An information-processing approach to the origin of life
December 17, 2012

Is life based on software and information? (Plants in the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda; credit: Wikimedia Commons)
A novel approach to the question of life’s origin, proposed by two Arizona State University scientists — Paul Davies, an ASU Regents’ Professor and director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science, and Sara Walker, a NASA post-doctoral fellow at the Beyond Center — in an open-access Journal of the Royal Society Interface paper, attempts to dramatically redefine the problem.
The authors shift attention from the “hardware” — the chemical basis of life — to the “software” — its information content. They suggest that the crucial distinction between non-life and life is the way living organisms manage the information flowing through the system.
“We propose that the transition from non-life to life is unique and definable,” said Davies. “We suggest that life may be characterized by its distinctive and active use of information, thus providing a roadmap to identify rigorous criteria for the emergence of life. This is in sharp contrast to a century of thought in which the transition to life has been cast as a problem of chemistry, with the goal of identifying a plausible reaction pathway from chemical mixtures to a living entity.”
“Chemical based approaches,” Walker said, “have stalled at a very early stage of chemical complexity — very far from anything we would consider ‘alive.’ More seriously they suffer from conceptual shortcomings in that they fail to distinguish between chemistry and biology.”
“To a physicist or chemist life seems like ‘magic matter,’” Davies explained. “It behaves in extraordinary ways that are unmatched in any other complex physical or chemical system. Such lifelike properties include autonomy, adaptability and goal-oriented behavior — the ability to harness chemical reactions to enact a pre-programmed agenda, rather than being a slave to those reactions.
“We believe the transition in the informational architecture of chemical networks is akin to a phase transition in physics, and we place special emphasis on the top-down information flow in which the system as a whole gains causal purchase over its components, This approach will reveal how the logical organization of biological replicators differs crucially from trivial replication associated with crystals (non-life). By addressing the causal role of information directly, many of the baffling qualities of life are explained.”
Nonlocal biological functions
“The most important features of biological information (i.e. functionality) are decisively nonlocal,” the authors say. “Biologically functional information is therefore not an additional quality, like electric charge, painted onto matter and passed on like a token. It is of course instantiated in biochemical structures, but one cannot point to any specific structure in isolation and say “Aha! Biological information is here!”
The authors expect that, by re-shaping the conceptual landscape in this fundamental way, not just the origin of life, but other major transitions will be explained — for example, the leap from single cells to multi-cellularity.
“In all of these cases where appeal is made to an informational narrative, we encounter context- (state-) dependent causation. In this respect, biological systems are quite unlike traditional mechanical systems evolving according to fixed laws of physics.
“In biological causation, subject to informational control and feedback, the dynamical rules will generally change with time in a manner that is both a function of the current state and the history of the organism (suggesting perhaps that even the concept of evolution itself may be in need of revision.”
Life in non-organic substrates?
This perspective “forces new thinking in how life might have arisen on a lifeless planet, by shifting emphasis to the origins of information control, rather than — for example — the onset of Darwinian evolution or the appearance of autocatalytic sets (i.e. either analog or digital that lack information control), which, although certainly important to the story of life’s emergence, do not rigorously define how/when life emerges as a function of chemical complexity.
“It also permits a broader view of life, where the same underlying principles would permit understanding of living systems instantiated in different chemical substrates (including potentially non-organic substrates). …
“Purely analog life-forms could have existed in the past but are not likely to survive over geological timescales without acquiring explicitly digitized informational protocols. Therefore life-forms that ‘go digital’ may be the only systems that survive in the long-run and are thus the only remaining product of the processes that led to life.
“As such, the onset of Darwinian evolution in a chemical system was likely not the critical step in the emergence of life. … Instead, the emergence of life was likely marked by a transition in information processing capabilities. This transition should be marked by a reversal in the causal flow of information from bottom-up only to a situation characterized by bi-directional causality.
“Characterizing the emergence of life as a shift in causal structure due to information gaining causal efficacy over matter marks the origin of life as a unique transition in the physical realm.”
Hallmarks of life
The authors suggest these specific hallmarks of life:
- Global organization
- Information as a causal agency
- Top-down causation
- Analog and digital information processing
- Laws and states co-evolve
- Logical structure of a universal constructor
- Dual hardware and software roles of genetic material
- Non-trivial replication
- Physical separation of instructions (algorithms) from the mechanism that implements them
Walker is also affiliated with the NASA Astrobiology Institute in Mountain View, Calif. and the Blue Marble Space Institute, Seattle.
Comments (19)
by mehran
information domain and energy domain best classification.
by Jim Mooney
I’m just reading Hofstadter’s “I Am a Strange Loop” and he feels consciousness is “emergent.” Although all laws of the microlevel are observed, that is totally different from the emergent system at the macrolevel.
by Snake Oil Baron
From the linked article:
“One of the great mysteries of life is how it began. What physical process transformed a nonliving mix of chemicals into something as complex as a living cell?”
I guess I would propose that the presence of a network (of reactions) which persists over time, can change and be selected for or against while being pushed out of equilibrium would be the process which transforms a non living mix of chemicals into a living cell.
Networks of matter, energy, and spacetime for it to occur in seem to be the fundamental ingredients of life.
by hal
thank you. the billion person platform of social media is built on the sharing of product which works for each person, or cell. this macrocosm functions not unlike the chemical reaction of an electron escaping a carbon atom it seems. anyways, thank you snake oil salesperson.
by Snake Oil Baron
Perhaps, if one looks at the concentrations of the products and reactants of chemical reactions as being information with chemistry being the processing agent, one could see the chemical equilibrium equations in a chemical network as instructions. “If concentration of A exceeds KEq then shift the reaction rate to re-establish equilibrium.”
So there is data (chemical concentrations), instructions (equilibrium reactions) and a machine to process the instructions (the universe or laws of physics). Adding more reactions which match reactants and products with other equilibrium equations adds both information and instructions to the network and networks which increase in size to acquire new space are more likely to persist–Darwinian selection kicks in.
A network which has an equation driven away from equilibrium by an energy source such as geothermal or chemical or solar input, pushes the whole system away from equilibrium which allows equilibrium reactions which would not otherwise proceed, to do so. A network will lose reactants and products at the edge of it’s range and parts of it may break off at times. But if a network starts making a product which forms bubbles it would help hold member reactions in a confined space so they wouldn’t dilute at the edges. Darwinian trophies of survival get handed out again. :-)
Later, things like enzymes and methods of “remembering” how to make them are added to the tool kit but the main point would be that a physical quantity (concentration) became a type of information that could be processed (by physics) and formed a network (via the links between reactions.
I’m not sure if this meets the desire of those behind this new view to shift focus away from “hardware” but it seems to for me.
by Snake Oil Baron
Maybe it is a limitation on my part but while I have no trouble with Darwinian processes working on pre-biotic chemistry, top down information processing before living systems seems hard to fathom. Why would a non-living system just start processing information and affecting the system on a collective scale? Did I miss something crucial?
by gregorylent
getting closer to conceptualizing “the field” …
yogis smile encouragingly, say, keep going, just a bit deeper
by Bri
I tend to agree with ” the field”, but I don’t think they’ll be able to find it with a microscope. In reference to ” the yogis” it’s not deeper, it’s everywhere., and I don’t think it’s electro magnetic. It’s kinda like we swim in a sea.
by Gabriel
There has always been something so….pleasing about this way of looking at things; at the “software” rather then substrate…it emphasizes that things are more then the ‘sum of all parts’. Aside from sounding sensible, it’s a very comfortable way of looking at things.
It’s something at the very core of transhumanism and the idea that Poshumanism is something that doesn’t exist, because if humanity is the species transcends limits, then their is never a point where we lose that (i.e. our humanity) no matter how far we go.
by Joe Cash
Charlie and Bri: I see you’re hurling insults rather than offering your superior alternative. Bet you don’t have one. Bet you don’t want others to try.
by LME
I liked this article very much, and thought the writing was not pretentious, just densely packed. I totally agree with the idea that life and biology are not synonymous, with the biology a paradigm that emerged following the emergence of the molecular world via the chemistry paradigm. The time scale of biological evolution was many magnitudes faster than the evolution of the chemical environment into a molecular world, but as we shift into the information paradigm, incorporating biology the way the biology incorporated chemistry, the evolutionary time scale will become orders of magnitude faster again. The article seemed correct to me in understanding life as being characterized by the way information is processed, rather than the substrate doing the processing. As to WHAT is evolving, I leave it up to our imagination. I enjoyed Ray Kurzweil’s comment at the end of Transcendent Man when he was asked if God exists. He answered “Not yet.”
by Jonesyman
Fascinatingly esoteric, yet functional theory. It has a certain beauty to it.
As Bri pointed out this does smack of a certain “ghost in the machine” feel and that is an unavoidable bugbear for any theory that treats phenomena as non-local. I foresee many taking issue with the notion of defining life in such a holistic fashion rather than tying it to some very specific “magic mechanism” that separates non-living chemicals from organisms.
In short: Trippy man, trippy!
by Charlie
So much terse wordplay!
Oy! Vey!
This former Biology Major (way back in the last century) stopped reading when I came across, “The authors expect that, by re-shaping the conceptual landscape in this fundamental way, not just the origin of life, but other major transitions will be explained — for example, the leap from single cells to multi-cellularity.”
And, then, ….”“The most important features of biological information (i.e. functionality) are decisively nonlocal,” ……..that word “functionality” is so very pretentious, stumbling over itself and skinning its knees……so I stopped reading. I tried.
What has “peer review” so far indicated?
by Bri
I don’t know. Seems like the ” hallmarks of life” section is doing everything in it’s power to not say ghost in the machine. It’s all just such an illusion. A game of magic. Certainly seems simulated. Another home video playing on the holodeck.
by Dan Aminoff
Just viewed Daniel Dennett’s recent “Evolution of Reasons” talk at WSU ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab1TaROJ5bo ) which seems to get right to the heart of this – without the need to overthrow Darwin! Also looking forward to reading the related book he recommended in his talk” “Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell”.
by hal
exactly. life is exactly what it is each and every moment in and with the perfections and imperfections. existence supersedes human morality of right and wrong and is trumped by the primary rule of survival. Survival is muted by dual primary rules of the individual and the collective concept of life itself.
i contend the possibility exists to reach a level of knowledge about the information currently outside our collection accepted as fact to understand that life is imbued in the fabric of matter, energy, and unknown dark “stuff” standing ready at all times to gather information in a fashion and manner we call life. The minerals in a rock and the same type in our bodies are equally ready, one is more actively involved in the process while the other stands ready.
this whole diorama stands on its own and functions with or without a precondition of a creator or essence and does not speak to the question of an afterlife which are still further down the road of our information gathering. searching for signs of life outside our planet will only add to our base and not answer the question plaguing mankind.
if i am right life is a permanent aspect of the universe and makes our current moment here at what appears to be a apogee of the human experience. perhaps we are a bubble or a string in a multiverse with different laws and rules. the information description starts with the concept that we exist right now in an infinite eternal universe. our view of time may indeed stop at the moment prior to the big bang, but the digits and increments everything have stasis in chaos.
by Arn
Last comment in bad need of a re-write!
by Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis
Tom Ray’s “Tierra”
How does this work differ essentially from Tom Ray’s work on Tierra of two decades ago? (Tierra was a software evolution program that started with a population of “ancestor” pseudo DNA stings of operators, that mutated and spontaneously generated parasites, resistance, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) I suggest readers google the terms Tierra and Tom Ray, the most significant piece of work in the field of artificial life.
Cheers, Prof Dr Hugo de Garis
profhugodegaris@yahoo.com
http://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com
====
by Miguel Antonio Cortés Muñoz
It is an attempt for a fully developed, systematized theory describing how life works, while Tierra was an experiment related to the same idea.