Life and Possible Routes to Determining
Specifications
By Mike Gene (modified essay from
One of the complaints against Dembski's design
inference is that we can't apply the concept of specification to biology. The
problem, it seems, is that examples of specification point to such things as
words and games (cards, dice) where we know the specifications beforehand as a
function of human experience with such things as language and games. But when
it comes to life, we don't know such things. For example, if the letters were
arranged by an ETI, chances are that we could not determine if the arrangement
was due to chance or ID (since we don't know ETI language).
However, I think this problem fades when we turn from the static arrangement
of letters to the dynamic reality of machine-like things. In the case of
letters, the significance of arrangement depends on our knowledge of language.
But when it comes to machines, the significance of the arrangement does not
have this dependence, but instead shows itself in what the machine does
- the machine will do something regardless of what we already believe or
think. And we can figure out what it does and why it does what it does.
Say we land on another planet and find something that looks like a machine.
If the criticism against Dembski applies, we can
never ever hope to understand this thing as a machine because we have no
experience designing non-human artifacts. So is humanity thus forever blinded
from finding evidence of ETI? Might not we instead study the thing and
eventually stumble upon a way to activate it, such that various parts begin to move
in a coordinated fashion so that something happens (that didn't happen when the
machine was still)?
From here, we might speculate that what the machine does is its function. And if this is the case, what the machine
does depends on the number of parts, their shapes, and their arrangement.
What's more, it is the function which explains the existence of the parts,
their shape, and their arrangement. The function thus becomes that which serves
as the basis for specification.
Okay, we turn to life. But by life, I do not mean some abstract vital force.
I mean the concrete representation of life - things we know and observe as
cells. Cells can be viewed as something analogous to finding an alien machine
on another planet. Why? Just as the machine is "out of
place" in the context of the planet's natural surroundings, so too are
cells "out of place" in the context of the non-living world.
Just as the machine does something as a consequence of moving parts, so does
the cell. Just as the existence of the machine's parts
depends on what it does, so too do the parts of the cell.
With this in mind, let's begin to outline the specifications involved in
making cells (so that cells do what cells do). I'll approach this topic with
increasing resolution.
Low Resolution Specifications
As I see it, the specifications of life have to do with channeling at least three
flows: the flow of information, the flow of material, and the flow of
energy (this insight is acquired from the knowledge of how engineers go about
designing their products). To get life, I would propose that these three lines
of flow must communicate in a coherent and specific fashion. And flow
and communication presume compartmentalization. Thus, understanding the
nature of how things are compartmentalized and how they communicate through
these three lines of flow gets us not only an understanding of life, but also
the specifications employed by life. We are beginning to understand parts
of this communication and flow thanks to the increased sophistication of our
own designs (which we can use as crude models to understand life processes).
And as with engineering, the three flows often blur into each other, but can be
specified such that one flow is primary.
So let me spell this out further. As noted above, life is about channeling
flow between compartments where such channeling is best interpreted as
communication. The theme of compartmentalization is actualized in what we call
a cell (all life is built upon cells; there are no exceptions). The chemical
infrastructure needed by cells demands a core level of highly constrained
ensembles of molecules, which more often than not, need to coexist at the right
time, place, proportions, and positions. This channeling both sustains and
employs this infrastructure such that a population of cells is quite different
from a biochemical extract formed from the same population. Such a state is far
from an equilibrium state and is maintained through the channeling of the above
three flows.
Now, we turn to the wisdom of Richard Dawkins, who observes:
"however many ways there may be of being
alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead…the islands
of suvivability, however large and however numerous
they may be, are miniscule in size and infinitesimal in number when compared
with the ocean of dead unworkability"
If we consider all the parts and processes that make up the non-living
world, I think Dawkins' logic holds here: however many ways there are of having
parts and processes give rise to the Three Flows, there are vastly more of ways they can
exist such that the Three Flows do not exist.
Medium Resolution Specifications
To mediate and integrate each of the Three Flows, multiple components are
needed such that they interact in ways to maintain the flows. Information flow
requires a sender-encoder, which emits a coded message, a transmission channel,
and a receiver-decoder-amplifier-responder. Energy flow requires components
that extract, convert, store, and channel energy. Material flow requires components
that synthesize material, transport cargo and construct architectures. All
flows don't exist independently, but instead communicate with each other.
Finding the minimum number of components sufficient to carry out and integrate
these flows would entail further specifications for cells/life. And again,
Dawkins' logic would hold: no matter how many ways you can hook up things to
mediate these flows, there are a vastly higher number of ways to hook up things
such that these flows do not exist.
High Resolution Specifications
At this level, the components are considered to determine how they carry out
their role in each respective flow. How does one store the energy of an
ion gradient into a chemical form (ATP)? How does one move one component from
one part of the cell to another part of the cell? How does one decode the
information that is encoded? At this level of resolution, we confront such
concepts as molecular machines, proof-reading, and quality control. And what it
interesting is that you don't find much variability at this level: whether we
are talking about cell division, translation, or ATP synthesis in bacteria or
humans, the machines, proof-reading, and quality control mechanisms used to
maintain these cellular flows are basically the same. In this case, we can say
that however many ways we can hook up macromolecules to work as machines,
proof-reading devices, and quality control managers, such numbers are miniscule
in size and infinitesimal in number when compared with the ocean of dead unworkability.