Building Essence and The Riddle of Life: A Perspective on Objective Relative Thinking
In the previous article, I proposed a relative way of thinking that subjective aspects like one’s view of life or values should be chosen by each individual according to their own preference. It’s akin to choosing one’s favorite clothes.
On the other hand, there are objective matters, like science and academic knowledge. Laws observed in natural phenomena, like the laws of physics, do not change based on individual perspectives, and if the answer to 1+1 varied person by person, economic activities would be challenging.
While such objective knowledge and concepts indeed exist, they also possess relativity. Not in relation to individual perspectives, as with subjective values, but in relation to context. All knowledge is objectively correct and meaningful when placed within its respective context.
In this article, I introduce the concept of objective relative thinking. From this viewpoint, the concept of “construction” becomes apparent, not only in knowledge but also in physical, chemical, biological, and social phenomena.
Furthermore, I will link this concept of “construction” to the riddle of life discussed in my previous article.
The Necessity of Context in Pursuit of Essence
There are discussions about “What is XX?” Such as, “What is a human?” or “What is beauty?” These are essentially philosophical debates about the nature of things.
Attempting to define the essence of a subject with just one definition is futile. How many definitions are needed? The answer is infinite. Because there is a context behind everything, and often, the context is infinite.
It is impossible to fully describe a subject with infinite contexts using just one or even a finite number of definitions. Therefore, one can either approach it by defining multiple aspects, acknowledging this, or by clearly specifying a context and defining within that scope.
For instance, in answering the question, “What is a human?” possible contexts might be a visual comparison with chimpanzees, comparison through DNA, physical abilities, intellectual abilities, or social comparisons.
Besides comparing with chimpanzees, there are also contexts like comparisons with machines or robots. Additionally, focusing on human emotional, intellectual, and desire-based traits offers another context.
Each context will yield a different answer. Given that multiple contexts can be established, there are virtually infinite patterns. This means the answers or essences are also potentially infinite.
The Pursuit of Essence is Construction
Given this perspective, the pursuit of essence isn’t a passive act where understanding simply emerges from mere observation.
It’s an active task where we impose a context and extract essence. And it’s not enough to just list the extracted essences; they must be organized with the imposed contexts.
By thinking this way, exploration becomes an active endeavor where you don’t just scoop up what naturally emerges but instead actively construct combinations of context and essence.
If you remove the context, the essence becomes invisible again.
Therefore, when expressing the essence discovered through exploration, it’s imperative to describe it with its context, or its value might become incomprehensible to others.
For example, merely stating that humans have emotions doesn’t tell us if it’s essential. If we’re comparing humans to chimpanzees, it might not seem like the essence. However, if the context is comparing humans to current AI, it becomes a significant point.
That is, if organized as “One fundamental difference between current AI and humans is that humans have emotions,” it can be considered a valuable discovery. I believe this method of constructing knowledge is the way to pursue essence.
Domains of Construction
The “construction” mentioned here refers to the process of applying context to a subject to reveal its essence. This isn’t exclusive to the realm of knowledge.
For example, in the quantum world, when you observe a quantum with an indefinite position or state by exposing it to something else, its position or state becomes definite. Once observation ceases, it reverts to an indefinite state. This process fits the concept of “construction.”
In the world of quantum mechanics, the light or other quantum particles used for observation is the “context,” and the defined state through observation is the “essence.”
There are applicable phenomena in organic chemical reactions as well. Especially the chain of chemical reactions governing life functions when two or more reactions combine. If these functions stop, it could potentially lead to extinction. From this perspective, the concept of “construction” applies.
In the case of organic chemical reactions, the energy or other organic matter supplied serves as the “context,” and the resulting chemical reactions are the “essence.” Particularly when the resulting reaction possesses characteristics vital to life, it’s considered the “construction” of life.
Moreover, the concept of construction applies to ecosystems. There are clear symbiotic relationships between species, and there are relations resembling food chain loops. The concept of construction is also applicable here.
In ecosystems, the environment or other species provided to a particular species is the “context.” The activities leading to the survival and reproduction of that species are its “essence.” From this perspective, each species exists as constructed through various interactions with the environment and other species. Also, if new interactions are “constructed” through DNA mutations, which positively impact survival and reproduction, it can lead to evolution.
Here’s the translation for the provided text:
Driving Forces of Construction: Randomness and Design
Similarly, human relationships and organizational structures in society are also “constructed.” Moreover, culture, economic activities, buildings, machinery, software, etc. are also “constructed” by humans.
The driving force behind construction in quantum mechanics, organic matter, and ecosystems is diversity due to random changes. Construction succeeds when, from various combinations, a stable state is found, reactions continue, and something beneficial for survival is identified.
For things that humans create, like knowledge, society, and machinery, the driving force behind their construction is not just diversity from random changes, but also deliberate design. Humans engage in intellectual work to design, building things up to stages unreachable by randomness alone.
The Essence of Construction
Construction involves combining two or more things to create something new.
The things created by construction eventually break down and revert to their original state.
Therefore, construction is established by the combination of “binding” and “holding together.” The property that allows two things to combine is “binding,” and the action that maintains this bond is “holding together.”
When the energy supply from the outside is interrupted or when force is applied, and “holding together” ends, the constructed “binding” comes undone and is lost.
Specifically, constructions that “hold together” merely by continuous external energy supply and meet an end similar to the phenomenon of “death” in living beings are what I call “death-stop nature.” Conversely, those that can start moving again after stopping are termed “dormant-stop nature.”
Life is a prime example of the “death-stop nature.” Other examples include trends that end in a short-lived boom, which also have this “death-stop nature.”
The Riddle of Life
It seems obvious that the “death-stop nature” construction underpins the phenomenon of life, but on reflection, it’s quite peculiar.
Intuitively, the “dormant-stop nature” seems more advantageous for survival. It would be beneficial if complex entities like life wouldn’t easily disintegrate even when their energy source is cut off. Why can complex entities like life emerge through the fragile construction of “death-stop nature”?
I refer to this mystery as the “riddle of life.”
My answer to the riddle of life is that the “death-stop nature” can secure diversity much more than the “dormant-stop nature.”
The reason the “death-stop nature” can achieve more diversity than the “dormant-stop nature” is that the former can encapsulate the latter as a component. The reverse is not true.
Diversity is crucial for evolution. This is because there’s no designer in the evolution of life, necessitating trying out various patterns randomly. Thus, having diversity is advantageous for evolution, attempting a multitude of patterns in a hit-or-miss manner.
Incidentally, human-designed entities like robots or computers can have a dormant-stop nature because they can be created without undergoing random evolution. They don’t need the diversity of the death-stop nature, and they can be constructed to function properly.
In Conclusion
The exploration of the origin of life is the main theme of this blog.
I realized that rather than investigating cellular structures or chemical phenomena, unraveling the mechanisms of intelligence and society might be more effective. This is because it became evident that new insights could be gained by extracting mechanisms common to life and intracellular chemical reactions from these areas.
Therefore, I’ve considered intelligence and society from various angles. In my previous article, I discussed subjective relative thinking, which I thought had no direct relevance to exploring the origins of life.
However, transitioning from subjective relative thinking to objective relative thinking proved effective. I’m pleasantly surprised that I could return to the topic of the riddle of life, which I contemplated during my exploration of the origin of life.
