The operator theory contributes in various ways to a number of practical and theoretical questions in science.
1 O-theory offers a new way of defining ‘unity’ in nature
Challenge
Scientists use a variety of terms for ‘entity’, such as ‘object’, ‘holon’, ‘unit’, ‘system’, ‘organism’, ‘particle’, ‘individual’, ‘holobiont’, etc. Other terms are used for groups of entities, such as ‘team’, ‘herd’, ‘heap’, ‘galaxy’, etc. Even the most commonly used terms are not always specific about what they refer to. For example, the term ‘individual’ can refer to a car, a tree, a city, a hive of bees, etc., while the criteria for ‘individuality’ are different in each case.
Contribution by O-theory
O-theory uses three main classes: operators, composite objects, and groups. The use of these basic classes provides new ways of defining ‘unity’ or ‘individuality’. By introducing the concept of operator and the related concepts of composite object and group, one can eliminate a lot of confusion about what defines the ‘unity’ of these objects.
2 O-theory elaborates classical ideas about major evolutionary transitions
Challenge
The classical theory of major evolutionary transitions (Maynard-Smith and Szathmary 1995) uses the following process criteria to identify a major transition
1) Entities capable of replicating independently before the transition can only replicate as part of a larger unit after it. For example, free-living bacteria evolved into organelles.
2) The division of labour.
3) There were changes in language, information storage and transmission.
Using these criteria, the theory of major evolutionary transitions does not take into account the three dimensions of hierarchy proposed by O-theory: inward, outward, and upward. Accordingly, parts of operators, operators, and interaction systems can all be the product of a major transition. This means that one either has to consider major evolutionary transitions as a grouping of phenomena that are not part of a ranking, or that when ranking major evolutionary transitions one cannot avoid creating rankings that include a mixture of types of systems, e.g. cells and societies, and are therefore not logically consistent.
Contribution by O-theory
O-theory uses dual closure based on both functional (process closure) and structural (spatial closure) criteria to define the formation of next-level types of operators. Dual closure allows one to selectively identify all transitions by which operators at dual closure level x form new operators at dual closure level x+1. When dual closure steps are ranked, the resulting ranking is uniform (it contains only operators), stringent (each step is based on the next possible dual closure), and includes all currently known types of operators.
The use of dual closure and operators allows one to specify, in a new and fundamental way, classes of “major transitions”. There are transitions along the inward axis (e.g., the transition from DNA to chromosomes). There are transitions along the outward axis (e.g., the transition from the individual to society). There are transitions along the upward axis (e.g., the transition from single cells to multicellularity).
3 O-theory suggests a new basis for defining the organism
Challenge
The concept of organism suffers from persistent definitional problems for several reasons. First, the definition must cover organisms of varying complexity, from bacteria to multicellular animals. Second, different groups of cells are considered to be multicellular organisms, even though some groups consist of loosely bound cells (e.g., the snail of a slime mold), while in other groups the cells are more tightly bound by plasma bridges. Third, it is not clear whether cells in a eukaryotic cell or a multicellular organism are classified as body parts or organisms. Fourth, when working definitions are used to select organisms and these are used as the basis for a general definition, there is no certainty that all the entities selected are organisms, nor can it be prevented that some entities are not recognized as organisms and are left out of the selection.
Contribution by O-theory
The operator hierarchy can be used to define the organism concept in the following way: “Any operator that is at least as complex as the cell is classified as an organism”. The types of operators that are classified as organisms are: bacteria, eukaryotic cells, bacterial multicellulars, eukaryotic multicellulars, and eukaryotic multicellulars with a neural network, and in the future, technical organisms. When we talk about multicellular organisms, O-theory requires that they have plasma connections between their cells. As a result, a group of genetically distinct, attached cells, such as those that form the slug of a slime mold, is considered a pluricellular organization. When speaking of organisms, O-theory uses the name organism only for the highest level of dual closure. This means that a cell in a multicellular organism is considered part of the organism, not a separate organism.
4 O-theory offers an innovative basis for defining ‘life’
Challenge
Life is an umbrella term that has many meanings in different contexts. These refer to non-overlapping logical types. For this reason it is no longer possible to find a single definition. Given these considerations, life currently has different definitions in each context in which it is used. Typically, life is used in the context of biology, where life is a fundamental concept. But even in biology there is no agreement on a definition. Some even say that because of the continuing failure to define life in a rigorous way, scientists should stop trying.
Contribution by O-theory
O-theory provides a framework that allows access to a new definition of life. Based on the above concept of organism, life can be defined as the general property shared by all organisms as follows: Life – as a generic property – is “the presence of a dual closure of the level of the cell or higher”. Such dual closures define the operators that O-theory labels as organisms. Dual closures in other operators, such as atoms or molecules, are not part of the new definition of life. Life – as a general property – is an abstraction that has no instantiations: a thing cannot be life. Instead, a thing can be an operator with the label organism, which implies that it satisfies the criteria for life. The question “Is there life on Mars?” can now be translated as “Can you find at least one organism on Mars?” (an entity that satisfies the criterion of life).
5 Minimal and extended evolution (with selection)
Challenge
Darwin defined evolution in general terms as “descent with modification by variation and selection”. Later, the modern synthesis introduced a strong focus on sexual populations and genetics. In this way, the population concept became the cornerstone of evolutionary thinking, while means of transmitting information other than genes to offspring were pushed into the background. As a means of creating a more general view of Darwinian evolution, the creation of an “extended synthesis” has been proposed. However, a clear and minimal basis for the term “evolution” is required before one can speak of “extensions”.
Contribution by O-theory
First, O-theory helped define the basic unit of biological evolution: the organism. Second, based on organisms, genealogical trees can be used to define descent. And in such pedigrees, patterns of both variation and selection can be given a place as assessments of differences between offspring in the same generation. By viewing evolution as a specific pedigree that includes variation and selection, one can begin to identify a pedigree that, in its smallest form, satisfies all the criteria for evolution. A minimal pedigree can serve as a basis for adding hitherto neglected or recently discovered phenomena as ‘extensions’. Different extensions can lead, for example, to the modern synthesis or to the ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’.
6 Generalizing Darwinian evolution
Challenge
Any approach to evolution that focuses on genes and organisms will have a limited scope. Such limitations are not inherent in the model of evolution by selection (which implies variation and information transfer), but are the result of a selective focus on organisms as basic units. Such a focus limits communication with other disciplines that also use evolutionary approaches, e.g. genetic algorithms, artificial evolution, etc.
Contribution by O-theory
The smallest biological family tree with selection (as a pattern) and its extensions are defined as a graph based on entities (organisms) and relationships (reproduction). This representation can be generalised with little difficulty. Such a generalisation involves two steps.
Step 1: Replace ‘reproduction’ with ‘derivation’. Derivation includes any process by which a new entity is ‘derived’ from an earlier entity in the family tree.
Step 2: Replace ‘organism’ with any other entity that meets the criteria for derivation.
7 Extrapolation of the operator hierarchy suggests future steps in evolution
Challenge
Current approaches to evolution, even the most general, focus mainly on organisms and their properties. It is not so easy to use organisms as a basis for predictions about the types of agents that might evolve in the future. First, there are many phenomena that preclude evolutionary predictions. Genetic mutations are essentially random. The environment selects for both simple and complex forms, so complexity is not an end in itself. And chaos theory precludes accurate predictions about the future of evolution because of the feedback between organisms and their environment. But there are legitimate questions about whether humans will change and get bigger brains, or whether technological devices will enhance our abilities and turn us into cyborgs, or whether robots themselves are the next step? What framework can be used to decide such questions?
Contribution by O-theory
When it comes to predicting evolution, O-theory focuses not on genes but on the long series of operators, each next type having a more complex blueprint than the one before it. And if current analyses are correct, which requires further research, the long series of increasingly complex operators seems to have an internal logic. This logic can be extrapolated to types of operators that don’t yet exist. One prediction that may soon be testable is that the next type of operator will have what O-theory describes as the potential to deal with “individual information structures”. An intelligent computer could potentially have such a capability because all the information it learns could potentially be accessed – and copied – through the files that carry individual information structures.