Talk:What Is Life?

Aperiodic crystal
I have seen the suggestion that Schrödinger, had he been more familiar with organic chemistry, probably would have known and used the term "polymer" rather than "aperiodic crystal" in his book. I'll try to find the source of this suggestion. --JWSchmidt 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's important to use Schrodinger's nomemclature of choice, or at least a word which plays the same role (non-periodic). It's true that DNA is a kind of polymer; but the key to what Schrodinger needed to communicate is the capacity for a structure to store information which is unique to an organism's identity, and which is heritable by offspring, and which can be selected either for or against in Darwinian dynamics. Calling the structure a polymer may in hindsight be technically accurate, but it's not as informative as to the role of a genomic storage medium. DNA has all the salient properties of Schrodinger's aperiodic crystal37.106.158.166 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In the content description, we should probably use the term also used by Schrödinger. But a section on the present perspective on this book is still missing and such a suggestion should be mentioned there. I could try to write such a section, but maybe you have a better overview on this topic. Markus Schmaus 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is in Chapter 5 of The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology by Horace Freeland Judson. Judson says that Crick was excited by "What is Life?" because it suggested that exciting discoveries could be made in biology. With respect to Schrodinger using the term "aperiodic crystal", Judson quotes Francis Crick, "I don't suppose the man had ever heard of a polymer!" --JWSchmidt 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps worth noting that the term 'aperiodic crystal' resurfaced some 40 years later with the discovery of quasicrystals. According to the current terminology and views, two kinds of crystals exist: the traditional ones which are periodic and some recently discovered ones which are not. The class of aperiodic crystals includes now quasicrystals, composites and incommensurate phases. The mechanism of quasicrystal forming is still discussed and a certain perplexity remains. Some mathematicians insist that the use of the adjective 'aperiodic' here is incorrect and it should be replaced by 'nonperiodic'.
 * Obviously Schroedinger's meaning is rather different but as the words are the same, the temptation to find some connection is strong.

195.96.229.104 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC), Do you wish to edit stuff to add more information? well, you could by pressing the edit button. and correct, this is the real info

Indian mysticism
Why "indian mysticism", what the hell is that? Why you can't write hinduism or hindu philosophy or much better word. Indians don't know what indian mysticism is, it is something mysterious to them, nobody else knows what that is, why do we use such words. To avoid using word like hinduism, hindu thoughts that are much better defined? Good job, keep it up.
 * "Indian" civilization includes "Hinduism" which most educated Indians, especially Hindus, rightly regard as a vast, poorly defined, much misunderstood, and often disputed territory. As such, it is better for non-Hindus and especially non-Indians to say "Indian" rather than "Hindu" - especially in matters of philosophy.  Anyway "Indian mysticism" links to the pertinent ideas.Vendrov 08:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is absurd to say that what Upanishads teach is mysticism, philosphy is better word for that. You may find it 10 times harder to understand what is the meaning of mysticism. Also, hinduism is neither disputed, nor misunderstood by hindus themselves, you won't find single hindu who will say he is confused as to who he is or what hinduism is. As Voltaire said, using mysticism for hindu philosophy was an attempt by Christian missionaries to dilute the importance or recognition of those philosophical thoughts. While the German philosophers enjoyed and learnt a lot from hindu philosophy, the western media still has Christian biasSkant 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC).-skant

Gibbs Free Energy
why is the article Gibbs Free Energy linked from this one at the top? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Genome in 1944??
"Order-from-Order refers to the genome of an organism: In its growth and coming to life, an organism structures itself according to the information contained in its genome."

Well, yes, but Schrödinger certainly didn't use the word "genome" in 1944. This should be reworded to use Schrödinger's actual vocabulary, followed perhaps by a note that certain words can be understood as corresponding to what is today called a genome. Dirac66 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Two books in one
My copy of the book "WHAT IS LIFE? with MIND AND MATTER & AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES" (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/history-philosophy-and-foundations-physics/what-life-mind-and-matter-and-autobiographical-sketches-1) says that "Mind and Matter" was first published in 1958, with the combined reprint with "What is life?" first appearing in 1967. As it says the book is 194 pages, which is doubtlessly true for a version of the combined preprint, it can not be that at the same time the publication date is 1944, as "Mind and matter" is based on lectures more than a decade later. At best it is confusing and may require an explanation, but it may have to be somehow corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.247.2 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

about our life
What Is Life? is a 1944 non-fiction science book written for the lay reader by physicist Erwin Schrödinger. The book was based on a course of public lectures delivered by Schrödinger in February 1943, under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin. The lectures attracted an audience of about 400, who were warned "that the subject-matter was a difficult one and that the lectures could not be termed popular, even though the physicist’s most dreaded weapon, mathematical deduction, would hardly be utilized." Schrödinger's lecture focused on one important question: "how can the events in space and time which take place within the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?" In the book, Schrödinger introduced the idea of an "aperiodic crystal" that contained genetic information in its configuration of covalent chemical bonds. In the 1950s, this idea stimulated enthusiasm for discovering the genetic molecule. Although the existence of DNA had been known since 1869, its role in reproduction and its helical shape were still unknown at the time of Schrödinger's lecture. In retrospect, Schrödinger's aperiodic crystal can be viewed as a well-reasoned theoretical prediction of what biologists should have been looking for during their search for genetic material. Both James D. Watson,and independently, Francis Crick, co-discoverers of the structure of DNA, credited Schrödinger's book with presenting an early theoretical description of how the storage of genetic information would work, and each respectively acknowledged the book as a source of inspiration for their initial researches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardarshan (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Various views may be considered about the ontology of Aristotle's formal and final causes. One view is that they were not bound to be immaterial abstractions, but might have included material with specific forms. Aristotle said that the formal cause of a human's genesis and growth was in the sperm. In this sense, from an Aristotelian viewpoint, DNA could be viewed as the formal cause of human individuality, discovered in detail some 2000 years after Aristotle. One might say that Schroedinger was carrying on the grand tradition of speculative philosophy.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

three new edits radically alter the article
Three new edits, here, here, and here, have radically altered the article.

Before these edits the article was about one famous book. With the edits, it has become an article that expounds the views of many writers on related subject matter, with the originating book one item amongst them.

I think this is not a good strategy for the article. The title of the book was a peculiar expression of its author, not a general question about an abstract subject. I think it was better as a peculiar expression.

The edits are worthy additions to Wikipedia, but I think they should be put into another article, with a more specific title, more apt for them as a group.

The title "What is life?" only covers them by a stretch or by shoehorning. I think a new title is desirable for them. I suppose that the editor who posted them might be able to produce a new and more comfortably fitting title for the group of views that he has assembled. Then he could write an article with that more general purview, and leave the article about Schroedinger's book with its proper title.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

By your leave I will say more along the lines of the foregoing comment.

The title What is Life? is that of a particular book, one might say, a proper name, and that is how it came to head the article.

The new edit has re-interpreted the words as a general question, not as the title of Schroedinger's book, its original meaning for this article. Then the new edit has further re-interpreted the words as if they meant some question such as 'how did life evolve from inanimate nature?' But that reinterpretation is not a very faithful reading of the title What is life? The material of the new edit, worthy and admirable though it is, is not directed to answer that question, 'what is life?' The new material is directed more towards the subject matter of the Wikipedia article Abiogenesis. It belongs more naturally there. There, at that article, are other editors familiar with that subject matter, who are not focused narrowly on the original subject of the present article, which is a book by Schroedinger. There, in the article on abiogenesis, will be a more active and informed editorial body on the general question of evolution of life, fitting the newly added material.

The general question, 'what is life?', read for itself, does not focus on the origins of life. It focuses on what distinguishes life from non-life. Logically, this question is prior to questions about the origins of life. If one is talking about the origins of something, it is good to have a clear prior idea of how to identify that something, as a logical prelude to asking about its origins. So the newly added material is not well advertised by the question 'what is life?' and, worthy and admirable though it is, the newly added material belongs somewhere else than under that advertising title. Perhaps a good home for it would be in the article on abiogenesis. Perhaps the editor who posted the new material in the present article thinks that the article on abiogenesis is not a good home for his new and worthy material, and perhaps he is right. I would say that it is then up to him to find a more suitable home for it. He may find another already existing suitable article, or he may choose to create a new article with a slant different from that of the present abiogenesis article. I would not presume to try to do that. It is a matter for the creative energy of that author, namely Chaya5260. But I am opposed to the present radical takeover of the present article.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you have a good point. I plan to move the newly added material to a new article "Nature of life" in the next day or so.Chaya5260 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

re Nuclear fusion
I removed the clause about entropy for life being supplied to some extent by nuclear fusion. Although this is a source of free energy for some human activities, the source for the processes of Life itself is solar radiation, as this paragraph originally stated. DaveApter (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree with your point and support the removal of any reference to nuclear energy in this article. However one small point: the deleted clause referred to nuclear fission of uranium and not to nuclear fusion. Dirac66 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct - sorry for my inattentive typing - but glad that you agree with my essential point. DaveApter (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Schroedinger's paradox ???
The paradox section should be removed. There is no such thing as a "Schroedinger's paradox". The person who wrote it is just confusing entropy with chaos, a very common error for those who don't understand entropy. Following the reasoning, the universe tends to chaos, and that's not something that the 2nd law of thermodynamics affirms. On a system where particles are magnets, the particles tend to group (therefore to reach order), while the entropy is high.

If something, a criticism of negentropy should be added: Schroedinger had a lot of criticism about the usage of the negentropy term (I include myself among the critics). Schroedinger seems to misuse the term entropy: he writes "To put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help producing while alive", and he also writes that entropy is a "measurable physical quantity". Just replace the term: "the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the *quantity* it cannot help producing while alive"... ??? Entropy is a value, with the essential property of increasing in closed systems (2nd thermodyniamics law). Negentropy should be the opposite: a negation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics... and that's absolutely irrational. Alas, an organism cannot free itself of a quantity. Rodolfoap (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

More on negentropy
In the present version one can read:

Schrödinger explains that living matter evades the decay to thermodynamical equilibrium by homeostatically maintaining negative entropy (today this quantity is called information[8]) in an open system

with reference to Shannon's paper on his quantitave measure of information, which is the measure of entropy of a given message and not negentropy. Therefore I think that negative entropy ≠ information. Information in Shannon's sense is just the opposite. It is greater when the data is disorderly and lower if it is orderly. Therefore, I suggest to remove the text and the reference in brackets. Pancarlos (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This section is virtually gibberish
Max Delbrück's thinking about the physical basis of life was an important influence on Schrödinger.[4] However, long before the publication of What is Life?, geneticist and 1946 Nobel-prize winner H. J. Muller had in his 1922 article "Variation due to Change in the Individual Gene"[5] already laid out all the basic properties of the "heredity molecule" (then not yet known to be DNA) that Schrödinger was to re-derive in 1944 "from first principles" in What is Life? (including the "aperiodicity" of the molecule), properties which Muller specified and refined additionally in his 1929 article "The Gene As The Basis of Life"[6] and during the 1930s.[7] Moreover, H. J. Muller himself wrote in a 1960 letter to a journalist regarding What Is Life? that whatever the book got right about the "hereditary molecule" had already been published before 1944 and that Schrödinger's were only the wrong speculations; Muller also named two famous geneticists (including Delbrück) who knew every relevant pre-1944 publication and had been in contact with Schrödinger before 1944. But DNA as the molecule of heredity became foremost only after Oswald Avery's bacterial-transformation experiments published in 1944; before those experiments, proteins were considered the most likely candidates. DNA was confirmed as the molecule in question by the Hershey–Chase experiment conducted in 1952. The entire paragraph and the section it comes from is almost like gibberish, it consists of disjointed facts, badly written, and strung together with no chain of thought, almost randomly concocted. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My life
My life 105.112.121.202 (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

life
what life is? pdf eric capron 2A01:CB0C:308:9F00:D44E:162B:5E3D:BE32 (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

origine
what life is pdf eric capron 2A01:CB0C:308:9F00:48FF:29E5:5FCA:2690 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)