The operator theory contributes in various ways to a number of practical and theoretical questions in science.
1 A new way of defining ‘unity’
Challenge
Scientists use a wide range of terms for ‘entity’, e.g. ‘object’, ‘holon’, ‘unit’, ‘sign’, ‘system’, ‘organism’, ‘particle’, ‘individual’, ‘holobiont’, etc. Other terms are used for groups of entities, e.g. ‘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 OT
The OT uses three main classes: operators, composite objects and groups. Using these basic classes makes it very easy to define ‘unity’ or ‘individuality’. This eliminates a lot of confusion.
2 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 transitions provides no means of distinguishing between a transition along each of the three dimensions of OT: inward, outward and upward. Accordingly, parts of operators, operators and interaction systems can all be the product of a major transition. This means 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 OT
The OT uses dual closure based on both functional (process closure) and structural (spatial closure) criteria to define the formation of the different types of operators. Dual closure allows one to selectively identify all transitions by which operators at closure level x form new operators at 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 fundamental way, classes of ‘major transitions’. There are transitions along the inward axis (e.g. from DNA to chromosomes). There are transitions along the outward axis (e.g. from individuals to society). There are transitions along the upward axis (e.g. from single cells to multicellularity).
3 A hierarchical definition of the organism
Challenge
The concept of organism suffers from persistent definitional problems for several reasons. First, the definition has to 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 mould), while in other groups the cells are more tightly bound by plasma bridges. Thirdly, it is not clear whether cells in a eukaryotic cell or in a multicellular organism are 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 organisms selected are organisms, nor is there certainty that no organisms are left out of the selection.
Contribution by OT
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 classifies 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 talking about multicellular organisms, the OT requires them to have plasma connections between their cells. Consequently, a group of genetically different, attached cells, such as those that form the slug of a slime mould, is regarded as a pluricellular organisation. When speaking of organisms, the OT uses the name organism only for the highest level of dual closure. This means that a cell in a multicellular organism is considered to be part of the organisms, not a separate organism.
4 A new definition of ‘life’
Challenge
The term 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. An important context for the concept of life is biology. In biology, 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 OT
The OT provides a framework that gives access to a new definition of life. Based on the above organism concept, life can be defined as the general property shared by all organisms, as follows: Life – as a generic property – is “the presence of dual closure of the level of the cell or higher”. Such dual closures define the operators the OT 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 an organism label, which implies fulfillment of 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 fulfills the criterion of life).
5 Minimal and extended evolution (with selection)
Challenge
Darwin defined evolution in general terms as “descent with modification through 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, it has been proposed to create an ‘extended synthesis’. However, a clear and minimal basis for the term ‘evolution’ is required before one can speak of ‘extensions’.
Contribution by OT
First, the OT has helped to define the basic unit of biological evolution: the organism. Secondly, 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. 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 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), but are the result of using organisms as the basic units. Such a focus limits communication with other disciplines that also use evolutionary approaches, e.g. genetic algorithms, artificial evolution, etc.
Contribution by OT
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 Future steps in evolution
Challenge
Current approaches to evolution, even the most general, focus mainly on organisms and their properties, or on technical developments. It is not so easy to use such a basis to make predictions about the types of entities that might evolve in the future. Will humans change and get bigger brains? Or will technological devices enhance our abilities and turn us into cyborgs? Or are robots themselves the next step? What framework can be used to decide such questions?
Contribution by OT
When talking about predicting evolution, the OT focuses not on genes but on the long series of operators of increasingly complex organisation. 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 the OT 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.