Sep 11, 2026 12:19 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 11, 2026 12:34 PM by C C.)
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-li...of-matter/
EXCERPTS: Though the issue is often marginalized, a deep conceptual chasm continues to separate the physical and biological sciences. Natural scientists invariably agree that biological entities are, to put it colloquially, made of nothing but physical and chemical stuff. [...] As Ernst Mayr said,“no biologist alive today would want to be classified as a vitalist.”
And yet, the striking disconnect between living and non-living is obvious even to a child; toy dogs and real ones behave very differently. [...] How can these chemical differences be understood?
Physics and chemistry continue to struggle to bridge that conceptual gap. And biologists, having found themselves abandoned by their physical colleagues, took the only option seemingly open to them: to stick with a biological approach. An “autonomy of biology” approach to the discipline, developed primarily by Ernst Mayr, became established, one which tended to sideline the contradictions inherent within the physicalist view of life.
But such a situation is clearly unsatisfactory. Here we have two major sciences, physics and biology, each anchored in material reality, irrevocably joined at the hip, yet intrinsically incompatible. [...] There are, of course, many points of agreement between the two sciences. Even quarreling couples agree on some things.
Both sciences acknowledge that the material world, both living and non-living, is made up of the same fundamental atomic building blocks. Both sciences acknowledge that atoms can join in a multitude of ways to form an almost infinite array of possible molecules. And both sciences agree that molecules can self-assemble to generate “stuff.” But from that point, dramatic differences become apparent.
[...] A snowflake is another example of that kind of self-assembly. ... But then there is biological self-assembly as reflected, for example, in the process called ontogeny. Here, a fertilized egg, similar in size to the microcrystal in the crystallization experiment, grows over time. It attracts material from the environment, just like that microcrystal, but in this case, it grows into an embryo and eventually into an adult, whether a human, a frog, or a butterfly. That transformation is clearly directed, just as snowflake formation is directed. But here, the self-assembly occurs in a dazzlingly implausible way.
[...] We have two major sciences, physics and biology, irrevocably joined at the hip, yet intrinsically incompatible.
Broadly speaking, then, we see before us two kinds of self-assembly. In both cases, the beginnings can be found in a microscopic aggregate, but the ensuing self-assembly is unmistakable. They differ in their form, physics, phenomenological qualities, and diversity. Most importantly, one aggregate is alive; the other isn’t.
What causes self-assembly to follow such distinctly different material paths? Again, science currently offers no clear answer.
[...] In the late 1970s, the Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine made a significant contribution to the field by extending thermodynamic principles to non-equilibrium systems. He showed that systems in a non-equilibrium state can self-organize and maintain structures away from equilibrium, despite the natural thermodynamic drive toward equilibrium. Familiar everyday examples include whirlpools, hurricanes, and so-called Bénard cells. ... maintained as long as the heat supply continues. All such non-equilibrium structures are termed dissipative structures, as they continually dissipate energy to be maintained.
And yet, these ideas alone were unable to resolve the dilemma of life. While Prigogine’s landmark ideas on non-equilibrium thermodynamics narrowed the conceptual gap separating living and non-living, they did not lead to the much-sought-after breakthrough. The conceptual gap separating living and non-living systems remained unresolved.
But returning to our states of matter discussion, there is no reason not to classify life as a kind of “fourth” state of matter alongside the three conventional states. [...] The three traditional states of matter are now well understood even though they have distinctly different properties. Water in its liquid phase is quite different from water in its solid form, ice, and very different again from water in its gas state, steam. In fact, water in the gas phase is invisible. Hard to be more different than that.
[...] So where does the living state fit into this scheme? Well, as discussed earlier, it doesn’t. Of course, superficially, the living state does resemble the solid/liquid state of aggregation. But how to interconvert living and non-living states — that direct expression of material understanding — remains out of reach. It is, of course, all too easy to convert living matter into “dead” stuff. But how to coax the non-living state back into the living one without Dr. Frankenstein’s assistance? We still have no idea.
Simply possessing the material building blocks of life is insufficient to solve the mystery. If we think of the living state as a fourth state of matter, we do not know how to induce a phase transition into that fourth state. Puzzlingly, physics, the science of matter and energy, seems to have given up on answering that central question, one that lies at the very heart of biology. How can physics and biology be reformulated to merge as fundamentally as they must?
[...] How can it be that a material form that has overwhelmed our planet has no definable physical or chemical characterization? But here’s the good news: Recent advances in chemical theory now point to a way to resolve the dilemma... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: Though the issue is often marginalized, a deep conceptual chasm continues to separate the physical and biological sciences. Natural scientists invariably agree that biological entities are, to put it colloquially, made of nothing but physical and chemical stuff. [...] As Ernst Mayr said,“no biologist alive today would want to be classified as a vitalist.”
And yet, the striking disconnect between living and non-living is obvious even to a child; toy dogs and real ones behave very differently. [...] How can these chemical differences be understood?
Physics and chemistry continue to struggle to bridge that conceptual gap. And biologists, having found themselves abandoned by their physical colleagues, took the only option seemingly open to them: to stick with a biological approach. An “autonomy of biology” approach to the discipline, developed primarily by Ernst Mayr, became established, one which tended to sideline the contradictions inherent within the physicalist view of life.
But such a situation is clearly unsatisfactory. Here we have two major sciences, physics and biology, each anchored in material reality, irrevocably joined at the hip, yet intrinsically incompatible. [...] There are, of course, many points of agreement between the two sciences. Even quarreling couples agree on some things.
Both sciences acknowledge that the material world, both living and non-living, is made up of the same fundamental atomic building blocks. Both sciences acknowledge that atoms can join in a multitude of ways to form an almost infinite array of possible molecules. And both sciences agree that molecules can self-assemble to generate “stuff.” But from that point, dramatic differences become apparent.
[...] A snowflake is another example of that kind of self-assembly. ... But then there is biological self-assembly as reflected, for example, in the process called ontogeny. Here, a fertilized egg, similar in size to the microcrystal in the crystallization experiment, grows over time. It attracts material from the environment, just like that microcrystal, but in this case, it grows into an embryo and eventually into an adult, whether a human, a frog, or a butterfly. That transformation is clearly directed, just as snowflake formation is directed. But here, the self-assembly occurs in a dazzlingly implausible way.
[...] We have two major sciences, physics and biology, irrevocably joined at the hip, yet intrinsically incompatible.
Broadly speaking, then, we see before us two kinds of self-assembly. In both cases, the beginnings can be found in a microscopic aggregate, but the ensuing self-assembly is unmistakable. They differ in their form, physics, phenomenological qualities, and diversity. Most importantly, one aggregate is alive; the other isn’t.
What causes self-assembly to follow such distinctly different material paths? Again, science currently offers no clear answer.
[...] In the late 1970s, the Belgian physical chemist Ilya Prigogine made a significant contribution to the field by extending thermodynamic principles to non-equilibrium systems. He showed that systems in a non-equilibrium state can self-organize and maintain structures away from equilibrium, despite the natural thermodynamic drive toward equilibrium. Familiar everyday examples include whirlpools, hurricanes, and so-called Bénard cells. ... maintained as long as the heat supply continues. All such non-equilibrium structures are termed dissipative structures, as they continually dissipate energy to be maintained.
And yet, these ideas alone were unable to resolve the dilemma of life. While Prigogine’s landmark ideas on non-equilibrium thermodynamics narrowed the conceptual gap separating living and non-living, they did not lead to the much-sought-after breakthrough. The conceptual gap separating living and non-living systems remained unresolved.
But returning to our states of matter discussion, there is no reason not to classify life as a kind of “fourth” state of matter alongside the three conventional states. [...] The three traditional states of matter are now well understood even though they have distinctly different properties. Water in its liquid phase is quite different from water in its solid form, ice, and very different again from water in its gas state, steam. In fact, water in the gas phase is invisible. Hard to be more different than that.
[...] So where does the living state fit into this scheme? Well, as discussed earlier, it doesn’t. Of course, superficially, the living state does resemble the solid/liquid state of aggregation. But how to interconvert living and non-living states — that direct expression of material understanding — remains out of reach. It is, of course, all too easy to convert living matter into “dead” stuff. But how to coax the non-living state back into the living one without Dr. Frankenstein’s assistance? We still have no idea.
Simply possessing the material building blocks of life is insufficient to solve the mystery. If we think of the living state as a fourth state of matter, we do not know how to induce a phase transition into that fourth state. Puzzlingly, physics, the science of matter and energy, seems to have given up on answering that central question, one that lies at the very heart of biology. How can physics and biology be reformulated to merge as fundamentally as they must?
[...] How can it be that a material form that has overwhelmed our planet has no definable physical or chemical characterization? But here’s the good news: Recent advances in chemical theory now point to a way to resolve the dilemma... (MORE - missing details)
![[Image: 800842050-1739711447305527-9064932617228282952-n.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/PvVyNfQN/800842050-1739711447305527-9064932617228282952-n.jpg)
