by Werner Gitt
Part B: The embryo at four weeks when it is 4.2 mm long.
Part C: The nervous system of a two-month-old embryo which is 17.7 mm long: 1 - Telencephalon (= the front part of the first brain bubble), 2 - optical nerve, 3 - Cerebellum, 4 - Medulla oblongata, 5 - Lobus olfactorius (sense of smell), 6 - Nervus ulnaris (elbow), 7 - Nervus obturatorius (hip region), 8 - Nervus plantaris lateralis (outer foot-sole) and Nervus suralis (calf).
Part D: Fetus of 75 mm, shown inside the uterus: 1 - Placenta, 2 - Myometrium (= muscular wall of the womb), 3 - amniotic membrane. The amniotic fluid has been removed.
Figure 4: Various developmental stages of a human embryo.
How is it possible that embryonic development does not entail a disorderly growth of cells, but is systematic and purposeful according to a set timetable? A precise plan, in which all stages are programmed in the finest detail, underlies all these processes. In this case also, information is the overall guiding factor.
5. The organ-playing robot: Would it be possible for a robot to play an organ? In Figure 5, we see exactly this. This Japanese robot, called Vasubot, even enthralls music lovers. It has two hands and two feet which are able to manipulate the manuals and the pedals, and it reads sheet music by means of a video camera. The notes are then converted to the required hand and foot motions. This robot can read and play any piece of music immediately without first having to practice it. The reason for this ability is the information given in a program, together with all the required mechanisms. If the program is removed, the robot cannot do anything. Again, we observe that information is the essential ingredient.
Figure 5: This organ-playing robot was exhibited at EXPO ’85 in Japan. It was developed by Professor Ichiro Kato of Wasedo University, and was built by Sumitomo Electronic Industries. The robot is now on show in the official Japanese government building EXPO ’85 (tsukuba). This illustrates the capabilities of robot technology, but this system cannot do anything which has not been pre-programmed.
Consequences
After having considered a few very diverse systems, we may conclude that the built-in information is the common factor. None of these systems could operate if the stored information was deleted. For a better understanding of processes occurring in living as well as in inanimate systems, we have to study the concept of information in detail. A professor of informatics at Dortmund briefly formulated a basic theorem, with which we could agree:
"Anybody who can identify the source of information, has the key for understanding this world"[2] (or: "He who can give an account of the origin of information holds in his hands the key to interpret this world").
The book The Character of Physical Law, by the American physicist Richard P. Feynman, may be regarded as a classic in the field of physics. The following is quoted from its preface [F1, p 172]: "The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again." In the field of physics, most laws have probably been discovered and formulated since then. However, in regard to the fundamental quantity information, we are still squarely in the process of discovery. Based on previous work [G4, G5, G7, G8, G9, G17, G18] we will formulate in this book several theorems on information which are similar to laws of nature. For the purpose of appreciating the scope and meaning of the developed theorems, some fundamental properties of the natural laws are discussed in the next chapter.
Part 1
Laws of Nature
Chapter 2
Principles of Laws of Nature
2.1 The Terminology Used in the Natural Sciences
Through the natural sciences, the world around us is observed for the purpose of discovering the rules governing it. Experimentation and observation (e.g., measuring and weighing) are the basic "modus operandi." Hans Sachsse, who specialized in natural philosophy and chemistry, described (natural) science as "a census of observational relationships which cannot say anything about first causes or the reasons for things being as they are; it can only establish the regularity of the relationships." The observational material is organized systematically, and the principles derived from it are formulated in the most general terms possible (e.g., construction of machines). Questions about the origin of the world and of life, as well as ethical questions, fall outside the scope of science, and such questions cannot be answered scientifically. Conclusions about matters that do fall within the scope of (natural) science can be formulated with varying degrees of certainty. The certainty or uncertainty of the results can be expressed in various ways.
Law of Nature: If the truth of a statement is verified repeatedly in a reproducible way so that it is regarded as generally valid, then we have a natural law. The structures and phenomena encountered in the real world can be described in terms of the laws of nature in the form of principles which are universally valid. This holds for both their chronological development and their internal structural relationships. The laws of nature describe those phenomena, events and results which occur in the interplay between matter and energy. For these reasons, psychological emotions like love, mourning, or joy, and philosophical questions, are excluded from the natural sciences. Statements about natural events can be classified according to the degree of certainty, namely: models, theories, hypotheses, paradigms, speculations, and fiction. These categories are now discussed.
Model: Models are representations of reality. Only the most important properties are reflected, and minor or unrecognized aspects are not covered. Models are important because of their illustrativeness. A model is a deliberate but simplified representation of reality and it describes observed structures in a readily understandable way. It is possible to have more than one model for a given reality, and, because it is by nature provisional and simple, any model can always be improved upon.
Theory (Greek theoría = view, consideration, investigation): Theories endeavor to explain facts in a unified representation of models and hypotheses. To put it briefly, a theory is a scientific statement based on empirical findings. Since empirical results are seldom final, theories are of a provisional nature, and the inherent hypothetical element inevitably causes uncertainty — in the best case, a statement can be made in terms of specific probabilities. Theories are therefore a means of tying observed facts together, and the best theories are those which attain this objective with the least number of inconsistencies.
Hypothesis (Greek hypóthesis = assumption, conjecture, supposition): A hypothesis is an unverified scientific conjecture which contains speculations, and which amplifies an incomplete empirical result, or provisionally explains some fact. Any new hypothesis must be based on facts, and it may not contradict the known laws of nature. If a hypothesis serves as a methodological guide when a new research project is undertaken, it is known as a working hypothesis. When observational facts support a hypothesis, the probability of its being true is increased, but if ONE contradicting fact is uncovered, the hypothesis must be rejected (falsification). As early as the 17th century, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) said that we could be certain that a hypothesis is false if ONE SINGLE derived relationship contradicts any observed phenomenon.
Paradigm (Greek parádeigma = example, sample): When a certain theory (or a system of hypotheses, or a world view) pervades entire fields of research or an entire scientific era, it is known as a paradigm. Such a view then dictates the scope for specific researches and delineates the presuppositions used for explaining individual phenomena. If a system of hypotheses has been derived from presuppositions dictated by a world view, it usually cannot be reconciled with the available facts. Typical examples are geocentricity (refuted by Copernicus), and phlogiston chemistry (disproved by Lavoisier in 1774). It is hoped that this book will help to uproot the current evolutionary paradigm.
Speculation: When a statement is based purely on discussion, fantasy, imagination, or contemplation, and does not correspond to reality, it is speculation, or merely an intellectual game. Because no actual experimentation is involve
d, it is easy to make undiscoverable mistakes. In thought experiments, difficulties can easily be evaded, undesirable aspects can be suppressed, and contradictions can be deftly concealed. Thought experiments can probably raise questions, but cannot answer any; only actual experimentation can provide answers. In this sense, the "hypercycle" proposed by Manfred Eigen is pure speculation [G10, p. 153–155]. Mere speculation without experimentation and observation is not science, neither is pure deduction from arbitrary presuppositions, nor is a biased selection of observations. Even the most abstract theory should not lose contact with reality and experimentation; it must be empirically verifiable.[3] Thought experiments as well as deductions from philosophical postulates not based on observation are speculations.
Fiction (Latin fictio = fabrication, story): A fiction is either a deliberate or an unintentional fantasy which is not based on reality. Sometimes a false assumption (fiction) can be introduced deliberately for the purpose of clarifying a scientific problem methodologically.
2.2 The Limits of Science and the Persistence of Paradigms
We have discussed different categories of laws of nature and can now realize that many statements are often formulated with far too much confidence and in terms which are far too absolute. Max Born (1882–1970), a Nobel laureate, clearly pointed this out with respect to the natural sciences [B4]:
Ideas like absolute correctness, absolute accuracy, final truth, etc. are illusions which have no place in any science. With one’s restricted knowledge of the present situation, one may express conjectures and expectations about the future in terms of probabilities. In terms of the underlying theory, any probabilistic statement is neither true nor false. This liberation of thought seems to me to be the greatest blessing accorded us by present-day science.
Another Nobel laureate, Max Planck (1858–1947), deplored the fact that theories which have long ago become unacceptable are doggedly adhered to in the sciences [P3, p 13]:
A new scientific truth is usually not propagated in such a way that opponents become convinced and discard their previous views. No, the adversaries eventually die off, and the upcoming generation is familiarized anew with the truth.
This unjustified adherence to discarded ideas was pointed out by Professor Wolfgang Wieland (a theoretical scientist, University of Freiburg, Germany) in regard to the large number of shaky hypotheses floating around [W4, p 631]:
Ideas originally formulated as working hypotheses for further investigation, possess an inherent persistence. The stability accorded established theories (in line with Kuhn’s conception), is of a similar nature. It only appears that such theories are tested empirically, but in actual fact observations are always explained in such a way that they are consistent with the pre-established theories. It may even happen that observations are twisted for this purpose.
The persistence of a paradigm which has survived the onslaught of reality for a long time, is even greater [W4, p 632]:
"When it comes to collisions between paradigms and empirical reality, the latter usually loses, according to Kuhn’s findings. He based his conclusions on the history of science and not on science theory. However, the power of the paradigm is not unlimited…. There are stages in the development of a science when empirical reality is not adapted to fit the paradigm; during such phases different paradigms compete. Kuhn calls these stages scientific revolutions…. According to Kuhn’s conception it is a fable that the reason why successful theories replace previous ones is because they perform better in explaining phenomena. The performance of a theory can be measured historically in quite different terms, namely the number of its sworn-in adherents." Much relevant scientific data is lost because of the dictatorship of a false paradigm, since deviating results are regarded as "errors in measurement" and are therefore ignored.
A minimal requirement for testing whether a theory should be retained, or whether a hypothesis should not yet be discarded, or that a process could really work, is that the relevant laws of nature should not be violated.
2.3 The Nature of Physical Laws
A fundamental metaphysical law is that of causality. This means that every event must have a cause, and that under the same circumstances a certain cause always has the same effects. For a better understanding of the laws of nature we will now discuss some basic aspects which are important for the evaluation and application of events and processes:
N1: The laws of nature are based on experience. It is often asserted that the laws of nature are proven theorems, but we have to emphasize that the laws of nature cannot be proved! They are only identified and formulated through observation. It is often possible to formulate conclusions in exact mathematical terms, ensuring precision, brevity, and generality. Even though numerous mathematical theorems (except the initial axioms) can be proved,[4] this is not the case for the laws of nature. A mathematical formulation of an observation should not be confused with a proof. We affirm: the laws of nature are nothing more than empirical statements. They cannot be proved, but they are nevertheless valid.
The fundamental law of the conservation of energy is a case in point. It has never been proved, because it is just as unprovable as all other laws of nature. So why is it universally valid? Answer: Because it has been shown to be true in millions of experiences with reality. It has survived all real tests. In the past, many people believed in perpetual motion, and they repeatedly invested much time and money trying to invent a machine that could run continuously without a supply of energy. Even though they were NEVER successful, they rendered an important service to science. Through all their ideas and efforts, they demonstrated that the energy law cannot be circumvented. It has been established as a fundamental physical law with no known exceptions. The possibility that a counter example may be found one day cannot be excluded, even if we are now quite sure of its truth. If a mathematical proof of its truth existed, then each and every single non-recurrent possible deviation from this natural law could be excluded beforehand.
The unprovability of the laws of nature has been characterized as follows by R.E. Peierls, a British physicist [P1, p 536]:
Even the most beautiful derivation of a natural law …collapses immediately when it is refuted by subsequent research…. Scientists regard these laws as being what they are: Formulations derived from our experiences, tested, tempered, and confirmed through theoretical predictions and in new situations. Together with subsequent improvements, the formulations would only be accepted as long as they are suitable and useful for the systematization, explanation, and understanding of natural phenomena.
N2: The laws of nature are universally valid. The theorem of the unity of nature is an important scientific law. This means that the validity of the laws of nature is not restricted to a certain limited space or time. Such a law is universally valid in the sense that it holds for an unlimited number of single cases. The infinitude of these single cases can never be exhausted by our observations. A claim of universal validity for an indefinite number of cases can immediately be rejected when one single counter example is found.[5]
In our three-dimensional world the known laws of nature are universally valid, and this validity extends beyond the confines of the earth out through the entire physical universe, according to astronomical findings. When the first voyages to the moon were planned, it was logically assumed that the laws identified and formulated on earth, were also valid on the moon. The laws of energy and of gravity were used to compute the quantities of fuel required, and when man landed on the moon, the assumption of universal validity was found to be justified. The law of the unity of nature (the universal validity of laws of nature) will hold until a counter example is found.
N3: The laws of nature are equally valid for living beings and for inanimate matter. Any law which is valid according to N2 above, includes living beings. Richard P. Feynman (1918–1988), Nobel laureate for physics (1965), writes [F1, p 74]:
The law for conservations of energy is as true for life as for other phenomena. I
ncidentally, it is interesting that every law or principle that we know for "dead" things, and that we can test on the great phenomenon of life, works just as well there. There is no evidence yet that what goes on in living creatures is necessarily different, so far as the physical laws are concerned, from what goes on in non-living things, although the living things may be much more complicated.
All measurements (sensory organs), metabolic processes, and transfers of information in living organisms strictly obey the laws of nature. The brilliant concepts realized in living beings, are based on refined and very ingenious implementations of the laws of nature. For example, the sensitivity of human hearing attains the physically possible limits by means of a combination of determining factors [G11, p 85 – 88]. The laws of aerodynamics are employed so masterfully in the flight of birds and insects, that similar performance levels have not yet been achieved in any technological system (see Appendix A3.4.4).
N4: The laws of nature are not restricted to any one field of study. This theorem is actually redundant in the light of N2 and N3, but it is formulated separately to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.
The energy conservation law was discovered by the German doctor and physicist Julius Robert Mayer (1814–1878) during an extended voyage in the tropics. He was a medical officer and he formulated this law when contemplating the course of organic life. Although it was discovered by a medical officer, nobody considered the possibility of restricting the validity of this theorem to medical science only. There is no area of physics where this theorem has not been decisive in the clarification of relationships. It is fundamental in all technical and biological processes.