The operator theory contributes in different ways to a range of practical and theoretical questions in science.
1 A new way of defining ‘unity’
Challenge
Scientists use a broad range of terms for ‘entity’, e.g.: ‘object’, ‘holon’, ‘unit’, ‘token’, ‘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 the kind of thing they refer to. For example, the term ‘individual’ can refer to a car, a tree, a city, a bee colony, etc. while each time the criteria for ‘individuality’ are different.
Contribution by OT
The OT defines operators, compound objects, and groups. Using these fundamental classes makes it very easy to define ‘unity’, or ‘individuality’. This precludes a lot of confusion.
2 Major evolutionary transitions
Challenge
Classical theory about major evolutionary transitions (Maynard-Smith and Szathmary 1995) uses three criteria for identifying a major transition, which all three focus on processes:
- Cooperation
- Competition reduction
- Reproduction as part of a larger unit
Being selectively based on process criteria, and by lack of criteria for what is a ‘larger unit’, major transitions theory does not offer means for differentiating between a transition towards an operator and a transition towards a compound object or group. Accordingly, operators, compound objects and interaction systems can all be the product of a major transition. This implies that when ranking major evolutionary transitions, one cannot avoid that one creates rankings that include a mixture of kinds of systems, e.g. cells and societies.
Contribution by OT
The OT demonstrates that in addition to functional criteria, structural criteria are a necessary criterion for the formation of operators and compound objects. To selectively identify all transitions by which operators at closure-level x form new operators at closure-level x+1 one can use dual closure. If dual closure steps are ranked, the resulting ranking is uniform (it contains only operators), is stringent (every step is based on the next possible dual closure), and includes all currently known kinds of operators.
3 A hierarchical definition of the organism
Challenge
For several reasons, the organism concept suffers from long-lasting definition problems. Firstly, the definition must cover organisms of different complexity, from bacteria to multicellular animals. Secondly, different groupings of cells are viewed as multicellular organisms, even though some groups consist of loosely bound cells (the slug of a slime-mold) while in other groups the cells are connected more tightly through plasma channels. Thirdly, there is no clarity whether or not cells in a eukaryotic cell, or in a multicellular organism are bodyparts or organisms. Fourthly, when working definitions are used to select organisms, and these are used as a basis for a general definition, one neither has certainty that all organisms selected are organisms, nor does one have certainty that no organisms are kept outside the selection.
Contribution by OT
The scaffold of the operator hierarchy allows a definition of the organism concept in the following way: “Any operator that is at least as complex as the cell classifies as an organism”. The kinds of operators that classify as organisms are: bacteria, eukaryotic cells, bacterial multicellulars, eukaryotic multicellulars, and eukaryotic multicellulars with a neural network, and in the future, technical organisms. Secondly, the OT demands that a multicellular organism has plasma connections between its cells. Consequently, a group of attached cells such as the slug of a slime-mold is viewed as a pluricellular organization. Thirdly, the OT uses the name organism only for the top level dual closure. This implies that a cell in a multicellular organism counts as a part of the organisms, not as a separate organism.
4 Two definitions of ‘life’
Challenge
The term life is an umbrella term, that has many meanings. Finding a single definition is no longer possible because different meanings refer to non-overlapping logical kinds. Given these considerations, life must be defined in the context where it is used. A major context for the term life is biology. In biology life is a fundamental concept. Yet, even in biology there is no unanimity about a definition. Some even say that because of the continuing failure to define life in a stringent way, scientists should stop trying.
Contribution by OT
The OT offers a framework that gives access to two definitions of life. Above it was shown how the OT can be used to define the organism concept. Now, the organism concept has been defined, it can be used to define ‘organismic life’, or ‘O-life’ as: “a general term for the presence of dual closure in organisms”. Dual closure in other operators is not part of the definition of O-life. Life defined this way is an abstraction that has no instantiations: a thing cannot be O-life. Yet, an organism is a physical thing that complies with the criteria for O-life. Using the OT one can also construct a second definition of life, namely ‘systemic life’, or ‘S-life’ as: “a system in which at least one organism interacts with its environment”. The question “Is there life on Mars” can be answered in two ways now: 1. Can one find at least one organism on Mars? (an entity that represents O-life), 2. Does Mars support a system that contains an organism? (S-life).
5 Minimal and extended Darwinian evolution
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 corner stone of evolutionary thinking, while means of transferring information to the offspring other than genes were pushed to the background. As a means to return to a more general view on Darwinian evolution (in fact, closer to Darwin’s view) it has been proposed to create an ‘extended synthesis’. A clear and minimal basis for the term Darwinian evolution is required, however, before one can speak about ‘extensions’.
Contribution by OT
Firstly, the OT has helped to define the basic unit of biological evolution: the organism. Secondly, using organisms as a basis, pedigrees can be used to define descent. And in such pedigrees, both variation and selection can be given a place as evaluations of differences between offspring in one the same generation. Viewing evolution as a specific pedigree that includes variation and selection, one can start identifying a pedigree that, in the smallest form, meets all criteria for Darwinian evolution. A smallest Darwinian pedigree can serve as the foundation for adding hitherto neglected or recently discovered phenomena as ‘extensions’. Different extensions can lead e.g. to the modern synthesis, or the ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’.
6 Generalizing Darwinian evolution
Challenge
When focusing on genes and organisms, any approach to Darwinian evolution will have a limited scope. Such limitations, however are not inherent to the model of Darwinian evolution, but are the result of the use of organisms as the basic units. A focus on organisms limits the communication with other disciplines that also use evolutionary approaches, e.g. genetic algorithms, artificial evolution, etc.
Contribution by OT
The smallest Darwinian pedigree and its extensions are defined as a graph based on entities (organisms) and relationships (reproduction). This representation can with little difficulty be generalized. Such generalization involves two steps.
- Step 1: Replace ‘reproduction’ by ‘derivation’. Derivation includes any process by which a new entity is ‘derived’ from an earlier entity in the pedigree.
- Step 2: Replace ‘organism’ by any other entity that complies with the criteria for derivation.
7 Future steps in evolution
Challenge
Current approaches to evolution, even the most general ones, focus mainly on organisms and their properties, or on technical developments. It is very hard to use such information as a basis for predictions of the future of evolution. Will a future fish look like a fish? Will this fish be red, green or blue? Will humans change and get bigger brains? Or will technical equipment extend our capacities, and will humans become cyborgs? What framework can be used for predictions like these?
Contribution by OT
When speaking about predicting evolution, the OT focuses not on genes, but on the long series of operators of increasingly complex organization. And if current analysis are correct, which still requires further research, it seems that the long series of increasingly complex operators shows an internal logic. Such logic can be extrapolated to kinds of operators that don’t yet exist. A prediction that may soon become testable is that the next kind of operator is capable of what the OT describes as the potential for ‘structural copying of information’. An intelligent computer may potentially have such capacity because all the information it learned can be potentially accessed -and copied- through the files carrying this information.