
Life Is Made of Unfair Coin Flips - jger15
https://alexdanco.com/2020/04/09/life-is-made-of-unfair-coin-flips/
======
motohagiography
So by extension, death is just decoherence?

I've said before that the most plausible explanation to me for what happens
after death is the end of "I," since we as "I's," necessarily cannot
comprehend a state of "not-I." We can know it exists, we can experience its
effects from others, and we can severely impair it with psychedelic poisons,
but to decohere into a state of "!i" is, to borrow from GEB, the song that
breaks the record player.

Great post. Alex Danco is consistently good.

~~~
GavinMcG
Buddhists would likely disagree with that, since in Buddhism (though this is a
significant oversimplification) enlightenment comes with the unrooting of all
attachments and the dissolution of "self".

~~~
throw1234651234
What's over-simplified about that statement? That's a perfect summary of
Buddhism - it encompasses the point completely without going into techniques.

The only part that's missing is "...with the goal of avoiding suffering".

~~~
renewiltord
Comments like that are a bellwether of the place they’re posted in. People
will hedge their comments whenever they fear there is a sufficient
concentration of “well, actually”s in the audience.

------
captaincole
I really had fun reading this and thinking deeply about the blurry Ill defined
line between things that are alive (an individual) and things that are not.

To take this experiment to a conclusion which the author has “left to the
reader” as all good texts do, let’s think about a virus.

A virus has information, in the form of dna or rna (I believe this is what a
coronavirus uses), that it injects into a cell to then cause the cell to
create more virus. The goal of this is to pass “information” to successive
versions of the virus which are then programmed to do the same thing. Since
they are trying to keep the same information, then they are in fact attempting
to reduce entropy across time therefore they are as the author defines, an
“individual”.

Would love for someone to test that logic train that I just rode

~~~
clairity
viruses have no agency so they don't attempt to reduce entropy across time.
viruses _are_ a reduction of entropy across time, just by being an organized
structure (of rna and protein strands folded together) requiring energy to
create and maintain. information is encoded in that structure--both in the
sequence and in the shape--and that's transmitted through time.

~~~
ppod
What is the least complex entity that you ascribe agency to?

~~~
soulofmischief
Not OP, but this is something I spend a lot of time with. I have a pet
framework called Zodeaism which means "Living Ideas". In my theory, the real
"life forms" are ideas which possess the capabilities of information storage,
adaptation, self-repair, and transmission. My own consciousness is mediated by
thousands of such ideas, some competing and some working in harmony.

One such idea -- Do Good Onto Others As Others Do Unto You -- is an example of
an extremely powerful and resilient idea which lives and operates in the
brains of billions of individuals. It is powerful enough to ward off weaker
ideas and has lived a long time without much modification to its original
essence.

With that out of the way... I felt it was necessary to reduce agency to
ability to use internal energy in order to put oneself in a higher energy
state in the external world. This can be observed externally. I am standing
next to a rock. I can jump up, spending some of my energy, and fighting
against the potential energy well of gravity. I've increased my external
energy state at the expense of some of my internal energy. Thus, a living
being needs a way to store and use energy. You can observe this externally and
conclude that I am alive, while the rock is either dead or inactive.

I consider such an act of "living" motion which can take another path than
that of least resistance to be a "kin". In other words, any motion which is
the result of a physical calculation (Zodeaism is compatible with determinism)
and leads to an increase in external energy state. A kin is any such motion,
large or small.

So now the problem becomes, what is the smallest kin we've observed in nature?
Single-celled bacteria can expend energy in order to move through their
environment against forces like friction and gravity, but a virus "rides the
waves" if you will, never expending energy for things like respiration or
locomotion. Any energy which _is_ spent internally is potential energy like
chemical or gravitational, released through a physical process without need
for computation. I am unaware of anything smaller than a single-celled
organism which produces such kins, but that doesn't mean they aren't out
there. Even ethereal life forms such as ideas can produce these kins within
the bodies of countless individuals across the planet, so physically local
computational circuitry isn't a hard requirement.

So, according to this framework viruses aren't alive, however we can make the
case that some machines are, except the experience is incomparable because of
the advanced circuitry we contain which mediates our experience through things
like emotion.

~~~
ppod
Are you familiar with Friston/free energy/markov blankets?

~~~
soulofmischief
Yes to all three, when I was exposed to Friston's work I found many parallels
in my own research and I would like to reach out to him when I've reached a
more complete formalization of my ideas.

What do you think of his free energy principle and related concepts?

------
smileypete
There's a good quote in this FT interview with Peter Piot, who co-discovered
Ebola:

[http://archive.is/N6fAF](http://archive.is/N6fAF)

“The absence of bad luck in life is the most important thing.”

~~~
downerending
This sounds a lot like Schopenhauer. He said, or perhaps someone summarized
him, something like: _Life is hell, and the main goal is to choose a room
farthest from the flames._

~~~
Der_Einzige
Haha, funny enough, he argued for antinatalism before that term was heavily
used. He argued for a proto-form of negative utilitarianism, and in the case
of some of his disciples, they argued that people _should commit suicide_

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainl%C3%A4nder)
(disciple advocating for suicide)

Many took their arguments to be closer to "to live is to suffer and suffering
is the ultimate bad thing. You shouldn't inflict that suffering on anyone else
(and maybe not even on yourself)

No wonder Nietzsche was so afraid of what schopenhaur was doing to philosophy.
His work and his followers advocate for the ultimate form of life denial.
Similar to jainists too.

Though, I still find Schopenhaur to be more compelling on this than anyone
else...

~~~
downerending
I as well. Though not the term, the idea is very old. In Ecclesiastes 4,
Qohelet says something like _The dead are better off than the living, and
better still are those who were never born._

I will say that the question of whether the living should commit suicide is
rather different than whether new lives should be brought into the world. Sunk
costs and all that.

We will all be dead soon enough. Not sure there's much point in speeding
things up.

------
SubuSS
It seems the author (or paper authors) are mixing up individuality with
life/agency?

IOW a hard drive with information is working against entropy to keep
information active through time. But that doesn't make it an individual - IOW
I see how this can be used to define a singular unit, I don't see how this
idea is used to delineate the 'emergence' part: What am I missing?

~~~
skybrian
Well, it's an individual hard drive. Maybe "individual" is independent from
"alive"?

It seems like a message in a suitable environment can have as much agency as a
virus? This is how computer viruses work.

A hard drive can work the same way; it's just a brick until someone plugs it
in.

~~~
daxfohl
I still agree with Stephen Hawking's interpretation. (Or at least he's the
first one I'd heard make this interpretation, probably not _his_ per se).
Anyway, that consciousness emerges from natural selection: ability to
attack/defend is strongest when you can predict the actions of your
prey/predator. Ability to predict those actions is greatly strengthened when
the individual can reflect on thoughts and project those onto others. This
reflection is where consciousness aka "life" emerges from.

------
bnegreve
Fun read.

But wouldn't we reluctant to change if the only goal of individuals was to
preserve/propagate information to the future? Mutations, increase entropy, yet
some of them are beneficial.

How does it fit in this theory?

~~~
smallnamespace
Change is necessary for survival as the environment shifts. Many organisms
have a stable superstructure within which controlled change is accommodated--
the seasonal timing of reproduction, the outer protein coat of a virus, the
plasticity of the brain.

The dichotomy isn't so much between change vs. stability, but _where_ change
happens, and in what way.

~~~
bnegreve
> Many organisms have a stable superstructure within which controlled change
> is accommodated--the seasonal timing of reproduction, the outer protein coat
> of a virus, the plasticity of the brain.

Ok for the seasonal change, but I don't think all change is _controlled_ the
way you say. Individuals grow and adapt to their changing environment, and for
this process to be optimal, entropy is necessary.

This contradict the idea that "Individuals maximally propagate information
from their past to their future." which suggests that the optimal individual
is fully deterministic.

So maximizing the propagation of information cannot be their only objective
function. At least, this is what puzzles me.

edit: actually answer your comment

~~~
smallnamespace
> optimal individual is fully deterministic

The way out of your contradiction is to realize that full determinism is
likely to lead to the death of the organism, which would not _maximally_
propagate information. One view is that organisms allow change because the
environment _forces_ it upon them; another view is that _the necessity for
particular types of change has shaped organisms over time, until it becomes
part of their nature_.

Take global warming: there are certainly a large contingent of folks who would
prefer to reject change (both mentally, and in action), even at the risk of
death and suffering.

> Individuals grow and adapt to their changing environment

The growth is an extremely highly choreographed process. Individuals grow and
adapt in _extremely specific ways_ compared to the space of all possible ways
that they could change.

Consider the brain: a brain that is capable of learning, absorbing new
lessons, and then using them when appropriate is an _extremely unlikely_
arrangement of matter, from a thermodynamic perspective.

Another perspective that helps resolve that matter, which the article touches
upon, is that _individuality exists at multiple levels of organization_ , and
in particular _stability at one level implies change at another_.

Brains are a way for _genes_ to maintain a higher level of stability: the
learning, growth, and adaptation happens inside the brain (and also the body),
while the genes that encode the recipe for creating the brain get a measure of
stability.

In the absence of brains, genes would have to change much more frequently! So
brains are a mechanism by which genes channel and outsource change to a
different level of organization.

Another example: reflect upon the mental process that you are currently
undergoing in our conversation.

Your brain is seeking to maximize its own stability. There is a fundamental
principle that it refuses to overturn: that A and ~A are incompatible, that
change and not-change do not fit together.

There are two options: you can reject entirely the line of thought and dismiss
it as contradictory. This would minimize change, but also leave a potential
gap in your model of the world. Knowledge gaps can be threatening - in the
extreme case, it can lead to death and the destruction of the brain!

Or, if you find a piece of knowledge that can _resolve_ the contradiction,
then your brain gets to keep its fundamental principle, while also having an
improved mental model that can help it navigate the world and avoid
destruction.

Of course, a subset of the the brain's goal is reproduction of its own genes
as well as transmission of its own ideas and knowledge (something that my
brain admits to doing right now!), another example of a form of _change_
channeled to maximize stability elsewhere.

In summary, to resolve your contradiction, realize that there are multiple
'individuals', which are really composite systems, at various levels of
organization, each with its own goal of self-preservation. Notice where the
change happens - it usually involves change being pushed off somewhere else!

This current meme in my head very much desires change - it would like _your_
mind to change, in order for _itself_ to have a higher chance of survival.

~~~
ryanschneider
> The way out of your contradiction is to realize that full determinism is
> likely to lead to the death of the organism, which would not _maximally_
> propagate information.

If I understand your argument, one way to think of it is that if my genes
allow a “little bit” of entropy now they have a better chance of lasting
multiple generations, thus increasing _maximal_ information preservation over
time. That is to say preserving 99% of my genes for 10,000 generations is
“better” than preserving 100% of my genes for 100 generations.

The interesting ramification there then is that in this perspective the
individual is the gene sequence (“my“ DNA) not the current expression of those
genes (“me”).

Still too early in the morning for the full ramifications of this all to sink
in with me, but definitely fascinating.

------
smallnamespace
A good talk that hashes out many of the ideas from the article, from a
statistical mechanics perspective:
[https://youtu.be/10cVVHKCRWw](https://youtu.be/10cVVHKCRWw)

------
amelius
> if it’s seeking to maximize that information passed forward, then you’re
> probably dealing with something we should consider to be an individual

This seems overly broad because it would also apply to some or most machines.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If it applies to bacteria, it applies to machines, as bacteria are just
chemical machines.

Note that "individual" != "alive".

------
ubittibu
The definition of life as something finalized to reduce the entropy (of
itself) can be complementary to the theory of life as something that emerged
to increase entropy of the world (surrounding environment)?

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-
theory-o...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-
the-origin-of-life-20140122/)

------
smoll
I initially read the title and thought this would be about why "[the origin of
life, on earth, or in the universe] is the result of a series of unfair coin
flips" and got almost too excited, but what the article was actually about is
just as interesting! And, if true, it maybe even informs how we might go about
answering the origin question too...

~~~
k__
I thought it would be about how every single successful person had it better
than their unsuccessful peers and some stuff about US and China.

------
raybon
I recommend this book 'The demon in the machine' on this topic
[https://asunow.asu.edu/20191219-asu-professors-demon-
machine...](https://asunow.asu.edu/20191219-asu-professors-demon-machine-
named-physics-book-year-uk)

------
prescojan
Great sentence. The key is to accept the unfairness, and not be mad about it.
Don't hate the player

~~~
op03
There are different keys for different people

Know the personality of the person dealing with the "unfair coin flip" and
then make a suggestion -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Invent...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory#Personality_dimensions)

Agreeable traitholders are more likely to "accept" unfairness.

With others anything can happen, depending on their needs, who they are
surrounded by, their interests, health, financial stability etc

Nature ensures we don't have one strategy to deal with roadbumps. Which is why
we survive so many.

------
syoc
This reminded me of this excellent article I cought on HN some time ago.
[https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-computational-
foundation-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-computational-foundation-
of-life-20170126)

------
sippeangelo
If we, at our core, have a drive to increase entropy, I wonder if there's a
correlation between families choosing to only have one child and those having
a positive outlook towards preventing global warming.

------
samuel2
Makes sense as human race flourished since we learned how to store
informations externally (notes, books, etc..)

------
lonelappde
Bad metaphor. It's impossible to bias a coin to a non-integer probability of
flipping to tails.

[http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/dice...](http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/diceRev2.pdf)

------
TheOtherHobbes
This is not a new idea - it's been around for decades now[1] - and the
suggestion that it's related to _individuality_ is a distraction that carries
a lot of political, psychological, and emotional baggage that is irrelevant to
the topic.

There is no individuality in information theory. There are only systems.

It's been debated whether or not there's individuality in evolutionary theory.
You don't lose anything - and you may gain a lot - if you stop thinking of
evolution as the survival of "fit individuals", and think of it more as the
survival of complex ecosystems shaped by a blend of cooperative and
competitive strategies with environmental feedback and randomness.

[1] The first example I can find is Schrodinger's book "What is Life?"
published in 1944.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The way I see it, at its core, evolution is just a chaotic system made of
randomness biased by environment, and at the same time in a feedback loop with
it.

Survival of "fit individuals", or "fit ecosystems", or "fit companies", or
"fit societies" \- it's all the same thing IMO.

