4 ms·

This is negentropy (not my fav. word, but it is the term used). Indeed it's the signature of life, although I think there would be a threshold that all living c

by proc0 4y ago

This is negentropy (not my fav. word, but it is the term used). Indeed it's the signature of life, although I think there would be a threshold that all living creatures meet, but non-living systems do not. In other words life produces lots of negentropy, probably exponentially, unlike other systems like celestial bodies.

jimmySixDOF 4y ago
There was a recent podcast episode from Sean Carroll's Mindscape [1] where they focus on and around the Krebs Cycle and discuss it as an example of Entropy. Turns out Entropy really is fatal. [1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/05/23/198-nick-lane-on-powering-biology/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/05/23/198-...
cryptonector 4y ago
> In other words life produces lots of negentropy, probably exponentially, unlike other systems like celestial bodies. Exponentially? I guess, in the sense that from fertilized egg to adult, lifeforms grow exponentially, you're right, but adults usually do not keep growing. So I would say "sustained", and once the negentropy (I don't like that term either) operation is no longer sustained -and so local entropy is once more on the rise-, then the being has died. For stars, I think the issue is that local entropy does not go down. Collapse is avoided on a sustained basis, and when that stops being so, the star dies (and possibly leads to the creation of new stars, which looks like reproduction). That looks like life, but it isn't because local entropy still goes up.
- proc0 4y ago
  Oh, I meant the totality of life. If we consider how life evolved over the 4 billion years, at first it was super slow and then it accelerates into a variety of lifeforms, eventually humans, and then civilization and all its complexities in just a few thousand years.

4 ms·

This is negentropy (not my fav. word, but it is the term used). Indeed it's the signature of life, although I think there would be a threshold that all living c

by proc0 4y ago

jimmySixDOF 4y ago
There was a recent podcast episode from Sean Carroll's Mindscape [1] where they focus on and around the Krebs Cycle and discuss it as an example of Entropy. Turns out Entropy really is fatal. [1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/05/23/198-nick-lane-on-powering-biology/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2022/05/23/198-...
cryptonector 4y ago
> In other words life produces lots of negentropy, probably exponentially, unlike other systems like celestial bodies. Exponentially? I guess, in the sense that from fertilized egg to adult, lifeforms grow exponentially, you're right, but adults usually do not keep growing. So I would say "sustained", and once the negentropy (I don't like that term either) operation is no longer sustained -and so local entropy is once more on the rise-, then the being has died. For stars, I think the issue is that local entropy does not go down. Collapse is avoided on a sustained basis, and when that stops being so, the star dies (and possibly leads to the creation of new stars, which looks like reproduction). That looks like life, but it isn't because local entropy still goes up.
- proc0 4y ago
  Oh, I meant the totality of life. If we consider how life evolved over the 4 billion years, at first it was super slow and then it accelerates into a variety of lifeforms, eventually humans, and then civilization and all its complexities in just a few thousand years.