Content uploaded by Attila Grandpierre
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Attila Grandpierre
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Published as a chapter in From Fossils to Astrobiology. Records of Life on Earth and the
search for Extraterrestrial Biosignatures, Part 4. Series: Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme
Habitats and Astrobiology, Vol. 12, Seckbach, Joseph; Walsh, Maud (Eds.) XXXVI, pp.
369-385. http://www.springerlink.com/content/qh5r5664348n0032/
COSMIC LIFE FORMS
ATTILA GRANDPIERRE
Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
H-1525 Budapest, P. O. Box 67, Hungary
Abstract
We propose that the first principle of biology is a useful guide in exploring cosmic life
forms. Moreover, it determines the basic prerequisites of life in material-independent
form. Starting from the Bauer principle (BP), we made explicit its content, and found that
the Bauer principle is mediated by virtual interaction (VI) which generates biological
couplings (BC) opening up an enormous realm of biologically spontaneous reactions.
With the help of biological couplings, it becomes possible that the organism self-initiate
systematic investment of work W against the equilibrium, which would otherwise
necessarily be approached on the basis of the given initial state and the laws of physics.
Therefore, the essence of life can be formulated as the following: the Bauer principle
(BP) is manifest in virtual interactions which generate biological couplings leading to
investment of work W that generates thermodynamically uphill processes increasing
extropy ( > 0); compactly, BP→VI→BC→W→. We point out that generation
of lawful algorithmic complexity is a fundamental characteristic of life (Grandpierre,
2008). Applying the Bauer principle for the Sun, we found that the Sun is a living
organism. We are led to recognize a cosmic life form in stellar activity cycles. Then we
generalized the Bauer principle and found new kinds of cosmic life forms like the
microscopic, intermittent and hidden life forms. We found that the first principle of
biology is able to be manifest in the whole universe through virtual interactions. This
result led us to recognize a new cosmic life form present in the vacuum that we call
universal life.
Key words: most general law of biology – Bauer principle – lawful algorithmic
complexity of solar activity – universal life
1. Introduction
Recently astrobiology has become main foci of modern science. In 1996, the
Astrobiology program was added to NASA’s lexicon. (Dick and Strick, 2004, 19) “With
the advent of the means to explore space, the prospect of developing a truly universal
science of biology now seemed possible for the first time.” (ibid, 2) Similarly as the
2
research of stellar physics plays a significant role in understanding our Sun, the research
of cosmic life is of fundamental importance for the scientific understanding of what life
is. We point out that being imaginative in exploring cosmic life forms will be facilitated
if helped by exploring the most universal aspects of biology. If we base our exploration
of cosmic life forms to the most general principle of biology, a whole list of yet
unimagined cosmic life forms will become closer to us. It appears the universe itself can
offer much wider perspectives for exploring the nature of life. This means that we do not
consider life as being restricted to protein-based life forms; yet the basis of defining
general life is specified by the first principle of biology: the Bauer principle (see below).
2. Life forms are manifestations of the biological principle
Life on Earth shows extreme variability in forms and behavior. A physical object like a
falling stone falls always in the same manner from the Pisa tower. In contrast, living
organisms can behave very differently even within the same conditions. Moreover, living
organisms show a behavior profoundly divergent from the physical one. We define
physical behavior as the one governed by the laws of physics, with the given initial
conditions (boundary conditions included). Similarly, we define biological behavior as
the one governed by the Bauer principle, with the given initial conditions. The difference
between biological and physical behavior can be demonstrated by an extended Galileo
experiment in which a living bird dropped from a height follows a trajectory
characteristically different from the trajectory determined by the free falling stone.
At present, the theoretical description of the most general laws of biological behavior
seems to be unavailable. In the last decades, the general belief has been that all
phenomena of any systems are determined by bottom-up laws of physics, ultimately, the
action principle, governing the material building blocks of the given system. Nowadays
the general view of scientists is that biological laws do not exist, but if they did, they
would be mere byproducts of physical laws, and the reason for the different behavior of
living organisms lies in their intractable complexity (Vogel and Angermann, 1988, 1). At
variance with these widespread views, theoretical biology as an exact science has been
founded by Ervin Bauer on the basis of the universal and invariable characteristics of
living organisms (Bauer, 1935/1967).
Recently, Popa (2004, 170–172) presents a whole list of material-independent
signatures of life. Such signatures are, for example, the recovery of energy lost by the
living organism in performing work on itself, as internally controlled by specific
mechanisms; that life forms use this energy to control their internal entropy level; the
target-oriented nature of energy transduction, which is related to couplings that must
exceed a certain minimal negentropic level in order to occur. As we will show here, the
common characteristics of all life forms are rooted in the existence of the biological
principle.
3. The biological principle acts on possibilities left open by physics
The bottom-up approach of physics starts from material building blocks plus physical
laws. Yet it is insufficient and incompetent in a biological context to produce a model
3
that explains such elementary biological processes as the bending of a finger. There are
not physical equations that can determine the time-dependent behavior of my finger
which I will intend to bend in the next moment, even if it would be possible to give all
the positions of the elementary particles in the initial state. Actually, there is more to
nature than elementary particles plus physical laws. Besides complexity, biological
behavior also enters to the scene.
In physics, any problem can be regarded as definite only if the boundary conditions
representing the connection of the system are given; otherwise the differential equations
cannot be solved. These conditions in physics are usually external. In contrast, in living
organisms the changes initiated within the organism by the living organism itself govern
behavior. This means that in biology the internal and time-dependent conditions are
decisive. The same body can behave very differently within the same conditions.
It is a general view that life can perfectly well emerge from the laws of physics plus
accidents (cf. Gell-Mann, 1995). Indeed it seems that physics can describe any
phenomenon by boundary conditions (describing the initial state) plus the laws of
physics, with the qualification that the source of all occasional physical indetermination
is chance. Actually, any physical state can be reached from a previous state with the help
of chance. Nevertheless, biological behavior shows a remarkably consequent character
that profoundly differs from the physical case, as the example of a living bird dropped
from the Pisa tower indicates. The characteristic property of the trajectory of a living bird
dropped from a height is that it regains, approximately, its original height. In general,
biological behavior leads to the regeneration of the distance of the organism from
thermodynamic equilibrium.
Thermodynamic systems are defined as consisting of statistically independent
subsystems (Landau and Lifshitz, 1959). Now the Second Law of thermodynamics tells
us that all isolated thermodynamic systems will develop towards equilibrium (ibid., 8. §).
Systems in thermodynamic equilibrium have independent, separable subsystems and so
they manifest chance (e.g., thermal fluctuations) and necessity (the systems consisting of
a large number of separable subsystems are governed by the determinate laws of
physics). They cannot show organized changes, since their interactions are statistically
independent and chaotic (ibid., 1. §).
“Thermodynamics is the study of the macroscopic consequences of myriads of
atomic coordinates, which, by virtue of the statistical averaging, do not appear explicitly
in a macroscopic description of a system.” (Callen, 1960, 7) In terms of complexity
science, the random interactions of independent subsystems have no lawful algorithmic
complexity representing the algorithmic complexity of the laws of nature (in the
followings, shortly: algorithmic complexity), since their effects can be averaged out. In
contrast, living organisms manifest an extremely high algorithmic and genetic
complexity. Therefore the – let us use that term for the moment in a biological context –
“subsystems” of living organisms do not form a pure thermodynamic system, and so their
interactions cannot be averaged out to thermodynamic parameters like temperature or
entropy only. In respect of biological behavior, living organisms are not thermodynamic
systems. In living organisms, after averaging out all statistically chaotic interactions,
something remains, and this something has a fundamental importance in understanding
biological organization. It seems inevitable to allow that the non-randomness of living
organisms’ subsystems is directly related to their observed, profoundly non-physical
4
behavior. Actually, living organisms do not have subsystems comparable to the ones of a
thermodynamic system, since biological organization extends from the level of the whole
organism downwards to the level of molecules and beyond. This means that systematic
dependences exist between the entities existing at the molecular, submolecular and
supramolecular levels of biological organization. These systematic dependences represent
systematic interactions and couplings.
It seems to be clear that if a systematic coupling exists between the subsystems in a way
that determines the behavior of these subsystems, we indeed leave the realm of physical
systems and enter to the field of cybernetics. It is important to keep in mind that the
behavior of living organisms is much subtler governed than cybernetic machines. The
non-random mechanical couplings between the components make it possible to show
definite functions manifested in refrigerators and airplanes. Actually, the behavior of
living organisms is also characteristically non-random. Their mechanical couplings (like
that of the bones of an athlete) are originated in subtle biological couplings, determining
the contraction of its muscles. These subtle, non-random biological couplings act
between the myosin and ATP molecules, between the muscular cells and the global
organism of the athlete. At the deepest level, biological couplings are related to couplings
between thermodynamically downhill (exergonic) and uphill (endergonic) biochemical
reactions. (Green and Reible, 1975; Purves et al., 1992, 1, 137) For the sake of precision,
we note that thermodynamically downhill processes are defined here on the global level
with the thermodynamic state variable extropy, while endergonic and exergonic reactions
are qualified at the level of individual biochemical reactions.
The basic fact of life is the avoidance of thermodynamic equilibrium, which
corresponds to death. Living organisms live by utilizing their nonequilibrium energies.
Their functions require high-level forms of energy at their input and low-level forms of
energy at their output. Thermodynamic aspects of living organisms are accompanied by
equilibration or downhill processes. In order to avoid equilibrium, living organisms must
continuously realize thermodynamically uphill processes compensating the downhill
ones. Life in this respect is the consequent activity against thermodynamic equilibrium.
Therefore, living organisms have a fundamental characteristic in compensating the
equilibration downhill processes by uphill ones. The regular appearance of uphill
processes may seem as contradicting the Second Law, but only when ignoring the
simultaneous downhill processes. Most of these downhill processes also serve in useful
biological roles, for example, dissipating “low quality” thermal radiation. This dissipation
is required to balance the incoming high quality energy; and the low quality (e.g. lower
temperature) of the output thermal radiation offers a net gain of useful energy for the
organism. Definitely, only with the help of biological couplings between the subsystems
can the organism make its biological behavior so different from the physical.
4. Formulation of the Bauer principle in elementary sentences
Regular compensation of equilibration processes with uphill ones requires a systematic
work on the internal structure of the organism. In order to initiate uphill processes,
regenerating nonequilibrium structures, gradients and potentials, living organisms must
be able to work continuously against the thermodynamic equilibrium that otherwise
5
ultimately would be reached given the actual instantaneous state of the organism on the
basis of physical laws. This simplified chain of thoughts points towards the Bauer
principle. The Bauer principle in its full form tells that “The living and only the living
systems are never in equilibrium, and, on the debit of their free energy, they continuously
invest work against the realization of the equilibrium which should occur within the given
outer conditions on the basis of the physical and chemical laws.” Bauer had shown that
this is the first principle of biology, since all the fundamental phenomena of life can be
derived from it (Bauer, 1935/1967, 51).
Let us formulate this compact definition in elementary statements. Requirement (a)
tells that living systems are never in equilibrium. Requirement (b) tells that on the debit
of their free energy content, they continuously invest work against the realization of the
equilibrium which should occur within the given outer (initial and boundary) conditions
on the basis of the physical and chemical laws. We can break requirement (b) into (b1)
requiring continuous and self-initiated work investment W in order (b2) to initiate a
behavior differing from the one determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. In our
understanding, (b1) and (b2) tells that the investment of work W must be
thermodynamically uphill. Moreover, (b2) tells that if the considered system has
elementary constituents with coordinates x
i
, their spatial coordinates R have to differ in
time from the one expected on the basis of physical and chemical laws, given the initial
conditions. This means that the spatial trajectory of the constituent parts differ from the
physical one by an amount R(x
i
, t). It is not allowed to simplify the Bauer principle to
its requirement (a), or misinterpret it as requiring only the “avoidance of thermodynamic
equilibrium”. As our detailed analysis clearly shows, only the simultaneous fulfillment of
all the three requirements (a), (b1) and (b2) is equivalent with the Bauer principle.
It is usual to consider that in physically spontaneous processes entropy can only
increase. Actually, when a piece of matter exists in a colder/hotter environment, its
entropy S will decrease/increase in the equilibration. Moreover, the free energy is defined
through the change of the chemical potential relative to the standard state corresponding
to T = 298.16 K and p = 1 atm (Haynie 2001, 81). Therefore, the change of the entropy
S (and G, the Gibbs free energy) of the system is not always a good indicator of
thermodynamically downhill processes occurring within the considered system. Instead,
thermodynamically downhill or equilibrating processes of physico-chemical systems can
be characterized by the decrease of extropy , the distance from equilibrium (Martinás
and Grandpierre, 2007) of the system (<0). We define thermodynamically uphill
processes here as processes in which the extropy of the system increases, >0. Extropy
is measured relative to the environment; therefore it always decreases in equilibration or
downhill processes.
Systems receiving positive extropy flow from their environment, like self-organizing
physical systems, or like living organisms, can manifest structure formation. In terms of
extropy, one can formulate the Bauer principle as requiring an investment of work W in
order to initiate uphill processes >0 compensating the equilibrating processes <0
occurring in the system.
Now let us consider how the Bauer principle applies to physical self-organizing
systems. Self-organizing physical systems like Benard-convection cells in a fluid heated
from below have constant energy supply (through incoming energy flow from below) and
extropy supply (they receive higher quality energy at their input and release lower quality
6
energy at their output) and so their distance from thermodynamic equilibrium can be
constant. The permanent transformation of higher quality energy into lower quality
energy can be described as an extropy flow through the system maintaining the structure
and internal organization in the cell balancing the downhill process of radiated heat. For
such systems, the change of extropy within the system can be practically zero, ~ 0,
without any investment of systematic work by the Benard cells themselves. Instead, their
behavior is described by the laws of physics. This means that Benard cells do not fit the
(b1) and (b2) requirements of Bauer principle.
We define a process as thermodynamically spontaneous if it occurs spontaneously,
without any non-thermodynamic influence or intervention. Equilibrating processes occur
by themselves, they are thermodynamically spontaneous. In comparison, we define a
process as biologically spontaneous if it occurs spontaneously in the presence of
biological couplings. Active transport regenerating a gradient is an uphill process; it
cannot occur spontaneously in thermodynamics but can occur spontaneously in biology
in the presence of suitable conditions and biological couplings. Now let us compare the
range of physically spontaneous and biologically spontaneous processes. Although
physical spontaneity is wide-ranged, including spontaneous emission, spontaneous
absorption or spontaneous energy focusing at the wheel of a breaking car, biological
spontaneity is much more wide-ranged, since it includes an astronomically rich realm of
uphill processes which cannot occur spontaneously in thermodynamics. Therefore,
systematic work investment also cannot occur spontaneously in thermodynamics. On the
other hand, systematic work investment is a basic characteristic of living organisms
required by the first principle of biology.
Complexity enters into the scene because systematically directed useful work is
possible only by systems having a significant rate of algorithmic complexity. This is why
machines require delicate planning and realization of a task-solving procedure having an
algorithmic complexity. All machines serve some need or function. To obtain
biologically useful, thermodynamically uphill work, living organisms must have
extremely large algorithmic complexity. The first principle of biology holds that
biologically useful work is exerted spontaneously in any part of the system in such a way
as to promote the biologically optimal range, which corresponds to the characteristic
distance of the organism from equilibrium.
Let us consider a simple example. A burning candle does not invest work on the
debit of its free energy content. It does not have algorithmic complexity content in its
structure. It does not fulfill requirements (b1) and (b2), therefore it cannot be regarded as
living.
5. On the nature of biological couplings
We indicated that biological couplings, in general, connect nonequilibrium energies.
“Reactions that consume energy [endergonic reactions] can occur in living organisms
only because they are coupled to other reactions that release it [exergonic reactions].”
(Purves, Orians and Heller, 1992, 1) All biological transport is based on biological
couplings (Harvey, Slayman 1994). Biological coupling can occur due to chemical
coupling with metabolic reactions or by coupling physical processes to chemical
processes like energy or electron transfer, isomerizations, chemical bond-breaking or
7
formation (Sundström, 2007). Ultimately, chemical bonds can be explained by quantum
electrodynamics. The basic field of quantum electrodynamics corresponds to three basic
types of actions: a photon goes from place to place, an electron goes from place to place,
and an electron emits or absorbs a photon (Feynman, 1985, 84-85). These basic actions
correspond to radiative energy transfer, linear energy transfer and light emission and
absorption, respectively. Besides radiative and linear energy transfer, fluorescence (or
Förster) resonance energy transfer, proton coupled energy transfer, and many-body
phenomena like energy transfer through delocalized collective excitations (Dahlbom et
al., 2002) also play important role in biological organization.
We find it of basic importance that biological organization always starts from the
level of the organism/cell; the overall biological viewpoint breaks down into partial
processes, into an organized system of more and more partial functions at the lower and
lower level of organizational hierarchy, similarly as in the case of the more closely
known overall reactions of metabolism, photosynthesis and respiration (Crofts, 2007, 17).
In order that all these individual reactions, contributing to more and more global
functions could sum up into the global level biological viewpoint, all these partial
functions at the many levels of hierarchy must be cohered. The mechanism securing the
extremely fine tuning of all these partial functions must be more subtle than the
biological processes themselves. We propose that the mechanism beyond the exquisite
fine tuning of all these partial processes is governed by the most subtle process possible
to realize in physics: by virtual interactions.
Actually, virtual interactions are governed in physics by the action principle
(Feynman and Hibbs, 1965). Definitely, virtual interactions in living organisms must be
governed by a separate, biological principle. We propose that biological couplings are
realized by virtual interactions governed in living organisms by the biological principle.
In this way, we found that the fundamental requirements of the Bauer principle,
when formulated asW→ , can be extended not only to BC→ W→ , but still
further. Biological organization is initiated by the Bauer principle (BP) as manifested in
virtual interactions VI, and so we can write it formally as BP→ VI→ BC→ W→ .
Describing the complexity aspects of biological organization, we find that the deepest
level of complexity of the Bauer principle is manifested in virtual interactions
determining biological couplings, and these coupling processes determine the
biochemical reactions representing a time-dependent series of reaction networks
representing algorithmic complexity.
6. A classification of cosmic life forms
It seems that “All living organisms depend on external sources of energy to fuel their
chemical reactions.” (Purves et al., 1992, 1) We found that the first principle of biology,
the Bauer principle corresponds to self-initiated work of the organism; and this work
requires energy. We point out that this requirement can be helpful in exploring cosmic
life. Within cosmic conditions, in principle, two types of living organisms can exist, both
of which must obey the Bauer principle. The difference between them is that a living
organism that belongs to the first class is supplying the required energy for internal work
W directly from internal energy sources under its own control. A living organism of the
second class has its own internal energy sources, but on relatively long timescales, it
8
cannot indefinitely manage without external energy sources. Certainly, living organisms
depending on external energy resources need to actively explore their spatial
environment; that is, they must have the ability to change their place to obtain the
required energy for internal work W. The basic forms of changing place are growth and
locomotion, corresponding to plants and animals.
In contrast, living organisms of the first category, which have their own internal energy
sources, are not obliged to growth or locomotion, for they can regulate their access to
their own internal energy sources. In comparison, a machine with an accumulator does
not invest work by its own initiation, since all the work it makes is prescribed in its
program which is given to it externally. Moreover, machines work in a way
corresponding to the laws of physics plus the input conditions. Therefore, machines with
accumulators do not qualify as living organisms, since they do not fulfill requirements
(b1) and (b2).
7. On the living nature of the Sun
Now let us consider whether the Sun fulfils the Bauer criterion or not. Definitely, the Sun
is a nonequilibrium system, fulfilling requirement (a). Regarding requirement (b1), we
note that the systematic regeneration of solar activity in the solar cycles involves a
systematic work investment. The generation of the activity forms, their quasi-cyclic
regeneration during the whole lifetime of the Sun definitely fulfill requirement (b1).
Regarding requirement (b2), it may seem that the Sun is overly complex, and because of
this unfathomable complexity it is not possible to determine whether the behavior of solar
activity corresponds to physical behavior or not. Moreover, the boundary conditions of
the Sun (e.g. because of planetary motions) are continuously changing. Therefore, it
seems that it is not easy to apply the conditions of the Bauer principle. We can overcome
this difficulty if we find that physically unexpected phenomena show up systematically
and regularly in the Sun. Actually, fundamental aspects of solar physics like solar
structure and evolution are determined by the so-called Standard Solar Model (SSM).
Remarkably, solar activity is missing from the SSM, and it does not follow from it.
Although some consequences of solar activity like diffusion are already included into the
SSM, solar activity still today represents an enigma (Grandpierre 1996, 1999, 2004,
2005, and more references therein). Regarding these considerations, on the Bauer
principle we can realize that the Sun is a living organism, because it initiates a systematic
work for an activity-regenerating activity that seems to differ definitely from the
corresponding physical behavior, given the same initial conditions.
Definitely, the term systematic work refers to the lawful algorithmic complexity
content of the related processes. Let us consider now some complexity aspects of solar
activity.
“The prime cause of the solar cycle is a quasi-periodic oscillation of the solar
magnetic field.” (Ossendrijver and Hoyng, 2001). Electromagnetic field has an unlimited
potential to represent complex forms. Electromagnetic fields can vary from place to place
both spatially and temporally, and their complete description may require an
astronomically large amount of data. In stars like the Sun, these complex structures are
related to filamentary structures, current sheets, plasmoids, etc. Remarkably, all these
9
structures can form spontaneously within stellar interiors (Grandpierre, 2004;
Grandpierre and Ágoston, 2005).
A whole list of fundamental facts showing the life-like nature of the Sun has already
been advanced (Grandpierre, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2005). The Sun shows an
organized spontaneous macroscopic activity that is known as solar activity. Actually,
solar activity is governed by the solar magnetic field; that is, it is a self-initiated activity.
Solar activity has an extremely complex nature with respect to the wide variety of its
forms (flares, sunspots, flocculi, coronal mass ejections, spicules, prominences, etc.), and
its temporal and spatial scales. Solar activity has been shown to manifest a kind of
information (Consolini et al., 2003).
Remarkably, the Sun has practically infinite degrees of freedom. This basic fact
offers a new, wider perspective by which to consider the complex behavior of the Sun.
The fact that solar activity has been present in the Sun for billions of years is, as we point
out, an unusual condition for a physical system. Normally, one would expect that a
thermodynamic system continuously dissipating energy and mass into its environment,
like the Sun, equilibrates on its thermal timescale. Indeed, the Second Law of
thermodynamics tells that any system without internal constraints storing energy in forms
inaccessible to dissipation should approach thermodynamic equilibrium on the
dissipation timescales. The dissipation timescale of thermal energy in the Sun is the
Kelvin timescale and its magnitude is around 30,000 years. Nevertheless, solar activity
regenerates the global magnetic field cyclically on a timescale of 11 years, and this cyclic
activity has been going on in a timescale of 5 billion years. The problem is not only that
there should be a mechanism regenerating thermal differences. In order for the Sun to be
able to regenerate its cyclically disappearing magnetic field, cyclically changing sign and
regenerating every ~11 years (~22 years if the polarity of the field is taken into account),
the mechanism regulating the vectorial velocity space and magnetic field space must
work systematically and apply in each cycle fine tuning.
We point out that in the real Sun the actual magnetic and velocity fields are highly
complex. Definitely, on the basis that magnetic fields are governed by the Maxwell
equations and hydrodynamic flows are governed by the laws of hydrodynamics, one
would expect that they develop quasi-independently. Since the process generating
magnetic field works repeatedly, and because fine-tuning is required in order to match the
extremely complex velocity fields to the extremely complex magnetic field, we are led to
assume the presence of a lawful fitting mechanism that acts from cycle to cycle. The
consecutive and systematic variation of the field occurred already a hundred million
times. Again, the hundred-million-times repeated exquisitely sophisticated co-operation
of physically extremely improbable events presents a definite difference from the
behavior one would expect merely on the basis of the initial conditions plus the laws of
physics, fulfilling both requirements of the Bauer principle (b1) and (b2).
The fitting of the complex velocity and magnetic fields involves time-dependent
internal boundary conditions that support regeneration of the magnetic activity. We
propose that the fine tuning of such extremely complex fields cannot be repeated hundred
million times requires without a rule or a law. It is a formidable task to modify the
magnetic field and the velocity field in the whole body of the Sun from point to point just
in a way that regenerates the magnetic activity forms. The solution of this task represents
a significant amount of algorithmic complexity. We are led to propose that solar activity
represents algorithmic complexity. Algorithmic complexity is the characteristic of man-
10
made machines and living organisms. Since the Sun is not a man-made machine, our
proposal leads to the conjecture that the Sun is a living organism. Indeed, if the Sun
represents an algorithmic complexity in its activity forms governed by the magnetic field,
then the information content corresponding to the algorithmic complexity of the magnetic
field’s variations governs solar activity. Now it is a widely accepted view that living
organisms can be defined as natural systems governed by information (see e.g. Roederer,
2003; Ben Jacob et al., 2006). Now since solar activity is governed by its information
content corresponding to its lawful algorithmic complexity, the Sun is a living system.
8. Experiments suggested testing the living nature of the Sun
We suggest that terrestrial plants absorbing photon flux emitted by the Sun can serve as
suitable measuring devices. Photons by their very nature are suitable to manifest
information since light is the par excellence carrier of information. We are wondering
how can the possibility that light emitted by the Sun carries information escape due
attention — other than that of Tribus and McIrvine (1971), who suggested that the Sun
emits information at the rate of 10
38
bit s
–1
in the form of light? If solar photons carry
information, and if the Sun is a living organism, than solar photons can carry information
about a cosmic life form, including biologically useful information arising from the
Bauer principle. Certainly, during the hundreds of million years, biological life on Earth
has already figured out how to utilize the astronomically huge flow of biologically useful
information reaching the Earth from the Sun. In that way, terrestrial cells did not have to
start from scratch, from the physical level of algorithmic complexity. Biogenesis on the
Earth seems to be facilitated enormously by the information flow present in solar
radiation carrying an enormous flux of algorithmic, and, perhaps, still deeper level of
complexity.
And if so, then plants could react sensitively to deprivation of sunlight. In
accordance with this expectation, tomatoes grown outdoors would be found to have better
biological effects than tomatoes grown in greenhouses. We propose an experiment to
grow tomatoes in solarium light and compare their biological effects with control
tomatoes grown outdoors.
9. Life forms bridging up the gap between life and non-life
Now we make a further step in exploring cosmic life forms by asking whether life can be
continuous with the apparently inanimate world, as many scientists suggested (e.g.
Nature, Editorial, 2007). We all know that highly organized life can be manifest only
when suitable conditions are present. Yet there are strong arguments telling that there is
no sharp boundary between life and non-life. For example, quanta in the double-slit
experiment are able to orientate themselves according to the situation as a whole and
behave correspondingly (Grandpierre, 2007). Therefore, it seems that quanta conduct
their behavior not only according to the laws of physics but also according to the
situation as a whole. We attempt here to bridge the apparent gap between living
organisms and quanta with the help of a series of steps generalizing the Bauer principle,
11
replacing the requirement of systematic investment of work by some less restrictive
conditions that can actually correspond to forms of cosmic life.
Let us try to approach the most general life form by recognizing the special
properties of life as we know it on Earth and try to look at what we find if we remove
these special properties from the concept of life. First of all, the difference between
animals and plants is that animals are able to move. Usually, plants are motile, but are
able to govern their shapes (as the Sun, too, regarding its activity forms).
The difference between a physical object and a living organism is that the living
organism can select an endpoint for the action principle, like a living bird when dropped
from a height, in contrast to a fallen stone which must follow the law of free fall. The
fallen stone follows the least action principle, while the living bird follows the most
action principle securing the maximum available distance from equilibrium. The
selection of the endpoint for the most action principle produces an input for the first
principle of physics securing the least action to be consumed. (Grandpierre, 2007) In
order that an organism can move its parts like an animal or change its forms as a plant, it
must be able to select an endpoint and govern its whole macroscopic structure towards
reaching the selected state. In plants and animals, the conditions are such that they are
able to realize such hierarchical organization from the global to the microlevel,
continuously. It seems to be possible that there are systems in which the conditions
necessary for realizing a selected macrostate through organizational processes across all
hierarchical levels of organization are not present continuously. In such systems,
endpoint selection cannot be realized continuously, but intermittently, or only
occasionally. Microscopic and intermittent life may be present in the inorganic world in
the form of occasional realization of the most action principle in microscopic processes.
Hypothesizing microlife has a definite advantage of allowing life to be continuous with
the inanimate world, since microlife in a physical environment without any forms of
available free energy content can lead the same result as the least action principle.
Clearly, if all the available free energy is zero, the maximum usable energy is identical
with the minimum of it. This interpretation may explain the origin, nature and working
mechanism of the least action principle, by the same token.
We may add that microlife can lead through relatively long time scales they can
produce observable macroscopic consequences in geology and astrophysics. This kind of
life form may be referred to as microlife at large or hidden life. Microlife at large is
different from macrolife in that macrolife organisms manifest biological behavior in their
macroscopic changes like activity forms or locomotion, while microlife at large show
variations only on geological or astronomical time scales.
Exploring cosmic life forms we are led to an unexpected and surprising result. This
result tells that the universe may be full with cosmic life forms: stars with stellar activity
cycles, intermittent life, microlife can populate the universe from cosmic clouds until
stellar surfaces. If so, life can be truly a universal phenomenon, in a more full sense of the
word as suspected until now.
10. On the origin of the anthropic principle of the universe
In the last decades, the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics led to the
wide ranged discussion of the anthropic principle (cf. Davies, 2006). We propose here a
12
simple explanation for the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants. According to this
proposal, the fundamental constants and laws of physics are in a certain sense secondary
in comparison to the biological principle.
We indicated that within living organisms, it is the biological principle that acts first,
and the physical principle acts only after the approximate range of biologically selected
end states are determined. Considering cosmic life forms it is of importance to keep in
mind that the biological principle is universal, similarly to the physical principle.
Therefore, the biological principle has a fundamental cosmic aspect. If the biological
principle acts first in the cosmic context, then all the material properties of the universe
have to fit to biology. Our argument indicates that the thesis of the anthropic principle
telling that fundamental constants of physics must fit to the existence of life is a corollary
of our thesis telling that the universe is fundamentally alive and so biology is the control
theory of physics.
11. On the living nature of the universe
As the observations show, the distribution of matter is favorable for the organization of
matter into cosmic clouds, for the birth of the Solar System and the life on Earth. The
appearance of life and humans from a gravitationally contracting cosmic cloud seems to
imply an increase of algorithmic complexity. We argue that such an increase of
algorithmic complexity can be regarded as an important sign indicating the living nature
of the universe.
We argue that our universe consists not only from elementary particles and forces,
but also from the laws and first principles of nature governing interactions. A basic
difference between forces and the laws of nature is that forces are local and instantaneous
entities, while the laws of nature governing their evolution are universal. We propose that
the laws and first principles of nature connect all material systems of the universe into a
unified whole. Now if the biological principle selects endpoints that are input elements to
the first principle of physics, then the universe becomes unified as a biological system.
We indicated that the first principle of biology acts through virtual interactions
realizing biological couplings that determine the material processes. Now if virtual
interactions are ultimately controlled by biological interactions, then the vacuum has to
have a fundamentally biological nature. We suggest that in this sense the vacuum
qualifies as a living organism. By our argument, the biological vacuum qualifies as the
ultimate cosmic life form. This cosmic life form can be referred to as universal life.
We point out that the exact definition and theoretical derivation of these cosmic life
forms from the Bauer principle makes it possible to work on finding their observational
signatures.
12. References
Bauer, E. 1935/1967, Theoretical Biology (1935, 1993 and 2002: in Russian; 1967: in
Hungarian) Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 51.
Ben Jacob, E., Shapira, Y. and Tauber, A. I. 2006, Seeking the Foundations of
13
Cognition in Bacteria: From Schrödinger's Negative Entropy to Latent Information.
Physica A 359, 495-524
Callen, H. B. 1960, Thermodynamics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 7.
Consolini, G., Berrilli, F., Florio, A., Pietropaolo, E., Smaldone, L. A. 2003, Information
entropy in solar atmospheric fields. I. Intensity photospheric structures, Astronomy
and Astrophysics, 402, 1115–1127.
Crofts, A. R. 2007, Life, Information, Entropy, and Time. Complexity 13, 14-50.
Dahlbom, M., Beenken, W., Sundström, V. and Pullerits, T. 2002, Collective excitation
dynamics and polaron formation in molecular aggregates. Chem. Phys. Lett. 364,
556-561
Davies, P. 2006, The Goldilocks Enigma. Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? Allen
Lane, Published by the Penguin Books, London.
Dick, S. J. and Strick, J. E. 2004, The Living Universe. NASA and the Development of
Astrobiology. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
Editorial, 2007, The meaning of ’life’, Nature 447, 1031-1032 (28 June 2007) |
doi:10.1038/4471031b; Published online 27 June 2007
Feynman, R. P. and Hibbs, A. R. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, McGraw-Hill,
1965.
Feynman, R. P. 1985, QED. The strange theory of light and matter. Penguin
Books, London, 84-85.
Gell-Mann, M. 1995, Nature comfortable to herself. Complexity, 1, 1126.
Grandpierre, A. 1996, A Pulsating-Ejecting Solar Core Model and the Solar
Neutrino Problem, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 308: 199-214.
Grandpierre, A. 1997, The Sun as an Extremely Sensitively Interconnected and
Regulated System, in "Chronobiology and its Roots in the Cosmos", 3rd
International Workshop, Slovakia, ed. M. Mikulecky, 1997, pp. 145-153.
Grandpierre, A. 1999, A Dynamic Solar Core Model: on the activity related
changes of the neutrino fluxes, Astron. Astrophys., 348: 993-999.
Grandpierre, A. 2004, Conceptual Steps Towards Exploring the Fundamental Nature of
the Sun, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 2(1), 12–28,
http://indecs.znanost.org/2004/indecs2004-pp12-28.pdf
Grandpierre, A. and Ágoston, G. 2005, On the onset of thermal metastabilities in the
solar core, Astrophys. Space Sci., 298, No. 4, 537–552.
Grandpierre, A. 2007, Biological Extension of the Action Principle: Endpoint
Determination beyond the Quantum Level and the Ultimate Physical Roots of
Consciousness, Neuroquantology, Vol. 5 (4), 346-362
Grandpierre, A. 2008, Complexity Measures of Life. In: Divine Action and Natural
Selection: Questions of science and faith in biological evolution, ed. J. Seckbach,
World Scientific, in press
Green, D. E. and Reible, S. 1975, Paired Moving Charges in Mitochondrial Energy
Coupling. II. Universality of the Principles for Energy Coupling in
Biological systems, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 72, 253-257
Harvey, W. R. and Slayman, C. L. 1994, Coupling as a Way of Life. J. Exp. Biol.
196, 1-4
Haynie, D. T. 2001. Biological Thermodynamics. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 81.
Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. 1959, Statistical Physics. Course in Theoretical
14
Physics, translated by J.B. Sykes and W. H. Reid (London, Pergamon Press, 5(1),
14-18.
Martinás, K. and Grandpierre, A. 2007, Thermodynamic Measure for
Nonequilibrium Processes, Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems
(INDECS) 5, 1-13
Ossendrijver, M. and Hoyng, P. 2001, Solar Cycle, in Encyclopedia of Astronomy
and Astrophysics, Paul Murdin, Editor-in-Chief, Institute of Physics Publishing,
Bristol and Philadelphia; Nature Publishing Group, London, New York and
Tokyo, 2502.
Popa, R. 2004, Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and
Origin of Life. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Purves, W. K., Orians, G. H. and Heller, H. C. 1992, Life: The Science of Biology. Third
ed., Sinauer Ass., Inc. and W. H. Freeman and Company, Sunderland, Mass., 1.
Roederer, J. 2003, On the Concept of Information and its Role in Nature. Entropy,
5, 1-31, available at www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5010003.pdf
Sundstrom, V. 2007, Ultrafast Science Course,
ftp://student:ultrafast@athena.chemphys.lu.se/Schedule.pdf
Tribus, M. and McIrvine, E. C. 1971, Energy and Information, Sci. Am. 225(3): 179–
188; 183.
Vogel, G. and Angermann, H. 1988, dtv-Atlas zur Biologie 1. Deutscher Taschenbuch
Verlag GmBH & Co., München, 1.
***********************************************************
