyed this one I strongly recommend Heisenbergs "Der Teil und das Ganze".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

yters 9y ago

Data processing inequality would suggest a breakdown in complex structure as entropy increases.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dwaltrip 9y ago

Slight tangent. Some of the comments here made me think of a great video on entropy vs. complexity by minutephysics: https://youtu.be/MTFY0H4EZx4 https://youtu.be/MTFY0H4EZx4 It's actually part 3 of 5 from a short miniseries with Sean Carroll. I recommend the whole thing if you are interested, it is quite well done.

chrisvalleybay 9y ago
Wow! That's a great series. Thanks for sharing it. It really changed how I view the world.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  My pleasure!