Life, thermodynamics, and cybernetics.

Abstract

HOW is it possible to understand life, when the whole world is ruled by such a law as the second of thermodynamics, which points toward death and annihilation? This question has been asked by many scientists, and, in particular, by the Swiss physicist, C. E. Guye, in a very interesting book.1 The problem was discussed at the College de France in 1938, when physicists, chemists, and biologists met to? gether and had difficulty in adjusting their different points of view. We could not reach complete agreement, and at the close of the discus? sions there were three well defined groups of opinion: (A) Our present knowledge of physics and chemistry is practically complete, and these physical and chemical laws will soon enable us to explain life, without the intervention of any special principle. (B) We know a great deal about physics and chemistry, but it is presumptuous to pretend that we know all about them. We hope that, among the things yet to be discovered, some new laws and principles will be found that will give us an interpretation of life. We admit that life obeys all the laws of physics and chemistry at present known to us, but we definitely feel that something more is needed before we can understand life. Whether it be called a principle or otherwise is immaterial. (C) Life cannot be understood without reference to a prin? ciple. The behavior of living organisms is completely different from that of inert matter. Our principles of thermodynamics, and especially the second one, apply only to dead and inert objects; life is an excep? tion to the second principle, and the new of life will have to explain conditions contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Another discussion of the same problems, held at Harvard in 1946, led to similar conclusions and revealed the same differences of opinion. In summarizing these three points of view, I have of course intro? duced some oversimplifications. Recalling the discussions, I am certain that opinions A and B were very clearly expressed. As for opinion C, possibly no one dared to state it as clearly as I have here, but it was surely in the minds of a few scientists, and some of the points intro? duced in the discussion lead logically to this opinion. For instance, con? sider a living organism; it has special properties which enable it to resist destruction, to heal its wounds, and to cure occasional sickness. This is very strange behavior, and nothing similar can be observed about inert matter. Is such behavior an exception to the second prin? ciple? It appears so, at least superficially, and we must be prepared to

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 100 citations exist upstream.