Guy Hoelzer  wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler at tim{at}tt1lock.org wrote on 8/10/04 9:10 AM:

> Simple landscapes, like those for most crystallizing systems,
> don't allow evolution because the system just falls into a deep, stable
> structural pit.
> 
> Do you know much about liquid crystals?  They are more
"glassy" than solid
> crystals and seem to overcome at least some of these issues.

As far as I am aware, it is solid crystals that have the most similarities
with living systems.  They seem to have the most clearly 
elucidated inheritance mechanisms - and they are the ones that are
candidates for the first living organism.  I'm not aware of any 
equivalent for liquid crystals - and thus view these as less 
life-like.

> > Even raindrops have inheritance - when they split their offspring
> > definitely share a number of their qualities.
> > 
> > My preferred metric for dealing with such things involves the quantity
> > of heritable information involved.  I would dismiss prospective organisms
> > with not very much heritable information as not /really/ being alive.
> 
> AMOUNT of something seems like a pretty tenuous way to distinguish natural
> categories (e.g., living vs. non-living).

The problem is that there's no concrete line to be drawn between living 
and non-living systems - when talking about primitive systems.

> How much is enough?

Assuming discrete and independent organisms can be detected - then if
there's more than about a 1000 bits of accurately preserved and inherited 
information per organism and I'm happy to categorise a candidate organism 
as being alive.

Much less than that and the situation can grow muddy and unclear.

Raindrops and flames are probably somewhere down in the vicinity of
a few bits.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/14/04 5:27:43 PM