Evolution of nature

Together with Igor Sunchelei

The paper attempts to extend Darwin’s theory of evolution to inanimate nature, to show that biological evolution is one of the stages in the development of nature, and to predict the direction of evolutionary development after it. In addition, the authors give their own version of the definition of life and its evolutionary meaning.

1 First and second levels of evolution

The term "evolution" is usually called the transition of matter from a simple state to a more complex and at the same time to a more perfect state. Evolution is considered to be a “forward” process of matter development, while the opposite process of matter development “backward” from a complex state to a simpler state is called decomposition or degradation. The direction of the “forward” movement will be left at an intuitive level of understanding, but a more precise definition of evolution will be formulated below.

Is inanimate nature evolving? Consider the well-known state of inanimate matter:

1. Elementary particles;
2. Atoms of chemical elements;
3. Molecules.

Each of the following listed conditions can be considered more perfect and more complicated than the previous one. At the intuitive level of understanding, the direction of the movement “forward” is present, which means that the evolution of inanimate nature, at least, was. Recall the main drivers of Darwin’s biological evolution:

1. Struggle for existence;
2. Natural selection;
3. Hereditary variability.

The following question arises from the admission of the possibility of the evolution of inanimate nature. What are the main drivers for it? We propose the following, seemingly improbable, hypothesis: the driving factors of the evolution of living and inanimate nature are the same, their difference is only in the mechanisms of action. To test it, let us reformulate the three main driving factors of biological evolution into a more general form for an arbitrary material object and add a fourth factor, which Darwin probably meant by default:

1. The resistance of an object to inevitable changes in order to preserve its current form of existence;
2. Quantitative or qualitative change in the form of existence of the object;
3. Modification of the object's resistance to inevitable changes;
4. Changing the conditions of existence of the object.

Figure 1 shows the conditional sequence of action of factors of evolution. In fact, all of them, of course, act simultaneously.

Fig. one.

Obviously, our modified formulations of the drivers of evolution remained equivalent to those of Darwinism when applied to living forms of existence. We introduce two definitions.

Evolution of the first level is a way of evolution of inanimate nature.
The evolution of the second level is a mode of evolution of nature, based on the factors of Darwin’s biological evolution.

The general essence of the evolutionary factors at both levels can be formulated as follows: the current form of existence is retained only by the material objects most adapted to the changed external conditions. In this sense, the evolutionary factors of the first and second levels are equivalent. Let us consider the mechanisms of action of the evolutionary factors reformulated in a more general form at its first level.

The object’s resistance to inevitable changes in order to preserve its current form of existence

The meaning of the first factor is that matter tends to preserve its achieved state, resisting its change. Change is inevitable, because the opposite would mean stopping time, but resistance to change affects exactly what the changes will be.

The mechanism of resistance of an inanimate material object to inevitable changes is based on Newton's third law — the force of action is equal to the force of opposition. The force that brings changes changes the opposite force of resistance to change, for example, solid material bodies tend to keep their shape, opposing external forces.

In contrast to non-living objects, living can resist inevitable changes in another qualitatively new energy-costly way. They themselves change the environment in such a way as to prolong their existence in a living form. Since wildlife is under the influence of two levels of evolution at the same time, the appearance of an additional opportunity for it itself to make changes to the environment in order to fight for existence actually means increased resistance to change.

Example. In order not to freeze in the winter, the man built a wooden house. Changes in nature: before trees grew, and now from them walls of the house are built.

We change the surface of the planet Earth due to the action of the evolutionary factor of the second level - the struggle for existence, or, equivalently, the resistance to inevitable changes.

So, in comparison with the evolution of the first level at the second level, the resistance of living nature to inevitable changes increases, but this is achieved at the cost of accelerating changes in the surrounding nonliving and living nature. In the evolution of the second level, the growth of resistance to change does not lead to a slowdown, but to an acceleration of change and evolution.

Quantitative or qualitative change in the form of existence of the object

Explain the action of the second driving factor. This is a natural mechanism for deciding on the result of an object’s resistance to change. If an object successfully resists changes, then it continues to exist in its former form, receiving only quantitative changes. If the resistance of an object is broken by external forces, then its matter is forced to change the form of its existence. At the second level of evolution, scrapping by external forces of object resistance to change means the death of an individual.

At the first level of evolution, the factor of natural selection acts in a different way, because matter is indestructible. In case of insufficiently strong resistance to changes, the second factor of evolution forces the inanimate material object to change the form of existence. However, the essence of the action does not change from this - in its previous form the material object no longer exists.

Example. Meteorite falls to the moon. At the moment of impact, both the Moon and the meteorite resist the changed external conditions in an effort to preserve their forms. The mass of the moon is many times greater, so the second factor of evolution makes only quantitative changes in its form of existence — another crater appears on its surface. But the matter of a meteorite has to qualitatively change the shape of its existence - part of it goes into a gaseous state and slowly settles onto the surface of the moon in the form of dust, and the rest crumbles into small pieces.

It should be noted that after a qualitative change in the form of existence, the matter of the former object is always adapted to existence in the changed conditions.

Modification of the object's resistance to inevitable changes

In different conditions of the external environment, methods of resisting inanimate matter to changes are different. We know that the same material objects behave differently in conditions of ultra-low and ultra-high temperatures, pressures, gravitational and electromagnetic fields, in different environments according to their chemical composition, and so on. When acting together, these and many other properties of the environment give rise to a huge number of different ways of resisting inanimate matter to inevitable changes.

Thus, in the evolution of the first level, the source of modifying the methods of resistance of an object to inevitable changes is the environment. This statement will be explained in more detail below.

What is the evolution of nature?

We assume that evolution must necessarily carry an element of novelty. The behavior of inanimate nature obeys rigidly defined laws of physics. Inanimate matter has no choice - for example, the structure of atoms and molecules unambiguously follows from the modern Standard Model of elementary particles. If at atmospheric pressure, water is heated to 100 ° C, then it will always begin to boil, and when cooled to 0 ° C, it will always begin to turn into ice. There is no element of novelty here, and everything is completely predetermined. Indeed, the evolution of inanimate nature lacks something else that would allow it to manifest new properties of matter under the conditions of the existing laws of physics. Where is the evolution?

To answer this key question, we will have to resort to axiomatics and formulate the axiom of the irreversibility of evolutionary processes, which extends the Louis Dollo hypothesis [i] to inanimate nature.

The current state of matter in the universe is unique in the future.

The reverse would mean that the time of the universe could flow in a closed loop. The meaning of the axiom is that each current state of the universe is unique. This means that at each moment in time in the state of matter of the universe there appears an element of novelty relative to all its past states, which enables the evolution of inanimate nature.

As long as external conditions of existence vary slightly, we may overlook the evolution of an inanimate object. However, in the end, the conditions of existence will change so much that they will reveal it to us previously unknown, "dormant" of its properties.

When the temperature changes, water may remain water or turn into ice or steam, but the external conditions of its existence will always be new. These new external conditions create new unique internal states and properties of water molecules, and if we do not notice this, then this means that we are not yet attentive enough.

In support of this statement, we give another example with water. As is well known, carbonaceous molecules and water predominate in protein bodies. The synthesis of proteins in the body is a complex process, reminiscent of the production process of a molecular plant, working on a given program. Moreover, water molecules are also part of this plant and its molecular computer, the principles of which we still have only a vague idea. In the protein medium, water molecules exhibit new, yet unknown to us, properties, participating in the processing and transmission of information.

The consequence of our axiom is that the evolution of inanimate nature continues at the present time, and we find that it is accelerated due to parallel biological evolution. All artificial chemical materials are produced by people due to the placement of raw materials and semi-finished products in new external conditions, the spontaneous occurrence of which in conditions of inanimate nature is extremely unlikely.

And now all the previous conclusions allow us to give a more precise definition of the concept of the evolution of nature, which formalizes our intuitive idea of ​​the “forward” movement.

The evolution of nature is the process by which nature creates new, previously non-existent forms and conditions for the existence of matter.

2 Definition of life

In the second part of the work, we will try to find key features that distinguish between living and non-living nature, and on their basis formulate a definition that formalizes the concept of life. Many researchers have given their own versions of the definition of the phenomenon of life, however, we still do not have a generally accepted definition.

We set the problem more strictly. Suppose that we have the opportunity to observe not only the behavior of a familiar or unfamiliar object, but also the internal state of its matter. Then we will look for a definition that, by the results of this observation, would unambiguously allow the object to be referred to living or non-living nature.

The behavior of the object determines the first factor of evolution. Therefore, the key differences between animate and inanimate nature will be sought in the difference of their methods of resistance to inevitable changes. A living object is itself a source of change, and it can choose from the set of types of reactions available to it to external and internal conditions. Technically living object can be represented as a control system, a block diagram of which is shown in Figure 2.

Fig. 2

Note that for the control algorithm F, the internal state of the material body of a living object, in essence, is only one of the types of external conditions. Internal changes may be due to external changes, and may not be. We give one example of both cases.

Lowering the temperature of the surrounding air can threaten a living individual with hypothermia. Here, a change in the internal state of an individual is a consequence of a change in external conditions.

On the contrary, the main reason for the aging of an individual's organism is not the change in the external conditions, but the fact that the mechanism of cell aging is encoded in the received individual from the parents of the hereditary information.

The control algorithm F is based on past experience. Past experience can occur in two ways:

1. Transfer with hereditary information;
2. Accumulate in the process of life.

The memory for storing past experience transmitted with hereditary information is part of the control algorithm. Note that for a living object, the experience accumulated in the process of vital activity is not obligatory, otherwise newborn children could not be considered alive. Therefore, for a living being, it is not obligatory for him to have a memory block, shown by the dotted line, for storing the accumulated experience.

Any control algorithm is based on an attempt to approximate the observed parameters to a set of some target values. The objectives of the F control algorithm can be: opposition to harmful bacteria and viruses, hunger satisfaction, rest, raising children, winning competitions, making money, and so on. Obviously, the main goal of a living being should be the struggle for life. This goal should always have the highest priority, all other goals arise only at such times when the control algorithm succeeded in creating conditions under which the threat to life is temporarily eliminated.

And now, after all the previous conclusions, we will finally give our version of the definition of life.

A material object is alive if, in order to fight for its existence, it can use at least one energy-consuming way to influence its internal state and / or its environment.

We present two important consequences from the definition of life.

Corollary 1. All living material objects are energetically costly way of existence.

Sensors, processor, memory and actuators are not perpetual motion, they require a source of energy.

Corollary 2. All material objects that lead an energetically not expensive way of existence are non-living.

Corollary 2 follows logically from Corollary 1.

Now let's check our definition with examples. Note that Corollary 2 immediately makes it possible to attribute to non-living nature all objects with an energetically not expensive way of existence, such as: stones, lakes, pencils, spoons and many others. This conclusion coincides with our life experience.

Now we check the definition on objects with an energy-intensive form of existence.

Bonfire When there is a lot of firewood in the fire, the fire inflames, when the wood remains less, the fire gradually dies out. Maybe the fire is getting smaller because the fire wants to burn longer? No, the intensity of the combustion reaction is determined only by the quantity and quality of firewood and the state of the external environment. It is not a fire that controls the intensity of burning, but a person putting firewood in the fire. Conclusion: lifeless.

A life-sacrificing or suicidal person. At the level of his consciousness, he refused to fight for life and controls his limbs in such a way as to stop it. But his body from life has not yet refused. The body continues to control other actuators of the body in order to continue life: the heart, breathing muscles, the digestive system, and so on. Conclusion: alive.

A person in a state of clinical death. The heart has stopped, but death does not occur at once, the body dies gradually as the energy-intensive metabolism ceases, which occurs in different parts of the body at different points in time. Conclusion: a person is considered alive as long as at least one cell of the body continues the metabolism.

A child in the womb of the mother. For his growth, he uses the energy-intensive method of protein synthesis, which he needs for the subsequent birth. Conclusion: alive.

Conclusions from the given examples show that they have no contradictions with common sense. We suggest that readers themselves check the definition on the Sun, flying bullet, plants, on plant seeds, on eggs of birds and amphibians, on a sperm cell, on a protein molecule, and on any other objects.

We will check our definition on the most complex and at the same time most interesting example with a seemingly well-known answer.

Imagine a simple robot created by people, which is programmed to comply with the slinger's rule: “Do not stand under the load!” A robot can ride on four wheels along a fence fenced off from all sides. The crane holds the load above the platform, and the crane operator tries to place it above the robot. The robot monitors the position of the cargo and, trying not to be under it, all the time pulls aside.

By our definition, such a robot is alive. At the same time, our common sense refuses to consider such an answer to be the truth.

Does the robot fight for its existence when it drives away from the load? He does not understand why he does it. Does this mean that he is moving away not for the purpose of the struggle for existence, and, perhaps, therefore, he ceases to conform to our definition of life? However, the definition does not accidentally require a living object to be aware of something. Our unconditioned reflexes act similarly to the robot program from the example. If we accidentally touch a hot object, then withdraw our hand even before we realize why we did it. Objects of flora, which we attribute to wildlife, are also hardly aware of something in the course of their life activity.

Let us ask the following question. Is the conclusion of our common sense that the robot is not alive, based on its behavior? It turns out no. Our common sense classifies the robot as inanimate nature only on the basis of our past experience that robots are not alive. As proof of this statement, let us imagine that instead of a robot on our fenced site there will be a living creature - a dog. The dog can run, bark, rush to the fence, but the least thing it will be disturbed by the fact that the load will be over it. She, too, is not aware of the danger of the load hanging over her, and her conditioned and unconditioned reflexes do not force her to run aside. In our example, the robot fights for its existence more adequately to the prevailing external conditions than the dog, and, nevertheless, our common sense continues to consider the dog alive, but the robot does not. Full disregard of the robot's behavior when attributing it to inanimate nature raises the first doubts about the truth of the conclusions of our common sense.

And yet, what is it - an error in the formulation of the definition or the definition predicts the possibility of the existence of a new, different from the biological form of life? Maybe our common sense relates the robot from the example to inanimate nature, based on the stereotype of thinking that life can only exist in a biological form? The search for answers to these questions is devoted to the third part of the work.

3 The third level of evolution

Our last example shows that the possibility of the existence of human-created robots, which in one form or another can fight for their existence, is beyond doubt. The question remains: are they alive or not?

Suppose that they are alive, then, since they are created by representatives of biological life, their life form will be called secondary and biological primary. The term “secondary form of life” emphasizes the fact that it cannot arise from inanimate nature, but can be created only by the “primary form of life,” that is, biological.

It is possible to prove the possibility of the existence of a secondary form of life in a theoretical way. If we are able to find the driving factors of the evolution of the secondary form of life and prove that, compared with the driving factors of Darwin’s biological evolution, they lead to a further intensification of the struggle for existence and to accelerate evolution, then we will consider the very existence of a secondary form of life to be proven.
Recall that the evolution of Darwin explains the emergence of new biological species, and not the evolution of a single living individual. Moreover, Darwinism even rules out the evolution of a single living individual, because the mechanism for adapting biological life to changing external conditions lies in hereditary variability. The consequence of this is that it is not the living individual itself that has the chance to adapt to new external conditions, but only its descendants.

Therefore, by analogy with the primary form of life, we will look for the driving factors of the evolution of the secondary form of life, considering not its individual representative, but on the imaginary example of a certain society of representatives of the secondary life by analogy with a biological species. That is, in our assumption of the possibility of the existence of a secondary form of life, we will have to go even further and assume that, first with the help of people, and later independently, representatives of the secondary form of life will be able to create their own kind.

We do not mean the plant from which conveyor robots indistinguishable from each other. Outwardly, they may indeed be indistinguishable, but we proceed from the fact that, by analogy with the biological life, each individual of the secondary life must be unique and, in order to preserve the unity of the species, have variable hereditary information from at least two parents. We describe one of the many theoretically possible ways to create oneself like representatives of the secondary form of life in the process of mating of two asexual individuals.

The hereditary information of the creature of the secondary life form will be considered only the control algorithm. $$$F$ , fig.2. The principal difference of this approach to hereditary information from biological life is that in it the hereditary information is also the structure of the whole organism of a living being, that is, also the sensors, the processor, the actuators. New approach to genetic information allows you to make the algorithm work $$$F$ and accumulated in the process of life experience $$$M$ detachable from the rest of the body of the creature of the secondary form of life. It becomes possible to transfer them to a new body, for example, a body built on an improved element base. This makes representatives of the secondary life form protected from the aging of their bodies.

Here we find the first necessary condition for our proof of the possibility of the existence of a secondary form of life — this is its intensification of the struggle for existence in comparison with individuals of biological life. The ability to avoid death from old age, of course, means strengthening the struggle for existence, that is, for life.

Let us return to the process of mating of individuals of the secondary form of life. Just as DNA is encoded in discrete genes, the control algorithm F can be encoded in parts. Suppose we have two asexual representatives of the secondary life form with control algorithms $$$F_1$ and $$$F_2$ and accumulated in the process of life experience $$$M_1$ and $$$M_2$ . In the process of their pairing, two new control algorithms will be formed. $$$F_ {1 \ new}$ and $$$F_ {2 \ new}$ . Each of them is composed of parts of parental algorithms that are randomly selected or from $$$F_1$ or from $$$F_2$ . Next, new control algorithms are loaded back into the bodies of two representatives of the secondary life form - $$$F_ {1 \ new}$ , $$$F_{2\ new}$ , $$$F_1$ , $$$F_2$ respectively. , .

, , , , , . . . , . , .

. $$$F_{new}$ , , . $$$M_{new}$ . .

- ? , .

- – . , . , , . , , $$$F_{1\ new}$ $$$F_{2\ new}$ $$$F_1$ , , $$$F_2$ . . , , .

-, . , . , , . . . . .

, . F - . , , , . , . , , .

– . .

– , .

, , .1, . Here they are:

1. ;
2. ;
3. ;
4. .

, , , , , .

. , , , . .

, . , . , , .

, . , , , , , .

.

.

1. Dollo, Louis. Les Lois De L'évolution. New York: Arno, 1893.