Revisiting the Gaia Hypothesis: Maximum Entropy, Kauffman’s ‘Fourth Law’ and Physiosemeiosis

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractRecently, Kleidon suggested a restatement of the Gaia hypothesis based on Maximum Entropy approaches to the Earth system. Refuting conceptions of Gaia as a homeostatic system, Gaia is seen as a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system which continuously moves away from equilibrium, driven by maximum entropy production which materializes in hierarchically coupled mechanisms of energetic flows via dissipation and physical work. I propose to relate this view with Kauffman's 'Fourth Law of Thermodynamics', which I interprete as a proposition about the accumulation of information in evolutionary processes. Then, beyond its use in the Kleidon model, the concept of physical work is expanded to including work directed at the capacity to work: I offer a twofold specification of Kauffman's concept of an 'autonomous agent', one as a 'self-referential heat engine', and the other in terms of physiosemeiosis, which is a naturalized application of Peirce's theory of signs emerging from recent biosemiotic research. I argue that the conjunction of these three theoretical sources, Maximum Entropy, Kauffman's Fourth Law, and physiosemeiosis, allows to show that the Kleidon restatement of the Gaia hypothesis is equivalent to the proposition that the biosphere is a system of generating, processing and storing information, thus directly treating information as a physical phenomenon. I substantiate this argument by proposing a more detailed analysis of the notion of hierarchy in the Kleidon model. In this view, there is a fundamental ontological continuity between the biological processes and the human economy, as both are seen as information processing and entropy producing systems. As with other previous transitions in evolution, the human economy leverages the mechanisms by which Gaia moves further away from equilibrium. This implies that information and natural resources or energy are not substitutes, i.e. the knowledge economy continues to build on the same physical principles as the biosphere, with energy and information being two aspects of the same underlying physical process.

Resurrecting Gaia: harnessing the Free Energy Principle to preserve life as we know it

“…Describing Gaia as a complex system of interacting, self-organising processes that exist in non-equilibrium steady states, actively adapting to changing environmental conditions, affords new syntheses between different conceptual approaches. For instance, combining the greenhouse effect and the role of life in the biosphere provides a unique opportunity to incorporate energy and information as two aspects of the same underlying physical process (Hermann-Pilath, 2011 ), namely the minimisation of free energy.…”

Modifications of Sub-components in Thermal Power Plants for Exergetic Efficiency

“…It is opinioned that, huge exergy destruction in the natural process is one of reason for earth quakes, cyclone etc. According to the literatures [19][20][21] the maximum entropy production has a great influence on global climate conditions. This maximum entropy production is due to continuous exergy destruction.…”

Soziale Sicherung im Spannungsfeld gesellschaftlicher Transformation

“…Insbesondere unter dem Stichwort "Gaia" werden zunehmend auch in der westlichen Wissenschaftswelt Konzepte diskutiert, die die Natur bzw. Leben ganzheitlicher in der Verflechtung mit der biologischen wie nicht-biologischen Umwelt betrachten wollen (Herrmann-Pillath 2011;Kleidon 2010;Lovelock 1991: 10-13;Sutton 2004: 77f. ).…”