What do you think?
Rate this book
Rețelele de informație și misterul vieții
Apariția vieții și capacitatea sa de a genera ordine din haos sunt enigme care încă nu au primit un răspuns definitiv. Renumitul fizician Paul Davies susține că, pentru a lămuri aceste enigme, trebuie mai întâi să răspundem la o întrebare mai adâncă: „Ce este informația?“ Ca să înțelegem natura și originea vieții, Davies ne propune să adoptăm o perspectivă asupra biologiei potrivit căreia fundamentele vieții sunt asemănătoare sistemelor cibernetice, în sensul în care viața așa cum o cunoaștem ar trebui să fie considerată un fenomen asemănător stocării și gestionării informației. Pătrunzând în adevărata mecanică a fenomenelor din lumea fizică obișnuită, Davies ne arată cum procesele biologice, de la fotosinteză la capacitatea de orientare a păsărilor, se bazează pe mecanica cuantică, și cum fizica cuantică și procesarea informației ar putea constitui cheia dezlegării misterului vieții de pe Pământ. Folosind un limbaj accesibil, Rețelele de informație și misterul vieții expune diferite teorii interdisciplinare pentru a ne purta într-o călătorie edificatoare către țelul suprem al științei: unificarea tuturor teoriilor din biologie și fizică, astfel încât omenirea să poată înțelege locul pe care îl ocupă în univers.
„Există multe cărți despre ce face viața. Cartea aceasta discută ce este viața. Sunt fascinat de funcționarea organismelor, de ceea ce permite materiei vii să realizeze lucruri atât de uimitoare, lucruri de care materia neînsuflețită nu e capabilă. De unde provine diferența? Până și o umilă bacterie realizează lucruri atât de uluitoare, atât de surprinzătoare, încât nici un inginer nu le poate egala. Viața pare să fie ceva magic, un lucru ale cărui taine sunt învăluite într-o mantie de impenetrabilă complexitate. În ultimele decenii, descoperirile uriașe din biologie nu au făcut decât să sporească misterul. Ce anume dă ființelor acel imbold enigmatic care le diferențiază de alte sisteme fizice, făcându-le remarcabile și deosebite? Și de unde se trage tot acest caracter aparte?“ — PAUL DAVIES
„Există multe cărți despre ce face viața. Cartea aceasta discută ce este viața. Sunt fascinat de funcționarea organismelor, de ceea ce permite materiei vii să realizeze lucruri atât de uimitoare, lucruri de care materia neînsuflețită nu e capabilă. De unde provine diferența? Până și o umilă bacterie realizează lucruri atât de uluitoare, atât de surprinzătoare, încât nici un inginer nu le poate egala. Viața pare să fie ceva magic, un lucru ale cărui taine sunt învăluite într-o mantie de impenetrabilă complexitate. În ultimele decenii, descoperirile uriașe din biologie nu au făcut decât să sporească misterul. Ce anume dă ființelor acel imbold enigmatic care le diferențiază de alte sisteme fizice, făcându-le remarcabile și deosebite? Și de unde se trage tot acest caracter aparte?“ — PAUL DAVIES
304 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2020
317 people are currently reading
3066 people want to read
About the author
Paul C.W. Davies
77 books575 followersPaul Charles William Davies AM is a British-born physicist, writer and broadcaster, currently a professor at Arizona State University as well as the Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University of London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has proposed that a one-way trip to Mars could be a viable option.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
December 31, 2020
Q:
I’m fascinated by what makes organisms tick, what enables living matter to do such astounding things – things beyond the reach of non-living matter. Where does the difference come from? Even a humble bacterium accomplishes things so amazing, so dazzling, that no human engineer can match it. Life looks like magic, its secrets cloaked by a shroud of impenetrable complexity. Huge advances in biology over the past decades have served only to deepen the mystery. What gives living things that enigmatic oomph that sets them apart from other physical systems as remarkable and special? And where did all this specialness come from in the first place? (c)
A statement of informational approach to life, molecular organisation, universal (and not so universal) laws.
I’m fascinated by what makes organisms tick, what enables living matter to do such astounding things – things beyond the reach of non-living matter. Where does the difference come from? Even a humble bacterium accomplishes things so amazing, so dazzling, that no human engineer can match it. Life looks like magic, its secrets cloaked by a shroud of impenetrable complexity. Huge advances in biology over the past decades have served only to deepen the mystery. What gives living things that enigmatic oomph that sets them apart from other physical systems as remarkable and special? And where did all this specialness come from in the first place? (c)
A statement of informational approach to life, molecular organisation, universal (and not so universal) laws.
February 1, 2019
Physicists have a habit of dabbling in biology and, perhaps surprisingly, biologists tend to be quite tolerant of it. (I find it hard to believe the reverse would be true if biologists tried to do physics.) Perhaps one reason for that tolerance is Schrödinger’s lecture series and book What is Life?, which had a huge impact on molecular biology and with a reference to which, not surprisingly, Paul Davies begins his fascinating book.
At the heart of the The Demon in the Machine (we'll come back to that demon in a moment) is the relationship between life and information. In essence, Davies points out that if we try to reduce life to its simple physical components it is like trying to work with a computer that has no software. The equivalent of software here is information, not just in the best publicised aspect of the information stored in the DNA, but on a far broader scale, operating in networks across the organism.
This information and its processing gives life its emergent complexity, which is why, Davies suggests, Dawkins-style reductionism to the gene level entirely misses the point. What's more, the biological setup provides a particularly sophisticated relationship between information and the physical aspects of the organism because the information can modify itself - it's as if a computer program could redesign itself as it went along.
The subtitle 'how hidden webs of information are solving the mystery of life' probably over-promises. As Davies makes clear, we still have no idea how life came into being in the first place. However, by bringing in this physical/information aspect we at least can get a better grip on the workings of the molecular machines inside organisms and how biology can do so much with so little. Here's where the demon in the title comes in. This is Maxwell's demon, the hypothetical miniature being dreamed up by the great nineteenth century Scottish physicist.
Maxwell's demon has the remarkable ability to tweak the second law of thermodynamics allowing, for example, heat to flow from a colder to a hotter body or, to put it another way, providing a mechanism for entropy (the measure of disorder in a system) to spontaneously decrease. Entropy has a strong (negative) relationship with information and Davies shows how miniature biological systems act in a demon-like fashion to effectively manage information.
There's lots to like here, from the best explanation I've seen of the relationship of information and entropy to fascinating coverage of how far we’ve gone beyond the selfish gene. This is not just about basic epigenetic processes (operating outside of genes, switching them on and off and so on) but how, for example, the electric field of a (biological) cell apparently has a role to play in ‘sculpting‘ the physical structure of an organism.
My only real complaint is that in part of the chapter Enter the Demon dealing with information engines and most of the chapter The Logic of Life, describing the relationship between living organisms and computation, Davies fails to put across clearly just what is going on. I read it, but didn't feel I gained as much information (ironically) as I needed from it. There was also one very odd statistic. We're told the information in a strand of DNA contains 'about 2 billion bits - more than the information contained in all the books in the Library of Congress.' There are about 32 million books in the Library of Congress, so that gives us on average 62.5 bits per book. Unless those are very short books, some information has gone astray.
Really interesting, then, from a transformed understanding of the importance of information in living organisms through to Davies' speculation on whether biological systems need new physical laws to describe them. But expect to come away feeling you need to read it again to be sure what it said.
At the heart of the The Demon in the Machine (we'll come back to that demon in a moment) is the relationship between life and information. In essence, Davies points out that if we try to reduce life to its simple physical components it is like trying to work with a computer that has no software. The equivalent of software here is information, not just in the best publicised aspect of the information stored in the DNA, but on a far broader scale, operating in networks across the organism.
This information and its processing gives life its emergent complexity, which is why, Davies suggests, Dawkins-style reductionism to the gene level entirely misses the point. What's more, the biological setup provides a particularly sophisticated relationship between information and the physical aspects of the organism because the information can modify itself - it's as if a computer program could redesign itself as it went along.
The subtitle 'how hidden webs of information are solving the mystery of life' probably over-promises. As Davies makes clear, we still have no idea how life came into being in the first place. However, by bringing in this physical/information aspect we at least can get a better grip on the workings of the molecular machines inside organisms and how biology can do so much with so little. Here's where the demon in the title comes in. This is Maxwell's demon, the hypothetical miniature being dreamed up by the great nineteenth century Scottish physicist.
Maxwell's demon has the remarkable ability to tweak the second law of thermodynamics allowing, for example, heat to flow from a colder to a hotter body or, to put it another way, providing a mechanism for entropy (the measure of disorder in a system) to spontaneously decrease. Entropy has a strong (negative) relationship with information and Davies shows how miniature biological systems act in a demon-like fashion to effectively manage information.
There's lots to like here, from the best explanation I've seen of the relationship of information and entropy to fascinating coverage of how far we’ve gone beyond the selfish gene. This is not just about basic epigenetic processes (operating outside of genes, switching them on and off and so on) but how, for example, the electric field of a (biological) cell apparently has a role to play in ‘sculpting‘ the physical structure of an organism.
My only real complaint is that in part of the chapter Enter the Demon dealing with information engines and most of the chapter The Logic of Life, describing the relationship between living organisms and computation, Davies fails to put across clearly just what is going on. I read it, but didn't feel I gained as much information (ironically) as I needed from it. There was also one very odd statistic. We're told the information in a strand of DNA contains 'about 2 billion bits - more than the information contained in all the books in the Library of Congress.' There are about 32 million books in the Library of Congress, so that gives us on average 62.5 bits per book. Unless those are very short books, some information has gone astray.
Really interesting, then, from a transformed understanding of the importance of information in living organisms through to Davies' speculation on whether biological systems need new physical laws to describe them. But expect to come away feeling you need to read it again to be sure what it said.
April 24, 2021
Paul Davis made an amazing combination of physics, chemistry, biology and information theory in this book which gave readers a lot of information. This book explains the mesmerizing effects of quantum mechanics in a wonderful way at the atomic levels and the birds navigation which sounds like really interesting . The most part of the book tells us about biology and life.
March 16, 2025
Acizii nucleici stochează detalii despre "planul vieții", iar proteinele fac posibilă funcționarea organismului. E nevoie de ambele elemente, prin urmare o definiție a vieții trebuie să țină cont de acest lucru.
Viața = materie + informație
O moleculă este o structură fizică, informația e un concept abstract. Informația nu poate fi văzută, mirosită sau atinsă. Pe de altă parte, informația joacă un rol fizic în lume, mai ales în biologie. O schimbare la nivelul informației stocate în ADN poate produce mutații și schimba cursul evoluției. Informația influențează lumea.
Organismele vii nu sunt simple depozite de informații, ci computere. Vom înțelege pe deplin viața numai dacă îi descoperim mecanismele computaționale. Iar pentru asta autorul ne poartă într-o călătorie fascinantă prin fundamentele logicii, matematicii și informaticii.
Citiți cu atenție capitolele doi și trei, sunt cele mai tehnice.
Recomand
Viața = materie + informație
O moleculă este o structură fizică, informația e un concept abstract. Informația nu poate fi văzută, mirosită sau atinsă. Pe de altă parte, informația joacă un rol fizic în lume, mai ales în biologie. O schimbare la nivelul informației stocate în ADN poate produce mutații și schimba cursul evoluției. Informația influențează lumea.
Organismele vii nu sunt simple depozite de informații, ci computere. Vom înțelege pe deplin viața numai dacă îi descoperim mecanismele computaționale. Iar pentru asta autorul ne poartă într-o călătorie fascinantă prin fundamentele logicii, matematicii și informaticii.
Citiți cu atenție capitolele doi și trei, sunt cele mai tehnice.
Recomand
September 9, 2024
ENGLISH: A recent popular book on current research on life sciences, but its various subjects are quite unbalanced, as indicated below.
Chapter 2 is very interesting, describing the latest advances in the implementation of gadgets similar to "Maxwell's demon". Chapter 3 deals with systems theory in biology, which was the subject of my PhD thesis over half a century ago. It seems to me that current methods are very similar to those I used then, of course applied to different biological systems. Chapter 4, devoted to epigenetics, is very good, and has told me a few things I didn't know. Chapter 5, on the other hand, is disappointing: it's pure futurological science, and exaggerates the power of quantum computing, described as "godlike"!!
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the two hard problems facing contemporary science: the origin of life and consciousness. I disagree on both counts, which is not surprising given the difficulty of these issues. I agree with what Davies says about the origin of life, but disagree with his insistence on comparing life to a computer (see below).
In chapter 7, as expected, Davies does not even begin to address the problem of consciousness, although his initial quote from Loewenstein is significant: Regarding... consciousness, we know as much as the Romans did: nothing. But among his disquisitions he introduces the problem of time, and like Einstein he simply embraces philosophical theory B (time as a block), which is quite debatable. To explain it, he formulates a curious theory, worthy of Lewis Carroll, based on the fact that I am not the same person today as I will be tomorrow, although there are many correlations between both. This theory is similar to solipsism, against which he launches a couple of ironic attacks in this same chapter.
In the epilogue, I am surprised that a Templeton Prize winner would attack the Catholic Church in this way: Physics as we know it developed in seventeen century Europe, which was in thrall to Catholic Church doctrine. And what follows, where he shows that he does not know current Catholic doctrine, because he speaks of it as if it had been abandoned.
I have found the following mistakes in the book:
At the beginning of Chapter 2, Davies makes a glaring error: he says that the information in human DNA (which he estimates at 2 gigabits, although 6 would be a more correct figure) is greater than the information contained in all the books in the Library of Congress. Since the Library of Congress contains about 32 million books, the amount of information per book would be equal to about 64 bits, or 8 characters, almost five orders of magnitude less than the correct value.
In chapter 3, Davies mistakes Bertrand Russell's paradox with the liar's paradox. The latter is actually related to Gödel's theorem. He also calls Gödel's theorem the highest product of human intellect. Well, that's his opinion. I'm sure many other people would make a different choice, not necessarily scientific. Then he says that even an unbounded intellect, a god, can never know everything. However, I doubt that Gödel's theorem applies to God. Finally, the concept of self-reproducing machines was not published first by John von Neumann in 1966, as he implies. It was described by Norbert Wiener in the edition of his work "Cybernetics" published in 1961, five years before von Neumann's book was published posthumously. Perhaps Wiener got this idea from von Neumann, whom in fact he cites. Davies, however, does not cite Wiener in his book, although he should.
In chapter 6, Davies says this: About 1 per cent of the carbon on Earth is in the form of the lighter isotope C^12. Life favours this lighter form so fossils usually possess a slight additional abundance of it. This is wrong. Actually, it should say this: About 1 per cent of the carbon on Earth is in the form of the heavier isotope C^13. Life favours this heavier form so fossils usually possess a slight additional abundance of it.
In this book, Davies offers a computer as a parallel to a living being, but his comparison is not correct. He says: Living matter has both a hardware and a software aspect - chemistry and information. But this is not true. A computer has three, not two components: hardware, software (programs) and data. The information is the data, rather than the software. Reducing life to chemistry and information forgets one of the three components. And if the parallel was a simplification from the beginning, forgetting one of the three elements makes it an oversimplification. Davies (like other popularizers) confuses information with intelligence. See this post in my blog: https://populscience.blogspot.com/202.... And in the epilogue, he compounds this mistake by confusing genomes with the laws of biology. Genomes are data sets on which laws act, so it's natural for them to change.
ESPAÑOL: Libro de divulgación reciente sobre la investigación actual en ciencias de la vida, pero los diversos temas están desequilibrados, como indico a continuación.
El capítulo 2 es muy interesante, pues describe los últimos avances en la implementación de artilugios similares al "demonio de Maxwell". El capítulo 3 habla de la teoría de sistemas en biología, que fue el tema de mi tesis doctoral hace más de medio siglo. Me parece que los métodos actuales son muy parecidos a los que empleé yo entonces, aunque aplicados a otros sistemas biológicos, como es natural. El capítulo 4, dedicado a la epigenética, está muy bien, y me ha informado de algunas cosas que no sabía. El 5, en cambio, me ha decepcionado: es pura ciencia futurológica, y exagera el poder de la computación cuántica, que califica de ¡¡godlike!!
Los capítulos 6 y 7 tratan sobre los dos problemas difíciles a los que se enfrenta la ciencia actual: el origen de la vida y la consciencia. Discrepo en ambos casos, lo que no es sorprendente, dada la dificultad de estas cuestiones. Estoy de acuerdo con lo que dice Davies sobre el origen de la vida, pero discrepo con su insistencia en comparar la vida con un ordenador (véase más abajo).
En el capítulo 7, como era de esperar, Davies ni siquiera empieza a abordar el problema de la consciencia, aunque su cita inicial de Loewenstein es significativa: Respecto a la... consciencia, sabemos tanto como sabían los romanos: nada. Pero entre sus disquisiciones introduce el problema del tiempo, y como Einstein abraza sin más la teoría filosófica B (el tiempo en bloque), que es muy discutible. Para explicarlo, formula una curiosa teoría, digna de Lewis Carroll, basada en que yo hoy no soy la misma persona que la que seré mañana, aunque hay muchas correlaciones entre ambos. Es una teoría semejante al solipsismo, contra el que lanza un par de ataques irónicos en este mismo capítulo.
En el epílogo, me sorprende que un ganador del Premio Templeton ataque así a la Iglesia Católica: La física, tal como la conocemos, se desarrolló en la Europa del siglo XVII, que estaba esclavizada por la doctrina de la Iglesia Católica. Y lo que sigue, donde demuestra que no conoce la doctrina católica actual, pues habla de ella como si hubiese sido abandonada.
He detectado los siguientes errores en el libro:
Al principio del capítulo 2 Davies comete un error flagrante: dice que la información del ADN humano (que valora en 2 Gigabits, aunque 6 sería una cifra más correcta) es mayor que la información contenida en todos los libros de la Biblioteca del Congreso de los Estados Unidos. Como dicha biblioteca contiene unos 32 millones de libros, la cantidad de información por libro sería igual a unos 64 bits, o sea, 8 caracteres, lo cual es casi cinco órdenes de magnitud inferior al valor correcto.
En el capítulo 3, Davies confunde la paradoja de Bertrand Russell con la paradoja del mentiroso, que de hecho está relacionada con el teorema de Gödel. También dice que el teorema de Gödel es el producto más elevado del intelecto humano. Bueno, esa es su opinión. Estoy seguro de que muchas otras personas elegirían algo diferente, no necesariamente científico. Después dice que incluso un intelecto ilimitado, un dios, no puede saberlo todo. Pero yo dudo de que el teorema de Gödel se aplique a Dios. Por último, el concepto de máquinas auto-reproductoras no fue publicado por primera vez por John von Neumann en 1966, como Davies da a entender. Fue descrito por Norbert Wiener en la edición de su obra "Cybernetics" publicada en 1961, cinco años antes que la publicación póstuma del libro de von Neumann. Es posible que Wiener sacara esta idea de von Neumann, a quien de hecho cita. Sin embargo, Davies no cita a Wiener en su libro, y debería hacerlo.
En el capítulo 6, Davies dice esto: Alrededor del 1 por ciento del carbono que hay en la Tierra está en la forma de su isótopo más ligero, C^12. La vida favorece esta forma más ligera, por lo que los fósiles suelen poseer una ligera abundancia adicional de este isótopo. Esto no es correcto. Debería decir lo siguiente: Alrededor del 1 por ciento del carbono que hay en la Tierra está en la forma de su isótopo más pesado, C^13. La vida favorece esta forma más pesada, por lo que los fósiles suelen poseer una ligera abundancia adicional de este isótopo.
A lo largo del libro, Davies ofrece un ordenador como paralelo a un ser vivo, pero lo hace mal. Dice esto: La materia viva tiene aspectos de hardware y de software - la química y la información. Pero esto no es cierto. Un ordenador no tiene dos componentes, sino tres: hardware, software (programas) y datos. La información no es el software, sino los datos. Reducir la vida a química e información olvida una de las tres componentes. Y si el paralelo, desde el principio, era ya una simplificación, al olvidar uno de los tres elementos se convierte en una simplificación excesiva. Davies y otros divulgadores confunden información con inteligencia. Véase este artículo de mi blog: https://divulciencia.blogspot.com/202.... Y en el epílogo, complica este error confundiendo los genomas con las leyes de la biología. Los genomas son conjuntos de datos sobre los que actúan las leyes, y por tanto es natural que cambien.
Chapter 2 is very interesting, describing the latest advances in the implementation of gadgets similar to "Maxwell's demon". Chapter 3 deals with systems theory in biology, which was the subject of my PhD thesis over half a century ago. It seems to me that current methods are very similar to those I used then, of course applied to different biological systems. Chapter 4, devoted to epigenetics, is very good, and has told me a few things I didn't know. Chapter 5, on the other hand, is disappointing: it's pure futurological science, and exaggerates the power of quantum computing, described as "godlike"!!
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the two hard problems facing contemporary science: the origin of life and consciousness. I disagree on both counts, which is not surprising given the difficulty of these issues. I agree with what Davies says about the origin of life, but disagree with his insistence on comparing life to a computer (see below).
In chapter 7, as expected, Davies does not even begin to address the problem of consciousness, although his initial quote from Loewenstein is significant: Regarding... consciousness, we know as much as the Romans did: nothing. But among his disquisitions he introduces the problem of time, and like Einstein he simply embraces philosophical theory B (time as a block), which is quite debatable. To explain it, he formulates a curious theory, worthy of Lewis Carroll, based on the fact that I am not the same person today as I will be tomorrow, although there are many correlations between both. This theory is similar to solipsism, against which he launches a couple of ironic attacks in this same chapter.
In the epilogue, I am surprised that a Templeton Prize winner would attack the Catholic Church in this way: Physics as we know it developed in seventeen century Europe, which was in thrall to Catholic Church doctrine. And what follows, where he shows that he does not know current Catholic doctrine, because he speaks of it as if it had been abandoned.
I have found the following mistakes in the book:
At the beginning of Chapter 2, Davies makes a glaring error: he says that the information in human DNA (which he estimates at 2 gigabits, although 6 would be a more correct figure) is greater than the information contained in all the books in the Library of Congress. Since the Library of Congress contains about 32 million books, the amount of information per book would be equal to about 64 bits, or 8 characters, almost five orders of magnitude less than the correct value.
In chapter 3, Davies mistakes Bertrand Russell's paradox with the liar's paradox. The latter is actually related to Gödel's theorem. He also calls Gödel's theorem the highest product of human intellect. Well, that's his opinion. I'm sure many other people would make a different choice, not necessarily scientific. Then he says that even an unbounded intellect, a god, can never know everything. However, I doubt that Gödel's theorem applies to God. Finally, the concept of self-reproducing machines was not published first by John von Neumann in 1966, as he implies. It was described by Norbert Wiener in the edition of his work "Cybernetics" published in 1961, five years before von Neumann's book was published posthumously. Perhaps Wiener got this idea from von Neumann, whom in fact he cites. Davies, however, does not cite Wiener in his book, although he should.
In chapter 6, Davies says this: About 1 per cent of the carbon on Earth is in the form of the lighter isotope C^12. Life favours this lighter form so fossils usually possess a slight additional abundance of it. This is wrong. Actually, it should say this: About 1 per cent of the carbon on Earth is in the form of the heavier isotope C^13. Life favours this heavier form so fossils usually possess a slight additional abundance of it.
In this book, Davies offers a computer as a parallel to a living being, but his comparison is not correct. He says: Living matter has both a hardware and a software aspect - chemistry and information. But this is not true. A computer has three, not two components: hardware, software (programs) and data. The information is the data, rather than the software. Reducing life to chemistry and information forgets one of the three components. And if the parallel was a simplification from the beginning, forgetting one of the three elements makes it an oversimplification. Davies (like other popularizers) confuses information with intelligence. See this post in my blog: https://populscience.blogspot.com/202.... And in the epilogue, he compounds this mistake by confusing genomes with the laws of biology. Genomes are data sets on which laws act, so it's natural for them to change.
ESPAÑOL: Libro de divulgación reciente sobre la investigación actual en ciencias de la vida, pero los diversos temas están desequilibrados, como indico a continuación.
El capítulo 2 es muy interesante, pues describe los últimos avances en la implementación de artilugios similares al "demonio de Maxwell". El capítulo 3 habla de la teoría de sistemas en biología, que fue el tema de mi tesis doctoral hace más de medio siglo. Me parece que los métodos actuales son muy parecidos a los que empleé yo entonces, aunque aplicados a otros sistemas biológicos, como es natural. El capítulo 4, dedicado a la epigenética, está muy bien, y me ha informado de algunas cosas que no sabía. El 5, en cambio, me ha decepcionado: es pura ciencia futurológica, y exagera el poder de la computación cuántica, que califica de ¡¡godlike!!
Los capítulos 6 y 7 tratan sobre los dos problemas difíciles a los que se enfrenta la ciencia actual: el origen de la vida y la consciencia. Discrepo en ambos casos, lo que no es sorprendente, dada la dificultad de estas cuestiones. Estoy de acuerdo con lo que dice Davies sobre el origen de la vida, pero discrepo con su insistencia en comparar la vida con un ordenador (véase más abajo).
En el capítulo 7, como era de esperar, Davies ni siquiera empieza a abordar el problema de la consciencia, aunque su cita inicial de Loewenstein es significativa: Respecto a la... consciencia, sabemos tanto como sabían los romanos: nada. Pero entre sus disquisiciones introduce el problema del tiempo, y como Einstein abraza sin más la teoría filosófica B (el tiempo en bloque), que es muy discutible. Para explicarlo, formula una curiosa teoría, digna de Lewis Carroll, basada en que yo hoy no soy la misma persona que la que seré mañana, aunque hay muchas correlaciones entre ambos. Es una teoría semejante al solipsismo, contra el que lanza un par de ataques irónicos en este mismo capítulo.
En el epílogo, me sorprende que un ganador del Premio Templeton ataque así a la Iglesia Católica: La física, tal como la conocemos, se desarrolló en la Europa del siglo XVII, que estaba esclavizada por la doctrina de la Iglesia Católica. Y lo que sigue, donde demuestra que no conoce la doctrina católica actual, pues habla de ella como si hubiese sido abandonada.
He detectado los siguientes errores en el libro:
Al principio del capítulo 2 Davies comete un error flagrante: dice que la información del ADN humano (que valora en 2 Gigabits, aunque 6 sería una cifra más correcta) es mayor que la información contenida en todos los libros de la Biblioteca del Congreso de los Estados Unidos. Como dicha biblioteca contiene unos 32 millones de libros, la cantidad de información por libro sería igual a unos 64 bits, o sea, 8 caracteres, lo cual es casi cinco órdenes de magnitud inferior al valor correcto.
En el capítulo 3, Davies confunde la paradoja de Bertrand Russell con la paradoja del mentiroso, que de hecho está relacionada con el teorema de Gödel. También dice que el teorema de Gödel es el producto más elevado del intelecto humano. Bueno, esa es su opinión. Estoy seguro de que muchas otras personas elegirían algo diferente, no necesariamente científico. Después dice que incluso un intelecto ilimitado, un dios, no puede saberlo todo. Pero yo dudo de que el teorema de Gödel se aplique a Dios. Por último, el concepto de máquinas auto-reproductoras no fue publicado por primera vez por John von Neumann en 1966, como Davies da a entender. Fue descrito por Norbert Wiener en la edición de su obra "Cybernetics" publicada en 1961, cinco años antes que la publicación póstuma del libro de von Neumann. Es posible que Wiener sacara esta idea de von Neumann, a quien de hecho cita. Sin embargo, Davies no cita a Wiener en su libro, y debería hacerlo.
En el capítulo 6, Davies dice esto: Alrededor del 1 por ciento del carbono que hay en la Tierra está en la forma de su isótopo más ligero, C^12. La vida favorece esta forma más ligera, por lo que los fósiles suelen poseer una ligera abundancia adicional de este isótopo. Esto no es correcto. Debería decir lo siguiente: Alrededor del 1 por ciento del carbono que hay en la Tierra está en la forma de su isótopo más pesado, C^13. La vida favorece esta forma más pesada, por lo que los fósiles suelen poseer una ligera abundancia adicional de este isótopo.
A lo largo del libro, Davies ofrece un ordenador como paralelo a un ser vivo, pero lo hace mal. Dice esto: La materia viva tiene aspectos de hardware y de software - la química y la información. Pero esto no es cierto. Un ordenador no tiene dos componentes, sino tres: hardware, software (programas) y datos. La información no es el software, sino los datos. Reducir la vida a química e información olvida una de las tres componentes. Y si el paralelo, desde el principio, era ya una simplificación, al olvidar uno de los tres elementos se convierte en una simplificación excesiva. Davies y otros divulgadores confunden información con inteligencia. Véase este artículo de mi blog: https://divulciencia.blogspot.com/202.... Y en el epílogo, complica este error confundiendo los genomas con las leyes de la biología. Los genomas son conjuntos de datos sobre los que actúan las leyes, y por tanto es natural que cambien.
Want to read
July 27, 2023I'll at least take a look at this one if the library gets a copy. The author is a cosmologist, and Nature's reviewer compares Davies' effort to Erwin Schrodinger's classic "What is Life?" (1943): https://www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
Sample:
"Davies claims that life’s defining characteristics are better understood in terms of information. This is not as absurd as it may seem [reviewer is a biologist. This strikes me as a reasonable argument by Davies]. Energy is abstract, yet we have little trouble accepting it as a causal factor. Indeed, energy and information are closely related through entropy. ....
As well as having eclectic interests, Davies is iconoclastic and opinionated. Although certainly no believer in a vital force distinct from physics or chemistry, he has little time for reductionism, believing that life cannot be fully explained in terms of lower-level laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics), even in principle. In a final nod to Schrödinger — who believed that a proper understanding of life might reveal “other laws of physics hitherto unknown” — Davies closes by arguing that biology might yet contain deep lessons for physics. This is highly speculative and, in my (biologist’s) view, probably wrong. ... " The reviewer continues, "But this is not a criticism. On the contrary, if only more of us were wrong in such thought-provoking ways, we might more readily uncover the truth."
No copies at our libraries, 7/27/23. ZIP next year??
Sample:
"Davies claims that life’s defining characteristics are better understood in terms of information. This is not as absurd as it may seem [reviewer is a biologist. This strikes me as a reasonable argument by Davies]. Energy is abstract, yet we have little trouble accepting it as a causal factor. Indeed, energy and information are closely related through entropy. ....
As well as having eclectic interests, Davies is iconoclastic and opinionated. Although certainly no believer in a vital force distinct from physics or chemistry, he has little time for reductionism, believing that life cannot be fully explained in terms of lower-level laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics), even in principle. In a final nod to Schrödinger — who believed that a proper understanding of life might reveal “other laws of physics hitherto unknown” — Davies closes by arguing that biology might yet contain deep lessons for physics. This is highly speculative and, in my (biologist’s) view, probably wrong. ... " The reviewer continues, "But this is not a criticism. On the contrary, if only more of us were wrong in such thought-provoking ways, we might more readily uncover the truth."
No copies at our libraries, 7/27/23. ZIP next year??
December 27, 2018
This book brings together the latest findings in physics and biology in an attempt to answer the question "what is life?" (with a small side-order of "what is consciousness?") Information Theory and Computational Theory offer a tantalising insight into what separates the living from the non-living and, through the use of "Maxwell Demons", allows living organisms to defy the second law of thermodynamics, maintaing their complex state despite the tendency of all matter to devolve into entropy.
This was an utterly fascinating, mind-blowing read, and one which really made me appreciate the incredible complexity and wonder of life, even at the cellular level. Davies makes great efforts to make some of the extremely counter-intuitive science digestible, although at times (especially towards the end of the book) I found myself way out of my depth. The theories put forward here have huge implications, not only for our understanding of biology, but potentially also for nanotechnology and energy conservation.
This was an utterly fascinating, mind-blowing read, and one which really made me appreciate the incredible complexity and wonder of life, even at the cellular level. Davies makes great efforts to make some of the extremely counter-intuitive science digestible, although at times (especially towards the end of the book) I found myself way out of my depth. The theories put forward here have huge implications, not only for our understanding of biology, but potentially also for nanotechnology and energy conservation.
September 24, 2019
O livro de “The Demon in the Machine” é acima de tudo um livro fantástico.
É um livro que na essência aborda a origem da vida numa perspetiva pouco habitual, e que passa por assumimos se a física que conhecemos explica bem o comportamento da matéria, e do mundo que conhecemos, deverá então também poder explicar a origem da matéria enquanto matéria orgânica e enquanto vida.
Nesta abordagem o autor entra pelos domínios da física clássica, da física quântica, da biologia, da química, da genética e das ciências da computação.
Depois de abordar outras premissas, o autor defende, ainda que isso esteja longe de estar demonstrado, que o clique que poderá estar subjacente à criação de vida, é a forma como a matéria se articula com a informação.
Esta definição “vida” enquanto matéria “plus” informação, é descrita num contexto em que a informação é simultaneamente hardware e software, e em que as regras que regem esta articulação podem ir evoluindo com a maior complexidade dos organismos.
Não deixa de ser curioso que a vida enquanto aquisição de informação necessária para contornar a segunda lei da termodinâmica na “luta pela viabilidade” (ex alimento) e necessidade de se replicar, o faz segundo regras que podem ir evoluindo de acordo com aquisição de maior complexidade (o exemplo que o autor dá com as regras do jogo de xadrez é muito explicativo). Estes objectivos primordiais (sobrevivência e multiplicação) e as regras pelas quais estes objectivos foram atingidos ao longo de milénios, mais não são do que a definição de vida em si e a aquisição de consciência (consciência que é inerente a toda a vida desde os organismos unicelulares primordias até aos organismos multicelulares e de complexidade acrescida. Em todos eles a consciência está presente, ainda que com níveis diferentes. Consciência que foi evoluindo com a complexidade dos organismos e que nos mais complexos teve um up-grade que foi a aquisição de inteligência. Não é a inteligência que adquire consciência).
Como disse o autor, as regras pelas quais a vida se condiciona foram evoluindo com a complexidade dos sistemas. Curiosamente é isto mesmo que observamos nas relações humanas, inter-pessoais, entre grupos, nas sociedades, no comportamento das massas, na economia e em outros organismos aos quais atribuímos uma inteligência social.
Numa abordagem mais radical podemos dizer que também a matéria inorgânica possui informação, ainda que este nível de informação seja o da física das partículas. Curiosamente quando passamos do comportamento das partículas, para a química e comportamento dos elementos, nomeadamente para alguns elementos conotados como orgânicos, estas leis parecem apresentar algumas modificações levando a um tipo de organização preferencial que talvez esteja na origem da vida.
Assim sendo, a diferença entre matéria orgânica e inorgânica passa não pela presença de informação na primeira mas pela como a mesma está organizada e provavelmente pela forma como esta tem capacidade de evoluir para sistemas mais complexos e nos próprios sistemas de maior complexidade.
Aqui devo fazer uma ressalva. Habitualmente os serem humanos são apontados com o “cume da criação”, o êxtase da evolução desde o “big bang”. Mas será assim? Não haverá um up-grade de complexidade dos seres humanos para o cosmos com um todo. Se assumirmos esse incremento de complexidade, então as regras que suportam a vida ao nível que existimos e conhecemos, podem não ser as mesmas que estão subjecentes à evolução à escala cósmica. Pura e simplesmente não sabemos, mas nada nos garante que assim como à microescala a física (tal como a conhecemos) não explica a nossa existência à nossa escala, também aquilo que observamos não seja mais do que uma simples frame de um filme cósmico que não conseguimos compreender.
Continuando a divagação, sendo o cosmos, dentro do que conhecemos, dentro de escala, o nível de maior complexidade possível, então teremos de reconhecer ao cosmos um nível superior de organização, e provavelmente um nível superior ao da vida “comezinha” dos nossos dias.
Dito de outra forma há zonas de transição qualitativa entre matéria inorgânica, orgânica e cosmos, mas numa visão suficientemente distanciada as zonas de transição devem dar lugar a um crescendo em nível de organização.
Este livro e estes temas levam-nos à questão de se a vida, tal como a conhecemos é determinista ou aleatória na forma como foi evoluindo.
Creio que a resposta a esta questão passa pela definição de aleatoriedade. Se tomarmos como aleatoriedade a ausência de leis ou regras que administrem a evolução da vida, então entendo que dificilmente alguém pode achar que há aleatoriedade na nossa existência ou na forma como a vida foi evoluindo. Acontece é que as regras e leis não são todas conhecidas pelo que a predição do resultado final é frequentemente impossível de ser presumido.
Isto é verdade para predições recheadas de variáveis entre si frequentemente desconhecidas como a previsão do tempo, mas também para outras mais simples como as decisões cara/coroas.
E em ciência por muito que se saiba, há sempre algo mais que fica por descortinar. Em poucas coisas como o conhecimento científico têm uma aplicação tão apropriada do paradoxo de Zenão.
Uma última nota. Fantástica a abordagem que o autor faz dos oncogenes e do seu significado enquanto “old software” cuja utilização fora de contexto pode ser catastrófica.
É um livro que na essência aborda a origem da vida numa perspetiva pouco habitual, e que passa por assumimos se a física que conhecemos explica bem o comportamento da matéria, e do mundo que conhecemos, deverá então também poder explicar a origem da matéria enquanto matéria orgânica e enquanto vida.
Nesta abordagem o autor entra pelos domínios da física clássica, da física quântica, da biologia, da química, da genética e das ciências da computação.
Depois de abordar outras premissas, o autor defende, ainda que isso esteja longe de estar demonstrado, que o clique que poderá estar subjacente à criação de vida, é a forma como a matéria se articula com a informação.
Esta definição “vida” enquanto matéria “plus” informação, é descrita num contexto em que a informação é simultaneamente hardware e software, e em que as regras que regem esta articulação podem ir evoluindo com a maior complexidade dos organismos.
Não deixa de ser curioso que a vida enquanto aquisição de informação necessária para contornar a segunda lei da termodinâmica na “luta pela viabilidade” (ex alimento) e necessidade de se replicar, o faz segundo regras que podem ir evoluindo de acordo com aquisição de maior complexidade (o exemplo que o autor dá com as regras do jogo de xadrez é muito explicativo). Estes objectivos primordiais (sobrevivência e multiplicação) e as regras pelas quais estes objectivos foram atingidos ao longo de milénios, mais não são do que a definição de vida em si e a aquisição de consciência (consciência que é inerente a toda a vida desde os organismos unicelulares primordias até aos organismos multicelulares e de complexidade acrescida. Em todos eles a consciência está presente, ainda que com níveis diferentes. Consciência que foi evoluindo com a complexidade dos organismos e que nos mais complexos teve um up-grade que foi a aquisição de inteligência. Não é a inteligência que adquire consciência).
Como disse o autor, as regras pelas quais a vida se condiciona foram evoluindo com a complexidade dos sistemas. Curiosamente é isto mesmo que observamos nas relações humanas, inter-pessoais, entre grupos, nas sociedades, no comportamento das massas, na economia e em outros organismos aos quais atribuímos uma inteligência social.
Numa abordagem mais radical podemos dizer que também a matéria inorgânica possui informação, ainda que este nível de informação seja o da física das partículas. Curiosamente quando passamos do comportamento das partículas, para a química e comportamento dos elementos, nomeadamente para alguns elementos conotados como orgânicos, estas leis parecem apresentar algumas modificações levando a um tipo de organização preferencial que talvez esteja na origem da vida.
Assim sendo, a diferença entre matéria orgânica e inorgânica passa não pela presença de informação na primeira mas pela como a mesma está organizada e provavelmente pela forma como esta tem capacidade de evoluir para sistemas mais complexos e nos próprios sistemas de maior complexidade.
Aqui devo fazer uma ressalva. Habitualmente os serem humanos são apontados com o “cume da criação”, o êxtase da evolução desde o “big bang”. Mas será assim? Não haverá um up-grade de complexidade dos seres humanos para o cosmos com um todo. Se assumirmos esse incremento de complexidade, então as regras que suportam a vida ao nível que existimos e conhecemos, podem não ser as mesmas que estão subjecentes à evolução à escala cósmica. Pura e simplesmente não sabemos, mas nada nos garante que assim como à microescala a física (tal como a conhecemos) não explica a nossa existência à nossa escala, também aquilo que observamos não seja mais do que uma simples frame de um filme cósmico que não conseguimos compreender.
Continuando a divagação, sendo o cosmos, dentro do que conhecemos, dentro de escala, o nível de maior complexidade possível, então teremos de reconhecer ao cosmos um nível superior de organização, e provavelmente um nível superior ao da vida “comezinha” dos nossos dias.
Dito de outra forma há zonas de transição qualitativa entre matéria inorgânica, orgânica e cosmos, mas numa visão suficientemente distanciada as zonas de transição devem dar lugar a um crescendo em nível de organização.
Este livro e estes temas levam-nos à questão de se a vida, tal como a conhecemos é determinista ou aleatória na forma como foi evoluindo.
Creio que a resposta a esta questão passa pela definição de aleatoriedade. Se tomarmos como aleatoriedade a ausência de leis ou regras que administrem a evolução da vida, então entendo que dificilmente alguém pode achar que há aleatoriedade na nossa existência ou na forma como a vida foi evoluindo. Acontece é que as regras e leis não são todas conhecidas pelo que a predição do resultado final é frequentemente impossível de ser presumido.
Isto é verdade para predições recheadas de variáveis entre si frequentemente desconhecidas como a previsão do tempo, mas também para outras mais simples como as decisões cara/coroas.
E em ciência por muito que se saiba, há sempre algo mais que fica por descortinar. Em poucas coisas como o conhecimento científico têm uma aplicação tão apropriada do paradoxo de Zenão.
Uma última nota. Fantástica a abordagem que o autor faz dos oncogenes e do seu significado enquanto “old software” cuja utilização fora de contexto pode ser catastrófica.
August 26, 2024
Genială! A reușit chiar să-mi explice foarte bine anumite aspecte care - deși am mai citit despre ele - continuau să stea pe întuneric în capul meu 🤭
August 1, 2020
A book which look at life through the lens of a physicist. The central equation is matter + information = life. He essentially treats the genome networks as computational units of an information/communications network and this is the basis of all life and it's not necessarily a reductionist paradigm, there could be top-down causation possible through some organizational informational rules that underly life.
Information processing and computation is how life regulates itself and this underlies systems biology. He lays the thesis that cells and DNA are essentially Maxwell demons. Using information as a resource it performs work and this provides the energy for life and hence all the amazing things that the underlying processes that give life carry out. The faults that have appeared in Darwinian evolution, particularly with epigenetic inheritance and adaptive and targeted evolution in cells show that Darwinian evolution and the whole theory of chance just does not describe the world and the theory needs refining. The author thinks that will be some laws of information that will resolve this conundrum and they will dovetail with the known laws of physics.
It’s a truly excellent book that asks some pertinent questions concerning biology, physics and even philosophy. Along this journey he covers diverse topics, such as quantum mechanics, scientific philosophy, computational theory, information, DNA, systems biology, complex chemistry and many more. I would recommend to anyone with a desire to understand physics, the potential future of biology and a better understanding of some of the flaws with some of the scientific theories knows today.
Information processing and computation is how life regulates itself and this underlies systems biology. He lays the thesis that cells and DNA are essentially Maxwell demons. Using information as a resource it performs work and this provides the energy for life and hence all the amazing things that the underlying processes that give life carry out. The faults that have appeared in Darwinian evolution, particularly with epigenetic inheritance and adaptive and targeted evolution in cells show that Darwinian evolution and the whole theory of chance just does not describe the world and the theory needs refining. The author thinks that will be some laws of information that will resolve this conundrum and they will dovetail with the known laws of physics.
It’s a truly excellent book that asks some pertinent questions concerning biology, physics and even philosophy. Along this journey he covers diverse topics, such as quantum mechanics, scientific philosophy, computational theory, information, DNA, systems biology, complex chemistry and many more. I would recommend to anyone with a desire to understand physics, the potential future of biology and a better understanding of some of the flaws with some of the scientific theories knows today.
March 22, 2024
A book for hyper-intellectuals
Davies used to write books for laymen, but this time he gets very technical. It is an advanced and well-written book on state-of-the-art science. But to me, it was a disappointment, because I’m moderately interested in technicalities. Most of the book is like this:
Davies used to write books for laymen, but this time he gets very technical. It is an advanced and well-written book on state-of-the-art science. But to me, it was a disappointment, because I’m moderately interested in technicalities. Most of the book is like this:
Davies recounts the history of science, including developments in mathematics, quantum physics, information theory, brain research, etc. But the average hyper-intellectual would already know most of the science history. The book is utterly demanding, and the average person would experience it as tedious. The author’s central concept is this:
In response to the arrival of a signal from the body of the neuron, the gates open and allow sodium ions to flow from the outside to the inside, thereby reversing the voltage. Next, a different set of ion channels open to allow potassium ions to flow the other way — from the inside to the outside — restoring the original voltage. The polarity reversal typically lasts for only a few thousandths of a second. This transient disturbance triggers the same process in an adjacent section of the axon’s membrane, and that in turn sets off the next section, and so on. The signal thus ripples down the axon towards another neuron. (pp. 196-97)
Comparatively, the medieval version is like this:
LIFE = MATTER + INFORMATION
Here, spirit is what God breathed into Adam’s nostrils. On this view, we are connected to a divine transcendental mind through a kind of umbilical cord of spirit. Our conscious awareness has an otherworldly origin. This actually provides an explanation of sorts. As I see it, Davies’s equation does not. It could provide an explanation for life going on “in the dark”, without conscious awareness. But since life goes on “in the light”, it has not sufficient explanatory power. It does not help to say that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and that “consciousness is an emergent property”.
LIFE = MATTER + SPIRIT
April 9, 2019
This is a difficult book to rate as at times I felt like I was experiencing an interesting incipit to a completely new way of thinking about life, other times, I felt bombarded with unnecessary detail and a hopeless abandonment of the great promise of the book's subtitle.
First of all, I greatly enjoyed the extended description of Maxwell's demon as this is a concept I have been very vague on for a while, this book really does nail down the concept quite clearly. Also, this will likely be the best work to bring you up to date on certain areas of epigenetics that are not quite mainstream knowledge yet.
Davies' method of analyzing life and its origins is a convincing one, whereby pure physical analysis amounts to understanding a computer as if it had no software, and the proper solution is the incorporation of the organism's (and its component parts') use of information. This is information not purely in the coded sense in the organism's DNA but rather how various networks within the organism use and update its information. This is most potent in the discussion as to how certain organisms can update fundamental elements (space worms!) of their anatomy and anatomical information in an almost Lamarckian fashion, without straying into superficial anecdoting.
While serving as a fine synopsis of epigenetics and the incorporation of information into the discussion of the analysis of life, the work spends a great deal of time on the demon in the machine and very little on the solving of the mystery of life. Uneven reading that doesn't deliver on great promise but still packed with great information (no pun intended).
First of all, I greatly enjoyed the extended description of Maxwell's demon as this is a concept I have been very vague on for a while, this book really does nail down the concept quite clearly. Also, this will likely be the best work to bring you up to date on certain areas of epigenetics that are not quite mainstream knowledge yet.
Davies' method of analyzing life and its origins is a convincing one, whereby pure physical analysis amounts to understanding a computer as if it had no software, and the proper solution is the incorporation of the organism's (and its component parts') use of information. This is information not purely in the coded sense in the organism's DNA but rather how various networks within the organism use and update its information. This is most potent in the discussion as to how certain organisms can update fundamental elements (space worms!) of their anatomy and anatomical information in an almost Lamarckian fashion, without straying into superficial anecdoting.
While serving as a fine synopsis of epigenetics and the incorporation of information into the discussion of the analysis of life, the work spends a great deal of time on the demon in the machine and very little on the solving of the mystery of life. Uneven reading that doesn't deliver on great promise but still packed with great information (no pun intended).
October 15, 2019
It was heartening to learn that there are new approaches to understanding the processes of life in general, and consciousness in particular, and Paul Davies has a particular gift of insight and understanding into how the universe is put together. I was most interested in his ideas of fertile areas for research that can elucidate the mechanisms by which consciousness is generated, and Davies's thesis is that informational systems are both fundamental to the universe and explainable by as yet undefined laws or at least emergent patterns of self-organization. He began by discussing the genome and the mechanisms of the cell, and in doing so cogently made his point that information-processing is inherent in biology and that it represents a different level of operation from physical laws. The most exciting part for me was when he applied these principles to the brain and suggested ideas - that the brain is an open system, that the hardware and software of the system are self-referential, and that there may be top-down processing involved - that could rescue the realism of consciousness and free will.
The discussion at times was fairly technical, and I felt the book could have been longer to allow Davies to demonstrate his talent at scientific explanation more fully. I also thought that the example of using Tononi's phi as a measure of consciousness was a bit random, given the (in my opinion, rightful) criticism his theory attracts. I get his point though, that the details are less important than the principles he was suggesting, and that's where the excitement lies: because the challenge of understanding the universe is really only just beginning.
The discussion at times was fairly technical, and I felt the book could have been longer to allow Davies to demonstrate his talent at scientific explanation more fully. I also thought that the example of using Tononi's phi as a measure of consciousness was a bit random, given the (in my opinion, rightful) criticism his theory attracts. I get his point though, that the details are less important than the principles he was suggesting, and that's where the excitement lies: because the challenge of understanding the universe is really only just beginning.
October 5, 2023
rtc later
Read
August 8, 2025Never finished the book (I got about halfway through). It does contain an interesting "compilation" of various "thought experiments" conjured by individual physicists.
The chapters about "abiogenesis" and the "physics" of single-cell/microscopic organisms, while interesting, were marred by some "pseudo-scientific vibes" that the book was giving off haha😂.
The chapters about "abiogenesis" and the "physics" of single-cell/microscopic organisms, while interesting, were marred by some "pseudo-scientific vibes" that the book was giving off haha😂.
August 14, 2020
Read this book for a really entertaining account of the way life operates at the level of a cell to process information from a bestiary of truly fascinating creatures that make life what it is. If there is a more comprehensive account of the cell in equally accessible language then I want that on my reading list. I also learned a number of unexpected new things about the evolutionary process which I found helpful and will use in future discussions. For the question “what is life?” however, never mind the further question “what is consciousness?” I am not sure that it is much help.
I’m not a biologist, I’m a physicist and cosmologist, so my approach to tackling big questions is to dodge most of the technicalities and home in on the basic principles. And that’s what I do in this book. I’ve tried to focus on the puzzles and concepts that really matter in an attempt to answer the burning question: what is life? [p1]
Well, I disagree. There are many concepts that matter in any discussion about either the nature of life or the nature of consciousness and I do not agree that Davies has reviewed them, or even the most important of them. Rather late in the book he does notice a context in the history of ideas and especially the early Enlightenment:
Physics as we know it developed in seventeenth century Europe, which was in thrall to Catholic Church doctrine. Although Galileo, Newton and their contemporaries were influenced by Greek thought, their notion of physical laws owed much to monotheism, according to which an omnipotent deity ordered the universe in a rational and intelligible manner... [p210]
The Newtonian concept of a mathematical universe bound by fixed laws seems appealing to Davies, when he writes:
..if the emergence of life, and perhaps mind, are etched into the underlying lawfulness of nature, it would bestow upon our existence as living, thinking beings a type of cosmic level meaning. [p257]
Either consciousness violates quantum mechanics or it is explained by it. [p207]
But at the same time, he points to the ideas of Godel and of Turing to suggest that our universe may not be lawful in the way envisaged:
Physicists have traditionally clung to a very restrictive notion of laws, dating from the time of Newton. ... Since it was held that the law of the universe reflect the divine nature, it followed that the laws must also be unchanging. ... This idea has been around so long we scarcely notice what a huge assumption it is. But there is no logical requirement it must be so, ...Indeed, I have already discussed one well known example from fundamental physics in which the laws do change according to circumstances: the act of measurement in quantum mechanics... [p210]
Gödel’s theorem tells us that the world of mathematics embeds inexhaustible novelty; even an unbounded intellect, a god, can never know everything. It is the ultimate statement of open-endedness. [p70]
Given that undecidability is enshrined in the very foundations of mathematics, it will also be a fundamental property of a universe based on mathematical laws. Undecidability guarantees that the mathematical universe will always be unbounded in its creative potential. One of the hallmarks of life is its limitless exuberance: its open ended variety and complexity. [p72]
Newton belongs to that Enlightenment tradition that Jonathan Israel calls the Moderate Enlightenment, which takes up the insights of modern science starting with Galileo and especially Descartes, without allowing them to call into question Christian beliefs or traditional authority. This book’s title is itself an obvious appeal to Cartesian dualism. It is a pity he does not also refer us to the more rationalist tradition which Israel calls the Radical Enlightenment, for which Spinoza is the figurehead, and the alternative concept of monism, which rejects Cartesian dualism and insists that there is only a material natural world, within which are organisms including humans with a capacity for thought, self reflection and reasoning. The dangerous point about Spinoza was that he pursued his line of reasoning without fear of the conclusions, even while calling traditional beliefs into question.
Of course Spinoza did not anticipate Quantum Mechanics, Godel’s incompleteness Theorem or Turing’s concept of undecidability. He did favour the idea of determinism, as an unavoidable consequence of relying on the laws of nature. Then again, his monism entailed a concept of the mind as a product of the sensory system which in turn could be explained as an entirely material, physical apparatus. For Spinoza and other Radicals, the senses which enable us to notice and respond to our environment also enable us to notice and reflect upon ourselves, so that in effect the mind is the self awareness of the body, the body’s nervous system activated by itself, not the activity of a separate, intangible soul or spirit. These ideas are taken up and put to excellent use by Damasio, a neuroscientist, among others and would seem eminently useful for Davies’ topic.
Davies does offer some additional insights for this monistic model of reality, not least in his excellent account of the problems of reductionism. If we wish to account for the phenomenon of life, and beyond that for the mind, in terms of purely physical, material processes, then we will encounter serious limits to what is possible. He describes the stimulus-response process in the nervous system reacting to some event, and notes that in passing signals along one or more nerves, there is a continual transfer of sodium and potassium ions between the axon and its environment, where those ions move about chaotically and are not part of the nervous system itself until plucked out of the chaos or thrown into it. That chaotic environment, in turn, must be accounted for, but this entails a huge elaboration from an ostensibly simple process and becomes open ended, always demanding more information to complete the story until perhaps we account for the universe in its entirety, which is just not a solution.
A hardnosed reductionist may point out that in principle a complete description of the stimulus-response story will nevertheless be present at the atomic level of the system...Even in principle the cause-effect chain we are trying to explain simply does not exist at that level [p204]
In a case such as this, it would seem that reductionism may not only yield an inferior explanation but may in practise be impossible.
This idea of a hierarchy of levels of analysis is not difficult or unusual. He refers to, without explaining it, the notion of emergent properties, which are properties that may be evident at a higher level but are not relevant to a lower one. He also argues that we may operate at more than one level, something that I am less sure about:
The way the laws of physics are currently conceived leads to a stratification of physical systems with the laws of physics at the bottom conceptual level and emergent laws attached above them. There is no coupling between levels. When it comes to living systems this stratification is a poor fit because, in biology, there often is coupling between levels, between processes on many scales of size and complexity: causation can be both bottom up (from genes to organisms) and top down (from organisms to genes). [p216]
I am not sure that the argument is accurate. We can talk about genes at different levels, sometimes as chemical properties, sometimes as information storage and transfer. I don’t know why that is “coupling between levels” rather than switching levels for different purposes.
In short, I found Davies confusing on this topic, which is a pity, because what he seems to be arguing for is the sensible idea that many aspects of biology which are hard to understand and explain in the language of physics and chemistry, may be readily understood in the language of information theory. This does not mean that life or consciousness are explicable entirely in those terms but rather that it is an important aspect of what is taking place.
In the end the book is a collection of entertaining and sometimes important descriptions and concepts worth reading for their own sake but I do not think it succeeds in its stated objective of showing how "webs of information are solving the mysteries of life". Some mysteries, yes, but that is a more modest claim.
I’m not a biologist, I’m a physicist and cosmologist, so my approach to tackling big questions is to dodge most of the technicalities and home in on the basic principles. And that’s what I do in this book. I’ve tried to focus on the puzzles and concepts that really matter in an attempt to answer the burning question: what is life? [p1]
Well, I disagree. There are many concepts that matter in any discussion about either the nature of life or the nature of consciousness and I do not agree that Davies has reviewed them, or even the most important of them. Rather late in the book he does notice a context in the history of ideas and especially the early Enlightenment:
Physics as we know it developed in seventeenth century Europe, which was in thrall to Catholic Church doctrine. Although Galileo, Newton and their contemporaries were influenced by Greek thought, their notion of physical laws owed much to monotheism, according to which an omnipotent deity ordered the universe in a rational and intelligible manner... [p210]
The Newtonian concept of a mathematical universe bound by fixed laws seems appealing to Davies, when he writes:
..if the emergence of life, and perhaps mind, are etched into the underlying lawfulness of nature, it would bestow upon our existence as living, thinking beings a type of cosmic level meaning. [p257]
Either consciousness violates quantum mechanics or it is explained by it. [p207]
But at the same time, he points to the ideas of Godel and of Turing to suggest that our universe may not be lawful in the way envisaged:
Physicists have traditionally clung to a very restrictive notion of laws, dating from the time of Newton. ... Since it was held that the law of the universe reflect the divine nature, it followed that the laws must also be unchanging. ... This idea has been around so long we scarcely notice what a huge assumption it is. But there is no logical requirement it must be so, ...Indeed, I have already discussed one well known example from fundamental physics in which the laws do change according to circumstances: the act of measurement in quantum mechanics... [p210]
Gödel’s theorem tells us that the world of mathematics embeds inexhaustible novelty; even an unbounded intellect, a god, can never know everything. It is the ultimate statement of open-endedness. [p70]
Given that undecidability is enshrined in the very foundations of mathematics, it will also be a fundamental property of a universe based on mathematical laws. Undecidability guarantees that the mathematical universe will always be unbounded in its creative potential. One of the hallmarks of life is its limitless exuberance: its open ended variety and complexity. [p72]
Newton belongs to that Enlightenment tradition that Jonathan Israel calls the Moderate Enlightenment, which takes up the insights of modern science starting with Galileo and especially Descartes, without allowing them to call into question Christian beliefs or traditional authority. This book’s title is itself an obvious appeal to Cartesian dualism. It is a pity he does not also refer us to the more rationalist tradition which Israel calls the Radical Enlightenment, for which Spinoza is the figurehead, and the alternative concept of monism, which rejects Cartesian dualism and insists that there is only a material natural world, within which are organisms including humans with a capacity for thought, self reflection and reasoning. The dangerous point about Spinoza was that he pursued his line of reasoning without fear of the conclusions, even while calling traditional beliefs into question.
Of course Spinoza did not anticipate Quantum Mechanics, Godel’s incompleteness Theorem or Turing’s concept of undecidability. He did favour the idea of determinism, as an unavoidable consequence of relying on the laws of nature. Then again, his monism entailed a concept of the mind as a product of the sensory system which in turn could be explained as an entirely material, physical apparatus. For Spinoza and other Radicals, the senses which enable us to notice and respond to our environment also enable us to notice and reflect upon ourselves, so that in effect the mind is the self awareness of the body, the body’s nervous system activated by itself, not the activity of a separate, intangible soul or spirit. These ideas are taken up and put to excellent use by Damasio, a neuroscientist, among others and would seem eminently useful for Davies’ topic.
Davies does offer some additional insights for this monistic model of reality, not least in his excellent account of the problems of reductionism. If we wish to account for the phenomenon of life, and beyond that for the mind, in terms of purely physical, material processes, then we will encounter serious limits to what is possible. He describes the stimulus-response process in the nervous system reacting to some event, and notes that in passing signals along one or more nerves, there is a continual transfer of sodium and potassium ions between the axon and its environment, where those ions move about chaotically and are not part of the nervous system itself until plucked out of the chaos or thrown into it. That chaotic environment, in turn, must be accounted for, but this entails a huge elaboration from an ostensibly simple process and becomes open ended, always demanding more information to complete the story until perhaps we account for the universe in its entirety, which is just not a solution.
A hardnosed reductionist may point out that in principle a complete description of the stimulus-response story will nevertheless be present at the atomic level of the system...Even in principle the cause-effect chain we are trying to explain simply does not exist at that level [p204]
In a case such as this, it would seem that reductionism may not only yield an inferior explanation but may in practise be impossible.
This idea of a hierarchy of levels of analysis is not difficult or unusual. He refers to, without explaining it, the notion of emergent properties, which are properties that may be evident at a higher level but are not relevant to a lower one. He also argues that we may operate at more than one level, something that I am less sure about:
The way the laws of physics are currently conceived leads to a stratification of physical systems with the laws of physics at the bottom conceptual level and emergent laws attached above them. There is no coupling between levels. When it comes to living systems this stratification is a poor fit because, in biology, there often is coupling between levels, between processes on many scales of size and complexity: causation can be both bottom up (from genes to organisms) and top down (from organisms to genes). [p216]
I am not sure that the argument is accurate. We can talk about genes at different levels, sometimes as chemical properties, sometimes as information storage and transfer. I don’t know why that is “coupling between levels” rather than switching levels for different purposes.
In short, I found Davies confusing on this topic, which is a pity, because what he seems to be arguing for is the sensible idea that many aspects of biology which are hard to understand and explain in the language of physics and chemistry, may be readily understood in the language of information theory. This does not mean that life or consciousness are explicable entirely in those terms but rather that it is an important aspect of what is taking place.
In the end the book is a collection of entertaining and sometimes important descriptions and concepts worth reading for their own sake but I do not think it succeeds in its stated objective of showing how "webs of information are solving the mysteries of life". Some mysteries, yes, but that is a more modest claim.
May 24, 2020
I didn't know what this book was about when I bought it - an algorithm recommended it and I like both Demons and Machines - so why not, am I right?
The book is wonderful and I learned so much from it about the overlap between biology, quantum mechanics and information theory. Before you tune out, let this sink in for a bit, because this is what the book is about....
The building blocks of life aren't chemicals, its information. He essentially thinks information (data) might be a whole other thing, and it could even, by and of itself, power machines. Which sounds bat shit crazy until he starts drawing diagrams of machines which actually turn something from a state of total order, to bits, just with a little thermal heat. I know most of this makes no sense to people reading this - but this is kind of what I'm getting at. It feels like there is stuff in this book most people should know about but the author may either be totally wrong - or it's the kind of idea that is too strange to get any air time. Or, maybe the book has a PR problem. As luck would have it I stumbled across it all the same and loved it from cover to cover.
There is all kinds of crazy shit in here. You should read the book if you like science, or knowing how life started. It'll make you think. Important note. About 15% of this book is pretty technical, and you'll glaze over parts - but still, totally worth it.
The book is wonderful and I learned so much from it about the overlap between biology, quantum mechanics and information theory. Before you tune out, let this sink in for a bit, because this is what the book is about....
The building blocks of life aren't chemicals, its information. He essentially thinks information (data) might be a whole other thing, and it could even, by and of itself, power machines. Which sounds bat shit crazy until he starts drawing diagrams of machines which actually turn something from a state of total order, to bits, just with a little thermal heat. I know most of this makes no sense to people reading this - but this is kind of what I'm getting at. It feels like there is stuff in this book most people should know about but the author may either be totally wrong - or it's the kind of idea that is too strange to get any air time. Or, maybe the book has a PR problem. As luck would have it I stumbled across it all the same and loved it from cover to cover.
There is all kinds of crazy shit in here. You should read the book if you like science, or knowing how life started. It'll make you think. Important note. About 15% of this book is pretty technical, and you'll glaze over parts - but still, totally worth it.
August 4, 2020
Very interesting book with a lot of cool information about information. It really conveyed the point that it is not enough to think about biological life in purely chemical or physical terms, but informational terms as well (the analogy being that the chemical components are life’s hardware while the information processing components are life’s software). It also did a good job of going beyond the standard account of genetics as an information science and talked about the role that epigenetics plays as well.
I did find the concluding chapters lacking, and there were a lot of points where I wasn’t sure what was being said even after rereading. It kind of felt like reading an essay where you can see how all of the facts relate but you’re missing the key section that ties it all together.
Very interesting overall.
I did find the concluding chapters lacking, and there were a lot of points where I wasn’t sure what was being said even after rereading. It kind of felt like reading an essay where you can see how all of the facts relate but you’re missing the key section that ties it all together.
Very interesting overall.
May 31, 2024
Reading “The Demon in The Machine” was an absolute delight especially because I have been thinking about the intersection of biological processes and quantum phenomena for quite some time. The insightful exploration of the connection between information and entropy is quite digestible. It’s like progressing to a higher level of understanding after grasping the concept of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene – the basic epigenetic mechanisms, like switches that turn genes on or off, affect how they even work.
It is a struggle for me to accept the notion that life is merely a cosmic accident arising solely by chance. And the existence of consciousness itself has left me pondering its purpose. If, let’s say, it’s a mechanistic universe, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary. Although, no one has come close to answer these deep questions but Paul Davies has surely presented some thought-provoking ideas that challenge the confines of current reductionist scientific ideologies.
Despite the complexity of the subject matter, this book is truly worth reading at least once. Highly recommended!
More from my blog: The Demon in the Machine by Paul Davies
It is a struggle for me to accept the notion that life is merely a cosmic accident arising solely by chance. And the existence of consciousness itself has left me pondering its purpose. If, let’s say, it’s a mechanistic universe, consciousness doesn’t seem necessary. Although, no one has come close to answer these deep questions but Paul Davies has surely presented some thought-provoking ideas that challenge the confines of current reductionist scientific ideologies.
Despite the complexity of the subject matter, this book is truly worth reading at least once. Highly recommended!
More from my blog: The Demon in the Machine by Paul Davies
February 19, 2020
This is an update long overdue to the age-old question - "What is life?" In this book, Paul Davies delivers to the reader the latest research and insights. There are two parts to this book - the first being the development of information theory, of nanoscale Maxwell demons and engines seemingly going against the second law of thermodynamics, and how all of these relates to the improbable, entropy-reversing existence of life. The second part considers development on the biology front, including the advent of DNA in a field usually described by qualitative means, and how quantum mechanics can explain how some of life's most important processes are possible. There are some weak points in this book, especially the author's soliloquy on his thoughts on the origin of cancer ("I think, cancer is due to...") without having studies to back it up. The link between the Maxwell demons and life remains unclear, and the section on quantum mechanics seemed unrelated to the focus of the book itself. Nevertheless, he raises interesting theories and thoughts for physicists and biologists, and this book is a good read for anyone interested in the big questions.
April 18, 2019
Demonic mind games is what you'll get from the chapter "enter the demon". I literally could not tell the difference between his incoherent rambling where words/concepts are artfully replaced (such as entropy becoming information in turn becoming 'work', with the intent being that information is something other than the physical/material systems they're associated with; I guess the hope was that most people just go along with the narrative because the ever-so-smart physicist is treating it likes it a sensible analysis; but not I; I never lost sight of the fact that he was dissociating/abstracting information from the physical correlates it associates with) from the same sort of obfuscatory nonsense of the post-modernists.
In any case, I've lost all respect I had for Paul Davies with that useless chapter.
In any case, I've lost all respect I had for Paul Davies with that useless chapter.
March 22, 2021
I can't finish this. It's getting too technical for layman like by the first one third of the book.
December 4, 2023
An amazing book Everybody should read. Even if you hate non-fiction and especially Science books (who could do this), Dr. Davies tells a brilliant story of what we've learned and still need to learn (so much) about the Information Basis of Living Creatures. This is a top to bottom discussion and anyone already familiar with much of the literature (as I am) won't be disappointed that their favorite research went unmentioned. I felt Dr. Davies was far too enthusiastic of the possibility for breakthroughs in some discussions and quite restrained (well so) in others. For me, I view the complexity of the Information problem of life to be an overwhelming indication of Intelligent Design BUT the author Paul Davies would not (and did not mention this). The likelihood that Quantum Biology solves the Information problem (or accelerated Evolutionary Effect) is IMO Low but QB is seen in biological process and we know it does many things we don't know how it does them.
I plan on going through the notes and bibliography and harvesting this book for much further reading.
I plan on going through the notes and bibliography and harvesting this book for much further reading.
December 23, 2020
A readable treatise on how life may have arisen from inanimate matter. Complex information is interwoven in living systems helped along by Maxwell's demons. New laws of physics may one day be discovered that help us understand the enormous chasm between chemistry and living systems. Perhaps the universe we exist in favoured the emergence of life and mind, giving humans a "cosmic" meaning without needing to invoke a magician who plays with matter from time to time. Davies' ideas are compelling yet the question of how life arose remains unanswered.
August 22, 2023
Decent, but very sub-average in most parts. Had entire pages dedicated to high school biology, which is a waste. I assume the reader who gets the book of a physicist shouldn't be considered this ignorant. Although I must admit, his elaboration on the atavistic theory of cancer was very good.
The reason why I got this book is because a famous philosopher mentioned it in passing (although didn't recommend it) while talking about information in biology (DNA). But this book gave nothing more than a few superficial mentions on that topic.
The reason why I got this book is because a famous philosopher mentioned it in passing (although didn't recommend it) while talking about information in biology (DNA). But this book gave nothing more than a few superficial mentions on that topic.
December 26, 2024
This was a fab read but it did take me five months and has made my brain explode so can’t give it five stars
December 4, 2020
At best, there is nothing new in this catalogue of pop science talking points. Nothing you read here hasn't already been explored in greater depth somewhere else in the past 50 years, and by someone with a better grasp of the relevant topic.
At worst, it wastes the reader's time by leading him through a series of naïve misinterpretations and superficial cogitations on pop science subjects, with no point to make or conclusions to derive.
Couldn't Davies get one single biologist to check his substance before publishing? Or are they all idiots of a coterie.
At worst, it wastes the reader's time by leading him through a series of naïve misinterpretations and superficial cogitations on pop science subjects, with no point to make or conclusions to derive.
Couldn't Davies get one single biologist to check his substance before publishing? Or are they all idiots of a coterie.
March 8, 2021
This is a book I found both difficult to read (biology is hellishly complex), and also fascinating. It introduced me to quantum biology and the incredibly diverse manner in which information (the software of life) has evolved ever since the first sign of life appeared on our planet.
It doesn’t give us an explanation for what life is, or how this information is organized, but without resorting to the easy cop-out of agency, it opens the door to many possibilities. Life is intelligence and selfishness, and it strives everywhere, as long as there is at least some nutrients to be had. It is a beautiful and scary image. Nature is amazing, but it is also cruel (from our point of view). On a purely biological level, it’s a gigantic machine whose only purpose is to transform energy. To consume and expand, always.
To this day, its biggest achievement is Homo sapiens, an intelligent machine, crammed with information ‘packets’ swarming everywhere in organized chaos to accomplish their tasks: to keep this biological entity alive.
To think of living matter having both a hardware and a software aspect, (chemistry and information), is perhaps too easy a comparison with computers. Especially since life possesses something that hard drives don’t have yet: autonomy. Then again, computing is in its infancy, while life (on Earth) has been able to perfect its development for billions of years, and culminated with an entity whose brain contains about 100 billions of neurons; achieving what we call conscience.
At this point in time, a book like ‘The Demon in the Machine’ can only offer many questions and a just a glimpse as to what the answers might be. The book’s message being that: ‘A full explanation of living matter entails something altogether more profound, nothing less than a revision of the nature of physical law itself.’
No reductionism here, then :).
It doesn’t give us an explanation for what life is, or how this information is organized, but without resorting to the easy cop-out of agency, it opens the door to many possibilities. Life is intelligence and selfishness, and it strives everywhere, as long as there is at least some nutrients to be had. It is a beautiful and scary image. Nature is amazing, but it is also cruel (from our point of view). On a purely biological level, it’s a gigantic machine whose only purpose is to transform energy. To consume and expand, always.
To this day, its biggest achievement is Homo sapiens, an intelligent machine, crammed with information ‘packets’ swarming everywhere in organized chaos to accomplish their tasks: to keep this biological entity alive.
To think of living matter having both a hardware and a software aspect, (chemistry and information), is perhaps too easy a comparison with computers. Especially since life possesses something that hard drives don’t have yet: autonomy. Then again, computing is in its infancy, while life (on Earth) has been able to perfect its development for billions of years, and culminated with an entity whose brain contains about 100 billions of neurons; achieving what we call conscience.
At this point in time, a book like ‘The Demon in the Machine’ can only offer many questions and a just a glimpse as to what the answers might be. The book’s message being that: ‘A full explanation of living matter entails something altogether more profound, nothing less than a revision of the nature of physical law itself.’
No reductionism here, then :).
February 21, 2021
Interesting insights into the intersection where biology, physics and information combine to create life.
For anyone who has read Richard Dawkins, I found this a kind of cross between The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. By which I mean, I marvelled at Dawkins’ ability to express the complexity of genetics in ths first of those books: so much so that I moved triumphantly on to The Extended Phenotype - where I understood pretty much zip. Dawkins had written the first book for idiots, and the second one for biologists, or at least for people much brighter than I am.
The Demon in the Machine falls somewhere between the two, with a few sections where I almost wondered what Paul Davies was talking about, and various sections where he struck communication gold. In my own defence, I think it was partly because he had less to say than Dawkins, in marked contrast to some of his marvellous books on cosmology. His central thesis is a fascinating one, that the thing that differentiates a dead body from a living one is information, in the same way that a computer is nothing on its own, it only springs into action if it has the right software too. And the physics of how our own information ‘software’ functions is interesting too – all those synapses switching on and off, in ways not dissimilar to a digital programme. But hey, here I am only two paragraphs into this comment and I’ve already covered much of the ground covered by the book. He does it hugely more convincingly and more thoroughly, it goes without saying. But I still prefer him when he is exploring the outer reaches of the cosmos. Three stars seems a bit niggardly as he writes so fluently, and four stars seems a bit generous. Three and a half maybe.
For anyone who has read Richard Dawkins, I found this a kind of cross between The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. By which I mean, I marvelled at Dawkins’ ability to express the complexity of genetics in ths first of those books: so much so that I moved triumphantly on to The Extended Phenotype - where I understood pretty much zip. Dawkins had written the first book for idiots, and the second one for biologists, or at least for people much brighter than I am.
The Demon in the Machine falls somewhere between the two, with a few sections where I almost wondered what Paul Davies was talking about, and various sections where he struck communication gold. In my own defence, I think it was partly because he had less to say than Dawkins, in marked contrast to some of his marvellous books on cosmology. His central thesis is a fascinating one, that the thing that differentiates a dead body from a living one is information, in the same way that a computer is nothing on its own, it only springs into action if it has the right software too. And the physics of how our own information ‘software’ functions is interesting too – all those synapses switching on and off, in ways not dissimilar to a digital programme. But hey, here I am only two paragraphs into this comment and I’ve already covered much of the ground covered by the book. He does it hugely more convincingly and more thoroughly, it goes without saying. But I still prefer him when he is exploring the outer reaches of the cosmos. Three stars seems a bit niggardly as he writes so fluently, and four stars seems a bit generous. Three and a half maybe.
September 20, 2020
An interesting read about how the deepest questions in biology have answers that lean towards concepts from physics, computation and mathematics. The author specifically makes the case for the role of information theory in leading the way towards the development of the 'Theory of Life'. He however warns against a purely reductionist approach, as is most popular in quantitative biology. He makes the case that if current physics cannot do so, we might need to discover a new physics, so as to explain the emergent phenomenon that is Life.
Personally, information theory in biology has always intrigued me and I am about to begin my master's studies in biophysics. So this book's subject is indeed very close to my heart. I do regret that this book is not very technical (probably to increase its public appeal). And so I did not learn as much as I'd hoped from it. Given that I have already read a lot of literature in the field, the phenomena talked about and the various ideas presented, were things I knew already (which is why I took so long finish reading it). But the fact that I recognized so many ideas from different fields that I have been interested in, made me realize I was on the right track (although only this book made me acutely aware of the track, and its direction). If I had read this a few years earlier it would have helped me realize this direction much quicker!
Anyone interested in burning questions at the interface of biology and physics, this is a MUST READ. Would be interested in a more technical followup, and for now will have to settle for reading up the references I haven't read yet!
Personally, information theory in biology has always intrigued me and I am about to begin my master's studies in biophysics. So this book's subject is indeed very close to my heart. I do regret that this book is not very technical (probably to increase its public appeal). And so I did not learn as much as I'd hoped from it. Given that I have already read a lot of literature in the field, the phenomena talked about and the various ideas presented, were things I knew already (which is why I took so long finish reading it). But the fact that I recognized so many ideas from different fields that I have been interested in, made me realize I was on the right track (although only this book made me acutely aware of the track, and its direction). If I had read this a few years earlier it would have helped me realize this direction much quicker!
Anyone interested in burning questions at the interface of biology and physics, this is a MUST READ. Would be interested in a more technical followup, and for now will have to settle for reading up the references I haven't read yet!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews