5 ms·
The argument meant in the paper is that organisms encode information about their environment in order to survive. The encoding operation costs energy and genera
by icegreentea2 6y ago
The argument meant in the paper is that organisms encode information about their environment in order to survive. The encoding operation costs energy and generates entropy. Organisms use the encoded information to try to gain (or not lose) energy. Only in environments where organisms can use the information storage cycle to generate net positive energy (and maintain their net negative entropy relative to their environment) can life exist.
In environments which are "too unpredictable", life cannot encode sufficient relevant information for that cycle to be net positive, and therefore life cannot exist. Since life exists, nature is therefore not "too unpredictable".
That's the argument anyways.
For your objection, if we actually lived in a universe where everything was fully unpredictable between 25 and 26 degrees and temperature was the only important variable, then that would be every bit of problematic as between 0 and 1000K. Since life needs energy gradients and quickly destroys existing low entropy states, life always relies on finding temperature boundaries, regardless of how small it is to survive.
- bsanr2 6y agoThat's because continuity is an important part of predictability, right? When temperatures change, they do so continuously in whichever direction. A truly unpredictable environment would see temperatures change effectively instantaneously between points. Even for small differences in temperature, that's anathema for any system. Even simple structures would be unlikely to form as they'd immediately be ripped apart by the sudden change in the state of energy distribution, right?
- goldenkey 6y agoHence the ice age..extinction. Organisms only encode for certain levels of environments based on their past history. Some mutations get thrown in, providing select individuals with special doomsday survival genes.
- bsanr2 6y agoYeah, I was thinking of making a climate change comparison. Maybe civilization is at a scale that wouldn't allow its own survival should the environment change "instantaneously" (50 years, for a global civ that's endured essentially continuously for 6,000-10,000 years, is instantaneous).