Yes; That's what AG — a self-described atheist who, like Schröedinger, has strong Buddhist sympathies — is up to. Except to note that the selection of biological endpoints for physics to work on is somehow an informed process. Which is to say the information doesn't "come from" the process; rather it antecedently guides it in some way. And this is the point we are trying to understand.
It seems it is almost universally accepted nowadays that there is an ubiquitous "action principle" in physical systems in nature. It is the so-called "principle of least action." What my friend is proposing is that there is an action principle working in biological systems as well — "the principle of maximal action."
To try to explain that, he alleges that biological systems have the natural ability to select the "endpoints" that harness the physical laws towards the realization of specifically biological ends and goals. Necessary biological functions— necessary in order for a system in nature to be "alive," such as cell repair, respiration, reproduction, etc. — must be realized by means of physical processes. And unlike natural processes governed by the principle of least action (which are discrete and instantaneous), such specifically biological functions proceed over long time scales in a way that involves the whole organism, as causally orchestrated from a non-local source.
When such long-time-scale functions cease, the biological system is no longer alive. It reverts to being just a "physical system," inexorably subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the increase to maximum entropy which it predicts.
That's putting it into my words; so it may not be entirely "correct."
Anyhoot, my friend regards the principle of maximal action and the principle of least action as first principles that are both fundamental and antecedent to the operation of biological and physical laws, respectively. Further, he thinks there are specifically biological laws which are more fundamental than the laws of physics. Indeed, he suspects (along with the late, great mathematician Robert Rosen among others) that biological laws are general and universal; and that the physical laws pertain to a "special case" — physical systems in nature.
He defines a first principle as follows:
A fundamental law can be regarded as a "first principle" if and only if all of the fundamental laws of the given branch of natural sciences (in physics, that of classical mechanics, hydrodynamics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, theory of gravitation, and quantum physics, including quantum field theories and string theory) can be derived from it.What he describes here is true of the Action Principle called "least action." Which is a principle that the scientific community appears to almost universally embrace. It is by AG's definition a fundamental, or "first principle."
To put this into context, AG holds that the real Universe "is built up from (i) phenomena, (ii) laws and, ultimately, from (iii) first principles." He gives an illustration:
Today it is a frequent view that the origin of the idea of infinity is an unsolvable enigma, since infinity cannot arise from a finite brain. Our model offers a natural explanation: our brain consists not only from a finite number of finite atoms. but also from laws and principles of Nature. [FWIW, what I would call "apperceptive reality," which complements and expands on directly "perceptive reality."] Since the laws and principles of Nature are unconstrained regarding their domain of application, therefore our brain consists not only from finite atoms but also from infinite laws and principles. Now since the brain works by those laws and principles [i.e., in apperceptive reality], it has a natural source of infinity.... Our Universe does not exhaust in physical phenomena.... — "Foundation of the Universal Science," in Analectica Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Volume CVII — Astronomy and Civilization in the New Enlightenment, 2011, A-T Tymieniecka and A. Grandpierre, eds.Just some stuff to think about.
Dear HHTVL, I hope that you do not think that somehow, I am engaged in the pursuit of a "proof" for the existence of God. I do not need any such "proof"; which is a very good thing, because there is nothing about God that can be subjected to a "proof" according to the methods of science. Plus I don't need to "prove" anything that I regard as "antecedently True" from the very bottom of my soul.
Rather, I want to understand the Universe of which I am "a part and participant." And when I read these lines from Menas Kafatos, professor of Physics at Chapman University, I almost fell over from pure joy:
Today's science has achieved remarkable successes and is an indispensable aspect of humanity. Without science, there can be no progress. Yet, science cannot explain, it is not equipped to explain anything that is not subject to algorithmic rules, to ordinary mathematical descriptions, or in the case of physical systems, partial differential equations. It cannot explain the qualitative aspects of reality. Present science cannot completely explain not only living processes in large aggregates of cells, organisms, etc., or what we may term holistic organizations (it certainly has had great success to account for molecular biochemical processes), but also noetic aspects of reality, mind and consciousness. It cannot explain or even account for the experiences of art, for the entire experience of human life, driven by the emotional levels of the psyche. And certainly it has little to say about the deep underlying nature of the cosmos, or reality, in general.... We believe that present-day science needs to be extended beyond its present limits and it needs a new ontological model of reality, what we term here the science of wholeness. — "The Science of Wholeness," ibid.In short, we are in the early throes of a paradigm shift. And my friend the astrophysicist is a fellow seeker along those lines.
Thank you kindly, dear HHTVL, for your recognition of my "integrity." Given the quest I'm on, I can make all kinds of "mistakes." But if I make mistakes, I want to be corrected. I am not defending any dogma; I am seeking the Truth of Reality.
“... seeking the Truth of Reality.” And so would any good Scientist admit, for they too are seeking the truth of reality, the how. Many of us seek the why, also, and the corollary, Whom. ‘To know Him is to be like Him.’
No, I don't think that. (And conversely, I hope you don't think I'm pursuing a proof for the nonexistence of God.)
At the same time, you have posted that
a living system — an "open" system — cannot "emerge" from a causally closed system as defined by physical, material, or mechanical presuppositions. Something else is required for life. And as increasingly recognized these days, that something else is information — which is not a tangible, material thing.
And my impression is that you contend that the information must have been supplied by an agent outside the system, which may not be a proof of God but is evidence for some First Cause. Right now, I'm just exploring whether the impossibility of a material basis for the emergence of life is necessarily as impossible as you've stated.