Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
16(II) (2007) 11–96 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics
Physics of Life from First Principles
Michail Zak
∗
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Received 25 January 2007, Accepted 15 May 2007, Published 20 December 2007
Abstract: The objective of this work is to extend the First Principles of Newtonian mechanics to include modeling of behavior of
Livings. One of the most fundamental problems associated with modeling life is to understand a mechanism of progressive evolution of
complexity typical for living systems. It has been recently recognized that the evolution of living systems is progressive in a sense that it is
directed to the highest levels of complexity if the complexity is measured by an irreducible number of diﬀerent parts that interact in a well
regulated fashion. Such a property is not consistent with the behavior of isolated Newtonian systems that cannot increase their complexity
without external forces. Indeed, the solutions to the models based upon dissipative Newtonian dynamics eventually approach attractors
where the evolution stops, while these attractors dwell on the subspaces of lower dimensionality, and therefore, of the lower complexity. If
thermal forces are added to mechanical ones, the Newtonian dynamics is extended to the Langevin dynamics combining both mechanics
and thermodynamics eﬀects; it is represented by stochastic diﬀerential equations that can be utilized for more advanced models in which
randomness stands for multichoice patterns of behavior typical for living systems. However, even those models do not capture the main
property of living systems, i.e. their ability to evolve towards increase of complexity without external forces. Indeed, the Langevin dynamics
is complemented by the corresponding diﬀusion equation that describes the evolution of the distribution of the probability density over the
state variables; in case of an isolated system, the entropy of the probability density cannot decrease, and that expresses the second law of
thermodynamics. From the viewpoint of complexity, this means that the state variables of the underlying system eventually start behaving
in a uniform fashion with lesser distinguished features, i.e. with lower complexity. Reconciliation of evolution of life with the second law of
thermodynamics is the central problem addressed in this paper. It is solved via introduction of the First Principle for modeling behavior of living
systems. The structure of the model is quantuminspired: it acquires the topology of the Madelung equation in which the quantum potential
is replaced with the information potential. As a result, the model captures the most fundamental property of life: the progressive evolution,
i.e. the ability to evolve from disorder to order without any external interference. The mathematical structure of the model can be obtained
from the Newtonian equations of motion (representing the motor dynamics) coupled with the corresponding Liouville equation (representing
the mental dynamics) via information forces. The unlimited capacity for increase of complexity is provided by interaction of the system with
its mental images via chains of reﬂections: What do you think I think you think. . . ?. All these speciﬁc nonNewtonian properties equip the
model with the levels of complexity that match the complexity of life, and that makes the model applicable for description of behaviors of
ecological, social and economics systems.
c Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Physics of life, Biophysics, Complex Systems
PACS (2006): 87.10.+e, 89.75.k, 89.75.Fb, 87.16.Ac
“Life is to create order in the disordered environment against the second law of thermodynamics”. E. Schr¨odinger, 1945.
1. Introduction
It does not take much knowledge or experience to distinguish a living matter from
inanimate in daytoday situations. Paradoxically, there is no formal deﬁnition of life that
would be free of exceptions and counterexamples. There are at least two reasons for that.
∗
Michail.Zak@jpl.nasa.gov
12 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Firstly, many complex physical and chemical phenomena can mimic prints of life so closely
that special methods are required to make the distinction. Secondly, extraterrestrial life,
in principle, can be composed of components which are fundamentally diﬀerent from
those known on Earth. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to formulate some
invariants of life in terms of phenomenology of behavior.
Modeling of life can be performed on many diﬀerent levels of description. While there
is no universal agreement on the deﬁnition of life, scientists generally accept that the
biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena (Wikipedia): Orga
nization  Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units
of life. Metabolism  Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material
into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living
things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the
other phenomena associated with life. Growth  Growth results from a higher rate of
synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather
than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand
as the evolution continues to ﬂourish. Adaptation  Adaptation is the accommodation
of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and
is determined by the organism’s heredity as well as the composition of metabolized sub
stances, and external factors present. Response to stimuli  A response can take many
forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions
involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the
leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. Reproduction
 The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is
applied to the production of a new individual (asexually, from a single parent organism,
or sexually, from at least two diﬀering parent organisms), although strictly speaking it
also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
In this paper, we will address only one aspect of Life: a biosignature, i.e. mechan
ical invariants of Life, and in particular, the geometry and kinematics of behavior
of Livings disregarding other aspects of Life. By narrowing the problem in this way, we
will be able to extend the mathematical formalism of physics’ First Principles to include
description of behavior of Livings. In order to illustrate the last statement, consider the
following situation. Suppose that we are observing trajectories of several particles: some
or them physical (for instance, performing a Brownian motion), and others are biological
(for instance, bacteria), Figure 1. Is it possible, based only upon the kinematics of the
observed trajectories, to ﬁnd out which particle is alive? The test for the proposed model
is to produce the correct answer.
Thus, the objective of this paper is to introduce a dynamical formalism describing
the behavior of Livings. All the previous attempts to develop models for so called ac
tive systems (i.e., systems that possess certain degree of autonomy from the environment
that allows them to perform motions that are not directly controlled from outside) have
been based upon the principles of Newtonian and statistical mechanics, (A. S. Mikhailov,
1990). These models appear to be so general that they predict not only physical, but also
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 13
some biological and economical, as well as social patterns of behavior exploiting such fun
damental properties of nonlinear dynamics as attractors. Not withstanding indisputable
successes of that approach (neural networks, distributed active systems, etc.) there is still
a fundamental limitation that characterizes these models on a dynamical level of descrip
tion: they propose no diﬀerence between a solar system, a swarm of insects, and a stock
market. Such a phenomenological reductionism is incompatible with the ﬁrst principle
of progressive biological evolution associated with Darwin (I. Prigogine, 1980, H. Haken,
1988). According to this principle, the evolution of living systems is directed toward the
highest levels of complexity if the complexity is measured by an irreducible number of dif
ferent parts which interact in a wellregulated fashion (although in some particular cases
deviations from this general tendency are possible). At the same time, the solutions to
the models based upon dissipative Newtonian dynamics eventually approach attractors
where the evolution stops while these attractors dwell on the subspaces of lower dimen
sionality, and therefore, of the lower complexity (until a “master” reprograms the model).
Therefore, such models fail to provide an autonomous progressive evolution of living sys
tems (i.e. evolution leading to increase of complexity), Figure 2. Let us now extend
the dynamical picture to include thermal forces. That will correspond to the stochastic
extension of Newtonian models, while the Liouville equation will extend to the so called
FokkerPlanck equation that includes thermal force eﬀects through the diﬀusion term.
Actually, it is a wellestablished fact that evolution of life has a diﬀusionbased stochastic
nature as a result of the multichoice character of behavior of living systems. Such an
extended thermodynamicsbased approach is more relevant to model of living systems,
and therefore, the simplest living species must obey the second law of thermodynamics
as physical particles do. However, then the evolution of living systems (during periods
of their isolation) will be regressive since their entropy will increase (I. Prigogine, 1961),
Figure 3. As pointed out by R. Gordon (1999), a stochastic motion describing physical
systems does not have a sense of direction, and therefore, it cannot describe a progressive
evolution. As an escape from this paradox, Gordon proposed a concept of diﬀerentiating
waves (represented by traveling waves of chemical concentration or mechanical defor
mation) which are asymmetric by their nature, and this asymmetry creates a sense of
direction toward progressive evolution. Although the concept of diﬀerentiating waves
itself seems convincing, it raises several questions to be answered: Who or what arranges
the asymmetry of the diﬀerentiating waves in the “right” direction? How to incorporate
their formalism into statistical mechanics providing progressive evolution without a vio
lation of the second law of thermodynamics? Thus, although the stochastic extension of
Newtonian models can be arranged in many diﬀerent ways (for instance, via relaxation
of the Lipschitz conditions, (M. Zak, 1992), or by means of opening escaperoutes from
the attractors), the progressive evolution of living systems cannot be provided.
The limitations discussed above have been addressed in several publications in which
the authors were seeking a “border line” between living and nonliving systems. It is
worth noticing that one of the “most obvious” distinctive properties of the living systems,
namely, their intentionality, can be formally disqualiﬁed by simple counterexamples; in
14 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
deed, any mechanical (nonliving) system has an “objective” to minimize action (the
Hamilton principle) as well as any isolated diﬀusionbased stochastic (nonliving) sys
tem has an “objective” to maximize the entropy production (“The Jaynes Principle,”
H. Haken, 1988). The departure from Newtonian models via introduction of dynamics
with expectations and feedback from future has been proposed by B. Huberman and his
associates (B. Huberman, 1988). However, despite the fact that the nonNewtonian na
ture of living systems in these works was captured correctly, there is no global analytical
model that would unify the evolution of the agent’s state variables and their probabilistic
characteristics such as expectations, selfimages etc.
Remaining within the framework of dynamical formalism, and based only upon kine
matics of the particle, we will associate life with the inequality that holds during, at least,
some time interval
dH
dt
< 0 (1)
where
H(t) = −
V
ρ(V, t) ln ρ(V, t)dV (1a)
Here H is entropy of the particle, V is the particle velocity, and ρ is the probability density
characterizing the velocity distribution. Obviously, the condition (1) is only suﬃcient,
but not necessary since even a living particle may choose not to exercise its privilege to
decrease disorder.
It seems unreasonable to introduce completely new principles for Living’s behavior
since Livings belong to the Newtonian world: they obey the First Principles of Newto
nian mechanics, although these Principles are necessary, but not suﬃcient: they should
be complemented by additional statements linked to the Second Law of thermodynam
ics and enforcing Eq. (1). One of the main objectives of this paper is to extend the
First Principles of classical physics to include phenomenological behavior on living sys
tems, i.e. to develop a new mathematical formalism within the framework of classical
dynamics that would allow one to capture the speciﬁc properties of natural or artiﬁcial
living systems such as formation of the collective mind based upon abstract images of
the selves and nonselves, exploitation of this collective mind for communications and
predictions of future expected characteristics of evolution, as well as for making decisions
and implementing the corresponding corrections if the expected scenario is diﬀerent from
the originally planned one. The approach is based upon our previous publications (M.
Zak, 1999a, 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2006a, 2007a, 2007b and 2007c) that postulate that even
a primitive living species possesses additional nonNewtonian properties which are not
included in the laws of Newtonian or statistical mechanics. These properties follow from
a privileged ability of living systems to possess a selfimage (a concept introduced in
psychology) and to interact with it. The proposed mathematical formalism is quantum
inspired: it is based upon coupling the classical dynamical system representing the motor
dynamics with the corresponding Liouville equation describing the evolution of initial
uncertainties in terms of the probability density and representing the mental dynamics.
(Compare with the Madelung equation that couples the HamiltonJacobi and Liouville
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 15
equations via the quantum potential.)The coupling is implemented by the information
based supervising forces that can be associated with the selfawareness. These forces
fundamentally change the pattern of the probability evolution, and therefore, leading to
a major departure of the behavior of living systems from the patterns of both Newtonian
and statistical mechanics. Further extension, analysis, interpretation, and application of
this approach to complexity in Livings and emergent intelligence will be addressed in this
paper. It should be stressed that the proposed model is supposed to capture the signa
ture of life on the phenomenological level, i.e., based only upon the observable behavior,
and therefore, it will not include a biochemical machinery of metabolism. Such a limi
tation will not prevent one from using this model for developing artiﬁcial living systems
as well as for studying some general properties of behavior of natural living systems.
Although the proposed model is supposed to be applicable to both open and isolated
autonomous systems, the attention will be concentrated upon the latter since such prop
erties of Livings as free will, prediction of future, decision making abilities, and especially,
the phenomenology of mind, become more transparent there. It should be emphasized
that the objective of the proposed approach is not to overperform alternative approaches
to each particular problem (such approaches not only exist, but they may be even more
advanced and eﬃcient), but rather to develop a general strategy (by extending the First
Principles of physics) that would be the starting point for any particular problem. The
impotence of the general strategy can be illustrated by the following examplepuzzle:
Suppose that a picture is broken into many small pieces that are being mixed up; in or
der to eﬃciently reconstruct this picture, one has to know how this picture should look;
otherwise the problem becomes combinatorial, and practically, unsolvable. This puzzle
is directly related to the topdown approach to Physics of Life.
The paper presents a review of the author’s publications (M. Zak, 1999a, 2003, 2004,
2005a, 2006a, 2006b, and 2006c).
2. Dynamics with Liouville Feedback
2.1 Destabilizing Eﬀect of Liouville Feedback
We will start with derivation of an auxiliary result that illuminates departure from
Newtonian dynamics. For mathematical clarity, we will consider here a onedimensional
motion of a unit mass under action of a force f depending upon the velocity v and time t
˙ v = f(v, t), (2)
If initial conditions are not deterministic, and their probability density is given in the
form
ρ
0
= ρ
0
(V ), where ρ ≥ 0, and
∞
−∞
ρdV = 1 (3)
while ρ is a single valued function, then the evolution of this density is expressed by the
corresponding Liouville equation
16 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
∂ρ
∂t
+
∂
∂v
(ρf) = 0 (4)
The solution of this equation subject to initial conditions and normalization constraints
(3) determines probability density as a function of V andt : ρ = ρ(V, t).
In order to deal with the constraint (3), let us integrate Eq. (4) over the whole space
assuming that ρ →0 at V  →∞ and f < ∞ . Then
∂
∂t
∞
−∞
ρdV = 0,
∞
−∞
ρdV = const, (5)
Hence, the constraint (3) is satisﬁed for t > 0 if it is satisﬁed for t = 0.
Let us now specify the force f as a feedback from the Liouville equation
f(v, t) = ϕ[ρ(v, t)] (6)
and analyze the motion after substituting the force (6) into Eq.(2)
˙ v = ϕ[ρ(v, t)], (7)
This is a fundamental step in our approach. Although the theory of ODE does not impose
any restrictions upon the force as a function of space coordinates, the Newtonian physics
does: equations of motion are never coupled with the corresponding Liouville equation.
Moreover, it can be shown that such a coupling leads to nonNewtonian properties of the
underlying model. Indeed, substituting the force ffrom Eq. (6) into Eq. (5), one arrives
at the nonlinear equation for evolution of the probability density
∂ρ
∂t
+
∂
∂V
{ρϕ[ρ(V, t)]} = 0 (8)
Let us now demonstrate the destabilizing eﬀect of the feedback (6). For that purpose, it
should be noted that the derivative ∂ρ/∂vmust change its sign, at least once, within the
interval−∞< v < ∞, in order to satisfy the normalization constraint (3).
But since
Sign
∂ ˙ v
∂v
= Sign
dϕ
dρ
Sign
∂ρ
∂v
(9)
there will be regions of v where the motion is unstable, and this instability generates
randomness with the probability distribution guided by the Liouville equation (8). It
should be noticed that the condition (9) may lead to exponential or polynomial growth
of v (in the last case the motion is called neutrally stable, however, as will be shown
below, it causes the emergence of randomness as well if prior to the polynomial growth,
the Lipcshitz condition is violated).
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 17
2.2 Emergence of Randomness
In order to illustrate mathematical aspects of the concepts of Liouville feedback, as well
as associated with it instability and randomness let us take the feedback (6) in the form
f = −σ
2
∂
∂v
ln ρ (10)
to obtain the following equation of motion
˙ v = −σ
2
∂
∂v
ln ρ, (11)
This equation should be complemented by the corresponding Liouville equation (in this
particular case, the Liouville equation takes the form of the FokkerPlanck equation)
∂ρ
∂t
= σ
2
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
(12)
Here v stands for a particle velocity, and σ
2
is the constant diﬀusion coeﬃcient.
The solution of Eq. (12) subject to the sharp initial condition is
ρ =
1
2σ
√
πt
exp(−
V
2
4σ
2
t
) (13)
Substituting this solution into Eq. (11) at V = v one arrives at the diﬀerential equation
with respect to v(t)
˙ v =
v
2t
(14)
and therefore,
v = C
√
t (15)
where C is an arbitrary constant. Since v = 0 at t = 0 for any value of C, the solution (15)
is consistent with the sharp initial condition for the solution (13) of the corresponding
Liouvile equation (12). The solution (15) describes the simplest irreversible motion: it is
characterized by the “beginning of time” where all the trajectories intersect (that results
from the violation of Lipschitz condition at t = 0, Fig.4), while the backward motion
obtained by replacement of t with (−t) leads to imaginary values of velocities. One can
notice that the probability density (13) possesses the same properties.
For a ﬁxed C, the solution (15) is unstable since
d˙ v
dv
=
1
2t
> 0 (16)
and therefore, an initial error always grows generating randomness. Initially, at t = 0,
this growth is of inﬁnite rate since the Lipschitz condition at this point is violated
d˙ v
dv
→∞ at t →0 (17)
This type of instability has been introduced and analyzed by (Zak, M., 1992).
18 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Considering ﬁrst Eq. (15) at ﬁxed C as a sample of the underlying stochastic process
(13), and then varying C, one arrives at the whole ensemble characterizing that process,
(see Fig. 4). One can verify that, as follows from Eq. (13), (Risken., 1989) that the
expectation and the variance of this process are, respectively
MV = 0, DV = 2σ
2
t (18)
The same results follow from the ensemble (15) at −∞ ≤ C ≤ ∞. Indeed, the ﬁrst
equality in (18) results from symmetry of the ensemble with respect to v = 0; the second
one follows from the fact that
DV ∝ v
2
∝ t (19)
It is interesting to notice that the stochastic process (15) is an alternative to the following
Langevin equation, (Risken., 1989)
˙ v = Γ(t), MΓ = 0, DΓ = σ (20)
that corresponds to the same FokkerPlanck equation (12). Here Γ(t) is the Langevin
(random) force with zero mean and constant varianceσ.
The results described in this subsection can be generalized to ndimensional case,
(Zak, M, 2007b)
2.3 Emergence of Entanglement
In order to introduce and illuminate a fundamentally new nonNewtonian phenomenon
similar to quantum entanglement, let us assume that the function ϕ(ρ) in Eq. (6) is
invertible, i.e. ρ = ϕ
−1
(f). Then Eqs. (7) and (8) take the form, respectively
˙ v = ρ, (7a)
∂ρ
∂t
+
∂
∂V
(ρ
2
) = 0 (7b)
As follows from Eq. (7) with reference to the normalization constraint (3)
∞
−∞
ϕ
−1
[ ˙ v(V, t)]dV = 1 (21)
It should be mentioned that nonNewtonian properties of solution to Eq. (8a) such as
shock waves in probability space have been studied in (Zak, M., 2004, 2006c), Fig. 24.
Thus, the motions of the particles emerged from instability of Eq. (7a) are entangled:
they must satisfy the global kinematical constraint (20). It is instructive to notice that
quantum entanglement was discovered in a special class of quantum states that become
entangled in the course of their simultaneous creation.
Similar result can be obtained for the feedback (10). Indeed, let us rewrite Eq. (11)
in the form
˙ v(t, C) = −σ
2
∂
∂C
ln ρ, (22)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 19
where
ρ =
1
2σ
√
πt
exp(−
C
2
4σ
2
t
) (23)
Integrating Eq. (21) over the whole region −∞ ≤ C ≤ ∞, one arrives at the following
global constraint in the form
∞
−∞
˙ v(t, C)dC = −σ
2
[ln ρ(C = ∞) −ln ρ(C = −∞)] = 0 (24)
that entangles accelerations of diﬀerent samples of the same stochastic process. The same
result follows from symmetry of the acceleration ﬁeld plotted in Fig. 5. It is important
to notice that the FokkerPlanck equation (12) does not impose any constraints upon
the corresponding Langevin equation (20), i.e. upon the accelerations ˙ v. In order to
demonstrate it, consider two particles driven by the same Langevin force Γ(t)
˙ v
1
= Γ(t), ˙ v
2
= Γ(t), MΓ = 0, DΓ = σ (25)
Obviously, the diﬀerence between the particles accelerations, in general, is not zero: it
represents a stationary stochastic process with the zero mean and the variance 2σ.That
conﬁrms the fact that entanglement is a fundamental nonNewtonian eﬀect: it requires
a feedback from the Liouville equation to the equations of motion. Indeed, unlike the
Langevin equation, the solution to Eq. (11) has a wellorganized structure: as follows
from Eq. (15) and Figs. 4 and 5, the initial “explosion” of instability driven by the
violation of the Lipschitz condition at t = 0 distributes the motion over the family of
smooth trajectories with the probability expressed by Eq. (22). Therefore, as follows
from Eq.(23), the entanglement eﬀect correlates diﬀerent samples of the same stochas
tic process. As a result of that, each entangled particle can predict motion of another
entangled particle in a fully deterministic manner as soon as it detects the velocity or
acceleration of that particle at least at one point; moreover, since Eqs. (11) and (12) are
invariant with respect to position of the particles, the distance between these particles
will not play any role in their entanglement.
It should be emphasized that the concept of a global constraint is one of the main
attribute of Newtonian mechanics. It includes such idealizations as a rigid body, an
incompressible ﬂuid, an inextensible string and a membrane, a nonslip rolling of a rigid
ball over a rigid body, etc. All of those idealizations introduce geometrical or kinematical
restrictions to positions or velocities of particles and provides “instantaneous” speed of
propagation of disturbances. However, the global constraint
∞
−∞
ρdV = 1 (26)
is fundamentally diﬀerent from those listed above for two reasons. Firstly, this constraint
is not an idealization, and therefore, it cannot be removed by taking into account more
20 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
subtle properties of matter such as elasticity, compressibility, etc. Secondly, it imposes
restrictions not upon positions or velocities of particles, but upon the probabilities of their
positions or velocities, and that is where the entanglement comes from.
Continuing this brief review of global constraints, let us discuss the role of the reac
tions to these constraints, and in particular, let us ﬁnd the analog of reactions of global
constraints in quantum mechanics. One should recall that in an incompressible ﬂuid,
the reaction to the global constraint ∇ · v ≥ 0 (expressing nonnegative divergence of
the velocity v) is a nonnegative pressure p ≥ 0; in inextensible ﬂexible (one or two
dimensional) bodies, the reaction of the global constraint g
ij
≤ g
0
ij
, i, j =1,2 (expressing
that the components of the metric tensor cannot exceed their initial values) is a non
negative stress tensor σ
ij
≥ 0, i, j=1,2. Turning to quantum mechanics and considering
the uncertainty inequality
ΔxΔp ≥
2
(27)
in which Δx and Δp are the standard deviation of coordinate and impulse, respectively
as a global constraint, one arrives at the quantum potential
2
∇
2
√
ρ
2m
√
ρ
as a “reaction” of
this constraint in the Madelung equations
∂ρ
∂t
+∇• (
ρ
m
∇S) = 0 (28)
∂S
∂t
+ (∇S)
2
+ V −
2
∇
2
√
ρ
2m
√
ρ
= 0 (29)
Here ρ and S are the components of the wave functionϕ =
√
ρe
iS/h
, and is the Planck
constant divided by 2π. But since Eq. (27) is actually the Liouville equation, the quantum
potential represents a Liouville feedback similar to those introduced above via Eqs. (6)
and (10. Due to this topological similarity with quantum mechanics, the models that
belong to the same class as those represented by the system (7), (8) are expected to
display properties that are closer to quantum rather than to classical ones.
2.4 Summary
A new kind of dynamics that displays nonNewtonian properties such as selfgenerated
randomness and entanglement of diﬀerent samples of the same stochastic process has been
introduced. These novel phenomena result from a feedback from the Liouville equation to
the equation of motion that is similar (but not identical) to those in quantum mechanics.
3. From Disorder to Order
3.1 Information Potential
Before introducing the model of Livings, we have to discuss another nontrivial prop
erty of systems with the Liouville feedback. For that purpose, consider a Newtonian
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 21
particle of mass comparable to the mass of the molecules. Such a particle is subjected to
a ﬂuctuating (thermal) force qL(t) called the Langevin force. The Brownian motion (in
terms of the velocity v) of that particle is described by a stochastic diﬀerential equation
˙ v = qL(t), < L(t) >= 0, < L(t)L(t
) >= 2δ(t −t
). (30)
Here q = const is the strength of ﬂuctuations. The probability density ρ(V,t) of the
velocity distribution is described by the corresponding FokkerPlanck equation
∂ρ
∂t
= q
2
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
(31)
The solution to this equation that starts with the sharp initial value at V = 0
ρ =
1
2q
√
πt
exp(−
V
2
4q
2
t
) (32)
demonstrates monotonous increase of entropy as a measure of disorder. Another property
of this solution is its irreversibility: replacement of t with (t) leads to imaginary values
of density ρ.
It should be emphasized that Eqs. (29) and (30) are not coupled; in other words, the
particle “does not know” about its own probability distribution. This fact represents a
general property of Newtonian dynamics: the equations of motion (for instance, the
HamiltonJacobi equation) are not coupled with the corresponding Liouville equation
as well as the Langevin equations are not coupled with the corresponding FokkerPlanck
equation. However, in quantum mechanics, the HamiltonJacobi equation is coupled with
the Liouville equation via the quantum potential, and that constitutes the fundamental
diﬀerence between the Newtonian and quantum worlds.
Following quantum formalism, let us couple Eqs. (29) and (30). For that purpose,
introduce a function
Π = −αln ρ(v, t) (33)
This function can be called “the information potential” since its expected value [M ln
ρ] is equal to the Shannon information capacity H. (However, this potential cannot
be identiﬁed with a potential energy since it depends upon velocities rather than upon
positions). The gradient of this potential taken with the opposite sign can represent an
informationbased force F = grad Π per unit mass.
˙ v = qL(t) +
α
ρ
∂ρ
∂v
. (34)
3.2 Negative Diﬀusion
Let us apply this force to the particle in Eq. (29) and present this equation in a dimen
sionless form assuming that the parameter α absorbs the characteristic velocity and the
characteristic time
22 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
If one chooses α = q
2
, then the corresponding Liouville equation (that takes the form
of the FokkerPlanck equation) will change from (30) to the following
∂ρ
∂t
= q
2
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
−
∂
∂V
[ρ
q
2
ρ
∂ρ
∂V
] = 0, ρ = ρ
0
(V ) = const (35)
Thus, the information force stops the diﬀusion. However, the information force can be
even more eﬀective: it can reverse the diﬀusion process and push the probability density
back to the sharp value in ﬁnite time. Indeed, suppose that in the information potential
α = q
2
exp
√
D., where D(t) =
∞
−∞
ρV
2
dV. (36)
Then the FokkerPlanck equation takes the form
∂ρ
∂t
= [q
2
(1 −exp
√
D)]
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
. (37)
Multiplying Eq.(36) by V
2
, then integrating it with respect to V over the whole space,
one arrives at ODE for the variance D(t)
˙
D = 2q
2
(1 −exp
√
D), i.e.
˙
D ≤ 0 if D ≥ 0 (38)
Thus, as a result of negative diﬀusion, the variance D monotonously vanishes regardless
of the initial value D(0). It is interesting to note that the time T of approaching D = 0
is ﬁnite
T =
1
q
2
0
D(0)
dD
1 −exp
√
D
≤
1
q
2
∞
0
dD
exp
√
D −1
=
π
3q
2
(39)
This terminal eﬀect is due to violation of the Lipchitz condition, (Zak, M.,1992) at D = 0
d
˙
D
dD
= −
q
2
√
D
exp
√
D →∞ at D →0 (40)
Let us turn to a linear version of Eq. (36)
∂ρ
∂t
= −q
2
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
. (41)
and discuss a negative diﬀusion in more details. As follows from the linear equivalent of
Eq. ((39)
d
˙
D
dD
= −q
2
, i.e. D = D
0
−q
2
t < 0 at t > D
0
/q
2
(42)
Thus, eventually the variance becomes negative, and that disqualiﬁes Eq. (40) from being
meaningful. It has been shown (Zak, M., 2005) that the initial value problem for this
equation is illposed: its solution is not diﬀerentiable at any point. (Such an illposedness
expresses the Hadamard instability studied in (Zak, M., 1994)). Therefore, a negative
diﬀusion must be nonlinear in order to protect the variance from becoming negative, (see
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 23
Fig. 6.). One of possible realization of this condition is placing a terminal attractor (Zak,
M., 1992) at D = 0 as it was done in Eq. (36).
It should be emphasized that negative diﬀusion represents a major departure from
both Newtonian mechanics and classical thermodynamics by providing a progressive evo
lution of complexity against the Second Law of thermodynamics, Fig. 7.
3.3 Drift
One notes that Eq. (36) is driftless, i.e. its solution preserves the initial mean value of
the state variable. Obviously, the drift can be easily introduced via both Newtonian or
information forces. In our approach we will follow the “Law of Parsimony”, or “Occam’s
Razor”: Pluritas non est ponenda sine necessitate, i.e. if a drift can be generated by
classical forces, it is not necessary to duplicate it with the information forces since that
would divert attention from a unique capability of information forces, namely, from their
role in progressive evolution of complexity.
3.4 Summary
A progressive evolution of complexity has been achieved via information potential that im
plements the Liouville feedback and leads to a fundamentally new nonlinear phenomenon
negative diﬀusion that evolves “against the Second Law of thermodynamics”.
4. Model of Livings
4.1 General Model
Consider a system of n particles as intelligent agents that interact via the information
potential in the fashion described above. Then, as a direct generalization of Eqs. (33)
and (36), one obtains
˙ v
i
= −ζ
n
¸
j=1
α
ij
∂
∂v
j
ln ρ(v
1
, ...v
n
, t), i = 1, 2, ...n. (43)
where α
ij
are function of the correlation moments D
ks
α
ij
= α
ij
(D
11
, ...D
ks
, ...D
nn
),
D
ks
=
∞
−∞
∞
−∞
(v
k
−ξ
k
)(v
s
−ξ
s
)ρdv
k
dv
s
, ξ
j
=
∞
−∞
v
j
ρdv
j
(44)
and
∂ρ
∂t
= ζ
n
¸
j=1
α
ij
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
j
(45)
24 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Here ζ is a positive constant that relates Newtonian and information forces. It is intro
duced in order to keep the functions α
ij
dimensionless.
The solution to Eqs. (42) and (45)
v
i
= v
i
(t), ρ = ρ(V
1
...V
n
, t), i = 1, 2, ...n (46)
must satisfy the constraint that is an ndimensional generalization of the constraint D ≥
0, namely, a nonnegativity of the matrix D
ij
, i.e. a nonnegativity of all the leftcorner
determinants
DetD
ij
 ≤ 0, i, j = 1, i, j = 1, 2; ...i, l = 1, 2, ...n. (47)
4.2 Simpliﬁed Model
Since enforcement of the constraints (47) is impractical, we will propose a simpler model
on the expense of its generality assuming that the tensors α
ij
and D
ij
are coaxial, and
therefore, the functions (43) can be reduced to the following
α
ii
= α
ii
(D
11
, ...D
nn
), i = 1, 2, ...n, (48)
where α
ii
and D
ii
are the eigenvalues of the corresponding tensors.
Referring Eqs. (42) and (45) to the principal coordinates, one obtains
˙ v
i
= −ζα
ii
∂
∂v
i
ln ρ(v
1
, ...v
n
, t), i = 1, 2, ...n. (49)
∂ρ
∂t
= ζα
ii
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
i
(50)
Since Egs. (49) and (50) have tensor structure, they can be rewritten in arbitrary system
of coordinates using standard rules of tensor transformations.
Let us express Eq. (50) in terms of the correlation moments: multiplying it byV
2
i
,
then using partial integration, one arrives at an ndimensional analog of Eq. (37)
˙
D
ii
= 2ζα
ii
(D
11
, ...D
nn
), n = 1, 2, ...n, (51)
The last step is to choose such a structure of the functions (48) that would enforce the
constraints (47), i.e.
D
ii
≥ 0, i = 1, 2, ...n, (52)
The simplest (but still suﬃciently general) form of the functions (48) is a neural network
with terminal attractors
α
ii
=
1
2
(w
ij
tanh
˜
D
jj
−c
i
˜
D
ii
), i = 1, 2, ...n,
˜
D
ii
=
D
ii
D
0
(53)
that reduces Eqs.(51) to the following system (Zak, M., 2006a)
˙
˜
D
ii
= ζ(w
ij
tanh
˜
D
jj
−c
i
˜
D
ii
), i = 1, 2, ...n, (54)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 25
Here D
0
is a constant scaling coeﬃcient of the same dimensionality as the correlation
coeﬃcientsD
ii
, and w
ij
are dimensionless constants representing the identity of the sys
tem.
Let us now analyze the eﬀect of terminal attractor and, turning to Eq.(54), start with
the matrix 
∂
˙
D
ii
∂D
ii
. Its diagonal elements, i.e. eigenvalues, become inﬁnitely negative when
the variances vanish since
∂
√
D
ii
∂D
ii
=
1
2
√
D
ii
→∞ when D
ii
→0 (55)
while the rest terms are bounded. Therefore, due to the terminal attractor, Eq. ((54)
linearized with respect to zero variances has inﬁnitely negative characteristic roots, i.e.
it is inﬁnitely stable regardless of the parameters w
ij
. Therefore the principal variances
cannot overcome zero if their initial values are positive. This provides the wellposedness
of the initial value problem.
4.3 Invariant Formulation
Eqs. (49) and (50) can be presented in the following invariant form
˙ v = −ζα • ∇
v
ln ρ, (56)
˙ ρ = ζ∇
2
V
ρ • •α, (57)
4.4 Variation Principle
Let us concentrate upon the capability of Livings to decrease entropy (see Eq. (1)) with
out external forces. This privileged motion is carried out through negative diﬀusion that
requires negativity of the eigenvalues of the tensor α in Eqs. (56) and (57). Redeﬁning
the concept of information potential for ndimensional case (see Eq. (32))
Π = ζ ln ρ (32a)
one can rewrite Eq. (56) as
˙ v = −α • ∇Π (56a)
Then, along the trajectory deﬁned by Eq. (56a) the following inequality holds
˙
Π = ∇Π • ˙ v = −∇Π • (α • ∇Π) > 0 (58)
Thus, the privileged motion of Livings monotonously maximizes the information potential
along a chosen trajectory. This means that if the initial densityρ
0
< 1, and therefore, Π
0
<
0 at the chosen trajectory, the density would monotonously decrease along this trajectory,
i.e. ˙ ρ < 0. Conversely, ifρ
0
> 1, and therefore,Π
0
> 0, the density would monotonously
increase, i.e. ˙ ρ > 0. Hence, the privileged motion of Livings driven by negative diﬀusion
monotonously decreases the ﬂatness of the initial density distribution. Obviously, the
26 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
initial choice of the trajectory is determined by Eq. (57). But the most likely trajectory
is those that pass through maxima of density distributions. Since that trajectory has also
maxima of the information potential (32a) (compare to other trajectories), one arrive at
the following principle: The most likely privileged motion of Livings delivers the global
maximum to the information potential (32a), (M. Zak, 2005a)
4.5 Remark
Strictly speaking, the formulated variation principle is necessary, but not suﬃcient for
derivation of the governing equations (56) and (57): this principle should be considered
only as a complement to the Hamiltonian principle taken in its nonvariation formulation
(since the information “potential” depends upon velocities rather than upon coordinates):
δ
R = δS +
t
1
t
0
δ
Πdt = 0. (58a)
Here S is action, and δ
Π is an elementary work of the nonconservative information force
∇• Π. It is obvious that the Hamiltonian principle in the form (58a) leads to equation of
motion (56), while the inequality (58) (along with the continuity equation (57)) speciﬁes
the information force.
4.6 Summary
A closed system of dynamical equations governing behavior of Livings has been introduced
and discussed.
5. Interpretation of the Model
5.1 Mathematical Viewpoint
The model is represented by a system of nonlinear ODE (56) and a nonlinear
parabolic PDE (57) coupled in a masterslave fashion: Eq. (57) is to be solved inde
pendently, prior to solving Eq. (56). The coupling is implemented by a feedback that
includes the ﬁrst gradient of the probability density, and that converts the ﬁrst order
PDE (the Liouville equation) to the second order PDE (the FokkerPlanck equation).
Its solution, in addition to positive diﬀusion, can display negative diﬀusion as well, and
that is the major departure from the classical FokkerPlanck equation. Fig. 7. It has
been demonstrated that negative diﬀusion must be nonlinear with an attractor at zero
variances to guarantee wellposedness of the initial value problem, and that imposes addi
tional constraints upon the mathematical structure of the model, (see Eqs. (47) and (52)).
The nonlinearity is generated by a feedback from the PDE (57) to the ODE (56), (that
is the same feedback that is responsible for parabolicity of the PDE (57)). As a result of
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 27
the nonlinearity, the solutions to PDE can have attractors (static, periodic, or chaotic)
in probability space(see Eqs. (51). The multiattractor limit sets allow one to introduce
an extension of neural nets that can converge to a prescribed type of a stochastic process
in the same way in which a regular neural net converges to a prescribed deterministic
attractor. The solution to ODE (56) represents another major departure from classical
ODE: due to violation of Lipchitz conditions at states where the probability density has
a sharp value, the solution loses its uniqueness and becomes random. However, this ran
domness is controlled by the PDE (57) in such a way that each random sample occurs
with the corresponding probability, (see Fig.4).
5.2 Physical Viewpoint
The model represents a fundamental departure from both Newtonian and statistical me
chanics. In particular, negative diﬀusion cannot occur in isolated systems without help
of the Maxwell sorting demon that is strictly forbidden in statistical mechanics. The only
conclusion to be made is that the model is nonNewtonian, although it is fully consistent
with the theory of diﬀerential equations and stochastic processes. Strictly speaking, it is a
matter of deﬁnition weather the model represents an isolated or an open system since the
additional energy applied via the information potential is generated by the system “it
self” out of components of the probability density. In terms of a topology of its dynamical
structure, the proposed model links to quantum mechanics: if the information potential
is replaced by the quantum potential, the model turns into the Madelung equations that
are equivalent to the Schr¨ odinger equation (Takabayasi, T., 1953), Fig. 8.It should be
noticed that the information potential is introduced via the dimensionless parameter α
that is equal to the rate of decrease of the disorder (dD/dt), (see Eq. (51)) and a new
physical parameter ζ of dimension [ζ] = m
2
/sec
3
describing a new physical quantity that
relates the rate of decrease of disorder to the speciﬁc (informationbased) force. For
mally the parameter ζ introduces the information potential in the same way in which the
Planck constant introduces quantum potential. The system of ODE (56) characterized
by velocities v
i
describes a mechanical motion of the system driven by information forces.
Due to speciﬁc properties of these forces discussed above, this motion acquires properties
similar to those of quantum mechanics. These properties are discussed below.
α.Superposition. In quantum mechanics, any observable quantity corresponds to an
eigenstate of a Hermitian linear operator. The linear combination of two or more eigen
states results in quantum superposition of two or more values of the quantity. If the
quantity is measured, the projection postulate states that the state will be randomly
collapsed onto one of the values in the superposition (with a probability proportional
to the square of the amplitude of that eigenstate in the linear combination). Let us
compare the behavior of the model of Livings from that viewpoint. As follows from Eq.
(15), all the particular solutions intersect at the same point x = 0 at t = 0,and that
leads to nonuniqueness of the solution due to violation of the Lipcshitz condition (see
Eq. (17)). Therefore, the same initial conditionx = 0 at t = 0yields inﬁnite number
28 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
of diﬀerent solutions forming a family (15); each solution of this family appears with a
certain probability guided by the corresponding FokkerPlanck equation. For instance,
in case of Eq. (15), the “winner” solution is x ≡ 0since it passes through the maxima
of the probability density (13). However, with lower probabilities, other solutions of the
family (15) can appear as well. Obviously, this is a nonclassical eﬀect. Qualitatively,
this property is similar to those of quantum mechanics: the system keeps all the solutions
simultaneously and displays each of them “by a chance”, while that chance is controlled
by the evolution of probability density (12). It should be emphasized that the choice of
displaying a certain solution is made by the Livings model only once, at t = 0, i.e. when
it departs from the deterministic to a random state; since than, it stays with this solution
as long as the Liouville feedback is present.
β. Entanglement. Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which the quantum
states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even
though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations
between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to
prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be
spinup, the other one will always be observed to be spindown and vice versa, this
despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which
set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one
system seem to be instantaneously inﬂuencing other systems entangled with it.
Qualitatively similar eﬀect has been found in the proposed model of Livings (see
Eqs. (21)(23)) that demonstrate that diﬀerent realizations of motion emerged from
instability of Eq. (15) are entangled: they must satisfy the global kinematical constraint
(23). Therefore, as follows from Eq. (23), the entanglement eﬀect correlates diﬀerent
samples of the same stochastic process. It is instructive to notice again that quantum
entanglement was discovered in a special class of quantum states that become entangled
in the course of their simultaneous creation.
γ. Decoherence. In quantum mechanics, decoherence is the process by which quantum
systems in complex environments exhibit classical behavior. It occurs when a system
interacts with its environment in such a way that diﬀerent portions of its wavefunction
can no longer interfere with each other.
Qualitatively similar eﬀects are displayed by the proposed model of Livings. In order
to illustrate that, let us turn to Eqs. (11), (12), and notice that this system makes a
choice of the particular solution only once i.e. when it departs from the deterministic to
a random state; since then, it stays with this solution as long as the Liouville feedback
is present,(σ = 0). However, as soon as this feedback disappears,(σ = 0), the system be
comes classical, i.e. fully deterministic, while the deterministic solution is a continuation
of the corresponding “chosen” random solution, (see Fig.9).
δ. Uncertainty Principle. In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain conjugate
quantities which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. These pairs
include the position and momentum. Similar (but not identical) relationship follows
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 29
from Eq. (15): v ˙ v = C
2
/2, i.e. the product of the velocity and the acceleration is
constant along a ﬁxed trajectory. In particular, at t = 0, v and ˙ v can not be deﬁned
separately.
5.3 Biological Viewpoint
The proposed model illuminates the “border line” between living and nonliving systems.
The model introduces a biological particle that, in addition to Newtonian properties,
possesses the ability to process information. The probability density can be associated
with the selfimage of the biological particle as a member of the class to which this par
ticle belongs, while its ability to convert the density into the information force  with
the selfawareness (both these concepts are adopted from psychology). Continuing this
line of associations, the equation of motion (such as Eqs (56)) can be identiﬁed with a
motor dynamics, while the evolution of density (see Eqs. (57) –with a mental dynamics.
Actually the mental dynamics plays the role of the Maxwell sorting demon: it rearranges
the probability distribution by creating the information potential and converting it into
a force that is applied to the particle. One should notice that mental dynamics describes
evolution of the whole class of state variables (diﬀered from each other only by initial
conditions), and that can be associated with the ability to generalize that is a privilege of
living systems. Continuing our biologically inspired interpretation, it should be recalled
that the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system can
only increase, Eig.3. This law has a clear probabilistic interpretation: increase of entropy
corresponds to the passage of the system from less probable to more probable states, while
the highest probability of the most disordered state (that is the state with the highest
entropy) follows from a simple combinatorial analysis. However, this statement is correct
only if there is no Maxwell’ sorting demon, i.e., nobody inside the system is rearranging
the probability distributions. But this is precisely what the Liouville feedback is doing:
it takes the probability density ρ from Equation (57), creates functionals and functions
of this density, converts them into a force and applies this force to the equation of motion
(56). As already mentioned above, because of that property of the model, the evolution
of the probability density becomes nonlinear, and the entropy may decrease “against the
second law of thermodynamics”, Fig.7. Obviously the last statement should not be taken
literary; indeed, the proposed model captures only those aspects of the living systems that
are associated with their behavior, and in particular, with their motormental dynamics,
since other properties are beyond the dynamical formalism. Therefore, such physiologi
cal processes that are needed for the metabolism are not included into the model. That
is why this model is in a formal disagreement with the second law of thermodynamics
while the living systems are not. In order to further illustrate the connection between
the lifenonlife discrimination and the second law of thermodynamics, consider a small
physical particle in a state of random migration due to thermal energy, and compare
its diﬀusion i.e. physical random walk, with a biological random walk performed by a
bacterium. The fundamental diﬀerence between these two types of motions (that may be
30 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
indistinguishable in physical space) can be detected in probability space: the probability
density evolution of the physical particle is always linear and it has only one attractor:
a stationary stochastic process where the motion is trapped. On the contrary, a typical
probability density evolution of a biological particle is nonlinear: it can have many dif
ferent attractors, but eventually each attractor can be departed from without any “help”
from outside.
That is how H. Berg, 1983, describes the random walk of an E. coli bacterium:” If a cell
can diﬀuse this well by working at the limit imposed by rotational Brownian movement,
why does it bother to tumble? The answer is that the tumble provides the cell with a
mechanism for biasing its random walk. When it swims in a spatial gradient of a chemical
attractant or repellent and it happens to run in a favorable direction, the probability of
tumbling is reduced. As a result, favorable runs are extended, and the cell diﬀuses with
drift”. Berg argues that the cell analyzes its sensory cue and generates the bias internally,
by changing the way in which it rotates its ﬂagella. This description demonstrates that
actually a bacterium interacts with the medium, i.e., it is not isolated, and that reconciles
its behavior with the second law of thermodynamics. However, since these interactions are
beyond the dynamical world, they are incorporated into the proposed model via the self
supervised forces that result from the interactions of a biological particle with “itself,”
and that formally “violates” the second law of thermodynamics. Thus, the proposed
model oﬀers a uniﬁed description of the progressive evolution of living systems. Based
upon this model, one can formulate and implement the principle of maximum increase
of complexity that governs the largetimescale evolution of living systems. It should
be noticed that at this stage, our interpretation is based upon logical extension of the
proposed mathematical formalism, and is not yet corroborated by experiments.
5.4 Psychological Viewpoint
The proposed model can be interpreted as representing interactions of the agent with
the selfimage and the images of other agents via the mechanisms of selfawareness. In
order to associate these basic concepts of psychology with our mathematical formalism,
we have to recall that living systems can be studied in many diﬀerent spaces such as
physical (or geographical) space as well as abstract (or conceptual) spaces. The latter
category includes, for instance, social class space, sociometric space, social distance space,
semantic space e.t.c.Turning to our model, one can identify two spaces: the physical space
x, t in which the agent state variables v
i
= ˙ x
i
evolve,(see Eqs.(56)), and an abstract space
in which the probability density of the agent’ state variables evolve (see Eq.(57)).The
connection with these spaces have been already described earlier: if Eqs. (56) are run
many times starting with the same initial conditions, one will arrive at an ensemble of
diﬀerent random solutions, while Eq. (57) will show what is the probability for each of
these solutions to appear. Thus, Eq. (57) describes the general picture of evolution of the
communicating agents that does not depend upon particular initial conditions. Therefore,
the solution to this equation can be interpreted as the evolution of the self and nonself
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 31
images of the agents that jointly constitutes the collective mind in the probability space,
Fig. (10). Based upon that, one can propose the following interpretation of the model
of communicating agents: considering the agents as intelligent subjects, one can identify
Eqs. (56) as a model simulating their motor dynamics, i.e. actual motions in physical
space, while Eq.(57) as the collective mind composed of mental dynamics of the agents.
Such an interpretation is evoked by the concept of reﬂection in psychology, (V. Lefebvre,
2001). Reﬂection is traditionally understood as the human ability to take the position
of an observer in relation to one’s own thoughts. In other words, the reﬂection is the
selfawareness via the interaction with the image of the self. Hence, in terms of the
phenomenological formalism proposed above, a nonliving system may possess the self
image, but it is not equipped with the selfawareness, and therefore, this selfimage is
not in use. On the contrary, in living systems the selfawareness is represented by the
information forces that send information from the selfimage (57) to the motor dynamics
(56). Due to this property that is wellpronounced in the proposed model, an intelligent
agent can run its mental dynamics ahead of real time, (since the mental dynamics is fully
deterministic, and it does not depend explicitly upon the motor dynamics) and thereby, it
can predict future expected values of its state variables; then, by interacting with the self
image via the information forces, it can change the expectations if they are not consistent
with the objective. Such a selfsupervised dynamics provides a major advantage for
the corresponding intelligent agents, and especially, for biological species: due to the
ability to predict future, they are better equipped for dealing with uncertainties, and
that improves their survivability. It should be emphasized that the proposed model,
strictly speaking, does not discriminate living systems of diﬀerent kind in a sense that all
of them are characterized by a selfawarenessbased feedback from mental (57) to motor
(56) dynamics. However, in primitive living systems (such as bacteria or viruses) the self
awareness is reduced to the simplest form that is the selfnonself discrimination; in other
words, the diﬀerence between the living systems is represented by the level of complexity
of that feedback.
5.5 Neuroscience Viewpoint
The proposed model represents a special type of neural net. Indeed, turning to Eqs.
(54) and reinterpreting the principal correlation moments D
ii
as neurons’ mean soma
potentials, one arrives at a conventional neural net formalism.
α. Classical neural nets. We will start with a brief review of the classical version of
this kind of dynamical models in order to outline some of its advantages and limitations.
The standard form of recurrent neural networks (NN) is
˙ x
i
= w
ij
tanh x
j
−c
i
x
i
(59)
where x
i
are state variables, w
ij
are synaptic interconnection, or weights (associated with
the NN topology). The system (59) is nonlinear and dissipative due to the sigmoid func
tion tanh. The nonlinearity and dispassivity are necessary (but not suﬃcient) conditions
32 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
that the system (59) has attractors. The locations of the attractors and their basins in
phase (or conﬁguration) space are prescribed by an appropriate choice of the synaptic
interconnections w
ij
which can be found by solving the inverse problem (followed by
the stability analysis), or by learning (that is a dynamical relaxation procedure based
upon iterative adjustments of w
ij
as a result of comparison of the net output with known
correct answers). In both cases, w
ij
are constants, and that is the ﬁrst limitation of
recurrent NN. Indeed, although the NN architecture (59) is perfectly suitable for such
tasks as optimization, pattern recognition, associative memory, i.e., when ﬁxed topology
is an advantage, it cannot be exploited for simulation of a complex dynamical behavior
that is presumably comprised of a chain of selforganizing patterns (like, for instance, in
genome) since for that kind of tasks, variable topology is essential. However, there is no
general analytical approach to the synthesis of such NN. And now we are coming to the
second limitation of NN (1): their architecture does not have a tensor structure. Indeed,
the state variables and the interconnections w
ij
cannot be considered as a vector and a
tensor, respectively, since their invariants are not preserved under linear transformations
of the state variables. Obviously, the cause of that is the nonlinearity in the form of
the sigmoid function. That is why the dynamical system (59) (even with a ﬁxed topol
ogy) cannot be decoupled and written in a canonical form; as a result of that, the main
mathematical tools for NN synthesis are based upon numerical runs.
β. Mystery of mirror neuron. The proposed model represents a special type of neural
net. Indeed, turning to Eqs. (54) and reinterpreting the principal correlation moments
D
ii
as neurons’ mean soma potentials, one arrives at a conventional neural net formalism.
The analysis of Eq. (59) can be linked to the concept of a mirror neuron. The discovery
of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of macaques and their implications for human brain
evolution is one of the most important ﬁndings of neuroscience in the last decade. Mirror
neurons are active when the monkeys perform certain tasks, but they also ﬁre when the
monkeys watch someone else perform the same speciﬁc task. There is evidence that a
similar observation/action matching system exists in humans. In the case of humans, this
phenomenon represents the concept of imitation learning, and this faculty is at the basis
of human culture. Hence, a mirror neuron representing an agent A can be activated by
an expected (or observed) action of an agent B which may not be in a direct contact with
the agent A at all. Quoting the discoverer of the mirror neuron, Dr. Giacomo Rizzolatti,
“the fundamental mechanism that allows us a direct grasp of the mind of others is not
conceptual reasoning, but direct simulation of the observed event through the mirror
mechanism.” In other words, we do not need to think and analyze, we know immediately
the intensions of other people. In terms of the mathematical formalism, such a direct
grasp of the mind of others represents a typical nonlocality, i.e. an “invisible” inﬂuence
on a distance that is similar to quantum entanglement.
γ. Mirror neural nets. In order to capture this fundamentally new phenomenon, we
will apply the approximated version of dynamical formalism developed in the Section
3, and modify Eq. (49) and (53). In the simplest case when α
ij
= const., the solution
describing the transition from initial (sharp) to current density in Eq. (50) is given by
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 33
the Gaussian distribution, (Risken,H., 1989),
ρ({V }, t{V
}, t
) = (2π)
n/2
[Det
˜
D(t −t
)]
−1/2
exp{−
1
2
[
˜
D
−1
(t −t
)]
ij
[V
i
−G
ik
(t −t
)V
k
]
×[V
j
−G
jl
(t −t)V
l
]}
(60)
Here the Green function in matrix notation is
G(t) = exp(−at) = I −at +
1
2
a
2
t
2
±... (61)
where the matrix elements of a and G are given by a
ij
and G
ij
, respectively.
If α
ij
are not constants, for instance, if they are deﬁned by Eqs. (53), the solution
(60) are valid only for small times. (Actually such an approximation follows from ex
pansion of a probability density in GramCharlier series with keeping only the ﬁrst term
of that series.) Nevertheless, for better physical interpretation, we will stay with this
approximation in our further discussions. Substituting the solution (60) into Eq.(49),
one obtains
˙ v
i
= ζ{(w
ij
tanh
˜
D
jj
−c
ii
˜
D
ii
)}{[
˜
D
−1
]
ij
(v
j
−G
jl
v
l
)} (62)
Eqs. (62) are to be complemented with Eq. (54). (In both equations, the summation
is with respect to the index j.) Formally Eq.(54) represents a classical neural net with
terminal attractors where the principle variances D
ii
play the role of state variables.
Depending upon the chosen values of constant synaptic interconnections w
ij
, the variances
˜
D
ii
can converge to static, periodic or chaotic attractors. In particular, if w
ij
= w
ji
, the
net has only static attractors. However, regardless of synaptic interconnections, the state
˜
D
ii
= 0 (i = 1,2,. . . n), is always a terminal attractor that protects the variances from
crossing zeros. Eqs.(62) represent a stochastic neural net driven by its own principle
variances that, in turn, is governed by the neural net (54). The connection between the
nets (54) and (62) is the following: if Eqs (62) are run many times, one will arrive at an
ensemble of diﬀerent random solutions, while Eq. (54) will show what is the probability
for each of these solutions to appear. Thus, Eq. (54) describes the general picture of
evolution that does not depend upon particular initial conditions. Therefore, the solution
to this equation can be interpreted as the evolution of the self and nonself images of the
neurons that jointly constitutes the collective mind in the probability space. Let us recall
that in classical neural nets (59), each neuron receives fully deterministic information
about itself and other neurons, and as a result of that, the whole net eventually approaches
an attractor. In contradistinction to that, in the neural net (62), each neuron receives the
image of the self and the images of other neurons that are stored in the joint probability
distribution of the collective mind, Fig. 10. These images are not deterministic: they
are characterized by uncertainties described by the probability distribution, while that
distribution is skewed toward the expected value of the soma potential, with variances
controlled by Eq. (54). In our view, such a performance can be associated with the
mirror neurons. Indeed, as mentioned above, a mirror neuron ﬁres both when performing
an action and when observing the same action performed by another subject. The way
34 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
in which this neuron works is the following. It is assumed that all the communicating
neurons belong to the same class in a sense that they share the same general properties
and habits. It means that although each neuron may not know the exact values of soma
potentials of the rest of the neurons, it, nevertheless, knows at least such characteristics
as their initial values (to accuracy of initial joint probability density, or, at least, initial
expected values and initial variances). This preliminary experience allows a neuron to
reconstruct the evolution of expected values of the rest of the neurons using the collective
mind as a knowledge base. Hence, the neuron representing an agent A can be activated by
an expected action of an agent B that may not be in a direct contact with the agent A at
all, and that can be associated with the mirror properties of the neuron. The qualitative
behavior of the solution to the mirrorneuronbased net (62) and (54) is illustrated in
Fig. 11. The collective properties of mirror neurons, i.e. the mirror neural nets, have
a signiﬁcant advantage over the regular neural nets: they possess a fundamentally new
type of attractor –the stochastic attractor that is a very powerful generalization tool.
Indeed, it includes a much broader class of motions than static or periodic attractors. In
other words, it provides the highest level of abstraction. In addition to that, a stochastic
attractor represents the most complex patterns of behavior if the mirror net describes a
set of interacting agents. Indeed, consider a swarm of insects approaching some attracting
pattern. If this pattern is represented by a static or periodic attractor, the motion of the
swarm is locked up in a rigid pattern of behavior that may decrease its survivability.
On the contrary, if that pattern is represented by a stochastic attractor, the swarm still
has a lot of freedom, and only the statistics invariants of the swarm motion is locked
up in a certain pattern of behavior. Fig. 12. It should be emphasized that, due to
the multiattractor structure, the proposed model provides the following property: if the
system starts from diﬀerent initial conditions, it may be trapped in a diﬀerent stochastic
pattern. Such a property, in principle, cannot be provided by regular neural nets or
cellular automata since they can have only one stochastic attractor, Fig. 13.
δ. Link to quantum entanglement. Continuing the discussion about a formal similar
ity between the concept of mirror neuron and quantum entanglement, we will emphasize
again that both of these phenomena result from the global constraint originated from
the Liouville feedback, namely, the quantum potential (see Eqs. ( 27) and (28)), and the
information potential (see Eqs. (56) and (57)). In the both cases, the probability density
ρ enters the equation of motion imposing the global constraint upon the state variables
via the normalization condition (see Eq. (23)). However, it should be emphasized the
diﬀerence between the status of these models. The model of quantum entanglement is
wellestablished (at least, within the Schr¨ odinger formalism), being corroborated by enor
mous number of experiments. On the other hand, the model of mirror neuron nets has
been proposed in this paper. It is based upon two principles that complement classical
mechanics. First principle requires the system capability to decrease entropy by internal
eﬀort to be “alive”; the second principle is supposed to provide global constraint upon
the motions of mirror neurons. Both of these principles are implemented via a specially
selected feedback from the Liouville equation. This feedback is diﬀerent from those in
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 35
quantum mechanics; however the topologies of quantum and mirror neuron systems are
similar. Now we are ready to address the fundamental question: how Nature implements
global constraints via probability? Does it mean that there exists some sort of “univer
sal mind”? The point is that the concept of probability does not belong to objective
physical world; it rather belongs to a human interpretation of this world. Indeed, we can
observe and measure a random process, but we cannot measure directly the associated
probabilities: that would require a special data processing, i.e. a “human touch”. As
far as quantum mechanics is concerned, this question is still unanswered. However, for
Livings, the global constraint via probability can be associated with the concept of col
lective mind. Indeed, based upon the assumption that all Livings which belong to the
same class possess the identical abstract image of the external world, and recalling that,
in terms of the proposed formalism, such an image is represented by the joint probability,
one concludes that in Livings, the global constraint is implemented by the mechanism of
“general knowledge” stored in the collective mind and delivered to the mirror neurons
via the information forces. Several paradigms of selforganization (such as transmission
of conditional information, decentralized coordination, cooperative computing, and com
petitive games in active systems) based upon entanglement eﬀects, have been proposed
in (Zak, M., 2002a).
5.6 Social and Economic Viewpoint
One of the basic problem of social theory is to understand “how, with the richness of
language and the diversity of artifacts, people can create a dazzlingly rich variety of
new yet relatively stable social structures”, (M.Arbib, 1986). Within the framework of
the dynamical formalism, the proposed model provides some explanations to this puz
zle. Indeed, social events are driven by two factors: the individual objectives and social
constraints. The ﬁrst factor is captured by the motor dynamics (56), while the social con
straint is created by the collective mind (57). A balance between these factors (expressed
by stochastic attractors) leads to stable social structures, while a misbalance (expressed
by stochastic repellers) causes sharp transitions from one social structure to another (rev
olutions) or to wandering between diﬀerent repellers (chaos, anarchy). For an artiﬁcial
“society” of communicating agents, one can assign individual objectives for each agent as
well as the collective constrains imposed upon them and study the corresponding social
events by analyzing the governing equations (56) and (57). However, the same strategy
is too na¨ıve to be applied to a human society. Indeed, most human as members of a
society, do not have rational objectives: they are driven by emotions, inﬂated ambitions,
envy, distorted self and nonself images, etc. At least some of these concepts can be
formalized and incorporated into the model. For instance, one can consider emotions to
be proportional to the diﬀerences between the state variables v and their expectations χ
E
m
= c(¯ v −v). (63)
36 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Eq.(63) easily discriminates positive and negative emotions. Many associated concepts
(anger, depression, happiness, indiﬀerence, aggressiveness. and ambitions) can be derived
from this deﬁnition (possibly, in combination with distorted self and nonself images).
But the most accurate characteristic of the human nature was captured by cellular au
tomata where each agent copies the behaviors of his closest neighbors (which in turn,
copy their neighbors, etc.). As a result, the whole “society” spontaneously moves toward
an unknown emerging“objective”. Although this global objective is uniquely deﬁned by
a local operator that determines how an agent processes the data coming from his neigh
bors, there is not known any explicit connection between this local operator and the
corresponding global objective: only actual numerical runs can detect such a connection.
Notwithstanding the ingenuity of his model, one can see its major limitation: the model
is not equipped with a collective mind (or by any other type of a knowledge base), and
therefore, its usefulness is signiﬁcantly diminished in case of incompleteness of informa
tion. At the same time, the proposed model (56) and (57) can be easily transformed
into cellular automata with the collective mind. In order to do that one has to turn to
Eqs.(56), replace the sigmoid function by a local operator, and the time derivative by
the time diﬀerence. Then the corresponding FokkerPlanck equation (57) reduces to its
discrete version that is Markov chains,( Zak, M., 2000). On the conceptual level, the
model remains the same as discussed in the previous sections. The Fig.14 illustrates a
possible approach to the social dynamics based upon the proposed model.
5.7 Language Communications Viewpoint
Language represents the best example of a communication tool with incomplete informa
tion since any message, in general, can be interpreted in many diﬀerent ways depending
upon the context i.e. upon the global information sheared by the sender and the receiver.
Therefore, the proposed model is supposed to be relevant for some languageoriented
interpretations. Indeed, turning to Eqs.(56), one can associate the weighted sum of the
state variables with the individual interpretations of the collective message made by the
agents. The sigmoid functions of these sums form the individual responses of the agents
to this message. These responses are completed by the information forces that compen
sate the lack of information in the message by exploiting the global sheared information
stored in the collective mind, (see Eq. (57)). The agent’s responses converted into the
new values of their state variables are transformed into the next message using the same
rules, etc. These rules determined by the structure of Eqs. (56) and (57) can be associ
ated with the grammar of the underlying language. In particular, they are responsible for
the convergence to or the divergence from the expected objective. It should be noticed
that the language structure of the proposed model is invariant with respect to semantics.
Hence, in terms of the linguistics terminology that considers three universal structural
levels: sound, meaning and grammatical arrangement, (Yaguello, M.,1998), we are deal
ing here with the last one. To our opinion, the independence of the proposed model upon
the semantics is an advantage rather than a limitation: it allows one to study invariant
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 37
properties of the language evolution in the same way in which the Shannon information
(that represents rather an information capacity) allows one to study the evolution of
information regardless of a particular meaning of the transmitted messages.
Let us now try to predict the evolution of language communications based upon the
proposed model. As mentioned earlier, the evolution of the living systems is always
directed toward the increase of their complexity. In a human society, such a progres
sive evolution is eﬀectively implemented by increase or the number of reﬂections in a
chain”What do you think I think you think, etc.” The society may be stratiﬁed into
several levels or “clubs” so that inside each club the people will shear more and more
global information. This means that the language communications between the members
of the same club will be characterized by the increased capacity of the collective mind
(see Eq.(57)), and decreased information transmitted by the messages (see Eqs.(56)). In
the theoretical limit, these messages will degenerate into a string of symbols, that can
be easily decoded by the enormously large collective mind The language communications
across the stratiﬁed levels will evolve in a diﬀerent way: as long as the diﬀerent clubs
are drifting apart, the collective mind capacity will be decreasing while the messages will
become longer and longer. However, the process of diﬀusion between these two streams
(not included in our model) is very likely, see Fig.14.
5.8 Summary
Interpretation of the proposed dynamical model of Livings has been introduced and
discussed from viewpoints of mathematics, physics, biology, neurosciences, etc.
6. Complexity for Survival of Livings
6.1 Measure of Survivability
In this subsection, we will apply the proposed model to establish a connection
between complexity and survivability of Livings. We will introduce, as a measure of
survivability, the strength of the random force that, being applied to a particle, nulliﬁes
the inequality (1). For better physical interpretation, it will be more convenient to
represent the inequality (1) in terms of the variance D
˙
D < 0 (64)
remembering that for normal probability density distribution
H = log
2
√
2πeD
2
(65)
while the normal density is the ﬁrst term in the GramCharlier series for representation
of an arbitrary probability distribution.
Thus, the ability to survive (in terms of preserving the property (1) under action of a
random force) can be achieved only with help of increased complexity. However, physical
38 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
complexity is irrelevant: no matter how complex is Newtonian or Langevin dynamics, the
second law of thermodynamics will convert the inequality (1) into the opposite one. The
only complexity that counts is those associated with mental dynamics. Consequently,
increase of complexity of mental dynamics, and therefore, complexity of the information
potential, is the only way to maximize the survivability of Livings. This conclusion will
be reinforced by further evidence to be discussed in the following section.
6.2 Mental Complexity via Reﬂection of Information
In this subsection, we will show that communication between living particles via infor
mation potential increases their survivability. For that purpose, consider a system of two
living particles (or intelligent agents) that interact via the simplest linear information
potential in the fashion described above. We will start with the case when each particle
interacts only with its own image. The motor dynamics of the system is the following
˙ v
1
= −ζ(q
2
−β
1
D
1
)
∂
∂v
1
ln ρ
1
(v
1
, t), (66)
˙ v
2
= −ζ(q
2
−β
2
D
2
)
∂
∂v
2
ln ρ
2
(v
2
, t), (67)
Then the mental dynamics in terms of the variance is described by two uncoupled equa
tions
˙
D
1
= ζ(q
2
−β
1
D
1
) (68)
˙
D
2
= ζ(q
2
−β
2
D
2
) (69)
The solutions to these equations subject to zero initial conditions asymptotically approach
the stationary values q
2
/β
1
and q
2
/β
2
, respectively, while
˙
D
1
> 0, and
˙
D
2
> 0 (70)
Thus, noncommunicating agents (66) and (67) do not expose the property of living
systems (64) and behave as a physical nonliving system.
Let us now increase the complexity by allowing the agents to communicate:
˙ v
1
= −ζ(q
2
−βD
2
)
∂
∂v
1
ln ρ
1
(v
1
, t), (71)
˙ v
2
= −ζ(q
2
+ βD
1
)
∂
∂v
2
ln ρ
2
(v
2
, t), (72)
In this case, each agent interacts with the image of another agent. Then the mental
dynamics is represented by two coupled equations
˙
D
1
= ζ(q
2
−βD
2
) (73)
˙
D
2
= ζ(q
2
+ βD
1
) (74)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 39
This system describes harmonic oscillations induced by a stepfunctionforce originated
from noise of the strength q
2
, (Zak, M., 2007a).
Obviously, there are periods when
˙
D
1
< 0, or
˙
D
2
< 0 (75)
i.e. the communicating agents expose the property of life (64). It should be emphasized
that no isolated physical system can oscillate in probability space since that is forbidden
by the second law of thermodynamics, Figure 13.
Oscillation of variances described by Eqs. (73) and (74), represents an exchange of
information between the agents, and it can be interpreted as a special type of communica
tions: conversation. During such a conversation, information is reﬂected from one agent
to another, back and forth. Obviously, we are dealing here with Shannon information
capacity that does not include semantics.
This paradigm can be generalized to the case of n communicating agents
˙ v
i
= −ζ(q
2
−β
ij
D
j
)
∂
∂v
i
ln ρ
i
(v
i
, t), β
ij
= −β
ji
(76)
˙
D
i
= ζ(q
2
−β
ij
D
j
) (77)
Since the matrix of the coeﬃcients β
ij
is skewsymmetric, its characteristic roots are pure
imaginary, and therefore, the solution to Eq. (77) is a linear combination of weighted
harmonic oscillations of diﬀerent frequencies. The interpretation of this solution is similar
to those of the case of two agents: it describes a conversation between n agents. Indeed,
the information from the i
th
agent is distributed among all the rest agents, then reﬂected
and distributed again, etc. Obviously, that solution possesses the property of life in the
sense of the inequalities (75), Fig. 16.
6.3 Image Dynamics: What do you think I think you think
In this subsection we will discuss a special case when additional information is needed
to compensate incomplete information of agents about each other. We will start with
the simplest model of two interacting agents assuming that each agent is represented
by an inertionless classical point evolving in physical space. That allows us to consider
positions x (instead of velocities v) as state variables. We will also assume that the
next future position of each agent depends only upon its own present position and the
present position of his opponent. Then their evolutionary model can be represented by
the following system of diﬀerential equations
˙ x
1
= f
1
(x
1
, x
2
) (78)
˙ x
2
= f
2
(x
1
, x
2
) (79)
We will start with the assumption that these agents belong to the same class, and there
fore, they know the structure of the whole system (78), (79). However, each of the agents
40 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
may not know the initial condition of the other one, and therefore, he cannot calculate
the current value of his opponent’s state variable. As a result of that, the agents try to
reconstruct these values using the images of their opponents This process can be associ
ated with the concept of reﬂection; in psychology reﬂection is deﬁned as the ability of a
person to create a selfnonself images and interact with them.
Let us turn ﬁrst to the agent 1. In his view, the system (78), (79) looks as following
˙ x
11
= f
1
(x
11
, x
21
) (80)
˙ x
21
= f
2
(x
21
, x
121
) (81)
where x
11
is the selfimage of the agent 1, x
21
is the agent’s 1 image of the agent 2, and
x
121
is the agent’s 1 image of the agent’s 2 image of the agent 1. This system is not closed
since it includes an additional 3index variable x
121
. In order to ﬁnd the corresponding
equation for this variable, one has to rewrite Eqs.(30),(31) in the 3index form. However,
it is easily veriﬁable that such form will include 4index variables, etc., i.e. this chain
of equations will never be closed. By interchanging the indices 1 and 2 in Eqs.(78) and
(79), one arrives at the system describing the view of the agent 2. The situation can be
generalized from two to n – dimensional systems. It is easy to calculate that the total
number of equations for the mth level of reﬂection, i.e. for the mindex variables, is
N
m
= n
m
. (82)
The chain of reﬂections illustrating the paradigm: “what do you think I think you
think. . . ” is presented in Figure 17.
Thus, as follows from Eq. (82), the number of equations grows exponentially with
the number of the levels of reﬂections, and it grows linearly with the dimensionality n
of the original system. It should be noticed that for each mth level of reﬂection, the
corresponding system of equations always includes (m+1)index variables, and therefore,
it is always open. Hence, for any quantitative results, this system must be supplemented
by a closure, i.e. by additional equations with respect to extravariables. In order to
illustrate how it can be done, let us ﬁrst reduce Eqs.(78) and (79) to the linear form
˙ x
1
= a
11
x
1
+ a
12
x
2
, (83)
˙ x
2
= a
21
x
1
+ a
22
x
2
(84)
Taking a position of the agent 1, we can rewrite Eqs.(83) and (84) in the form of a chain
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 41
of reﬂections describing interactions between his images:
˙ x
1
= a
11
x
1
+ a
12
x
12
˙ x
12
= a
22
x
12
+ a
21
x
121
˙ x
121
= a
11
x
121
+ a
12
x
1212
˙ x
1212
= a
22
x
1212
+ a
21
x
12121
......................................................................................
˙ x
1212...121
= a
11
x
1212...121
+ a
12
x
1212...1212
˙ x
1212...1212
= a
22
x
1212...1212
+ a
21
x
1212...12121
(85)
Here the agent 1 starts with Eq. (83) and transforms it into the ﬁrst equation in the
system (85) by replacing the unknown agent’s 2 state variable x
2
with the predicted
value x
12
that describes the agent 2 in view of the agent 1. In order to get the governing
equation for the new variable x
2
, the agent 1 transforms Eq. (84) into the second equation
in the system (85) by replacing x
2
with x
12
and x
1
with x
121
that describes the agent
1 view on the agent 2 view on the agent 1. This process is endless: each new equation
includes a new variable that requires another governing equation, etc. Hence, for any
quantitative results, this system must be supplemented by a closure, i.e. by additional
equations with respect to extravariables. However, before discussing the closure, we will
simplify the indexing of the variables in Eqs. (85) in the following way:
x
1
= y
1
, x
12
= y
2
, x
121
= y
3
, x
1212
= y
4
, etc. (86)
Obviously, the variabley
i
describes prediction after i number of reﬂections. Here we as
sumed that the agent 1 has complete information about himself, i.e. x
11
= x
1
. Therefore,
in our future discussions, any repeated indices (following one another) will be compressed
into one index.
In the new notations, Eqs. (85) can be presented in a more compact form
˙ y
1
= a
11
y
1
+ a
12
y
2
˙ y
2
= a
22
y
2
+ a
21
y
3
˙ y
3
= a
11
y
3
+ a
12
y
4
˙ y
4
= a
22
y
4
+ a
21
y
5
......................................................................................
˙ y
n−1
= a
11
y
n−1
+ a
12
y
n
˙ y
n
= a
22
y
n
+ a
21
y
n+1
(87)
42 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
It should be noticed that a simple twodimensional system (83), (84) gave rise to an
ndimensional system of reﬂection chain (87). Although the system (87) is also linear,
the structure of its coeﬃcients is diﬀerent; for instance, if the matrix of coeﬃcients in
Eqs. (83), (84) is symmetric, i.e. a
12
= a
21
, the matrix of the coeﬃcients in Eqs. (87) is
not symmetric, and therefore, the corresponding properties of symmetric systems, such
as real characteristic roots, are not preserved.
For the purpose of closure, it is reasonable to assume that after certain level of reﬂec
tion, the image does not have signiﬁcant change; for instance
x
12121212
≈ x
121212
, i.e y
n
≈ y
n−2
(88)
This equation complements the system (87).
So far, we were dealing with a physical (nonliving) system. Let us apply the same
strategy to mental dynamics (73) (74) presenting this system in the form of interaction
of the ﬁrst agent with its own images
˙
D
1
= ζ(q
2
−βD
12
)
˙
D
12
= ζ(q
2
−βD
121
)
˙
D
121
= ζ(q
2
−βD
1212
)
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ...etc (89)
or, adopting the notations (86)
˙ y
1
= ζ(q
2
−βy
2
)
˙ y
2
= ζ(q
2
+ βy
3
0
.............................
˙ y
n−1
= ζ(q
2
+ βy
n
)
y
n
= y
n−2
(90)
The system (90) is closed, and the matrix of its coeﬃcients has the following characteristic
roots
λ
1
= λ
2
= ...λ
n−2
= 0, λ
n−1,n
=
+
−
iβ (91)
Hence, the general solution of Eqs. (90) has the following structure
y
1
= C
0
q
2
+ C
1
t + C
2
t
2
+ ...C
n−2
t
n−2
+ C
n−1
sin βt + C
n
cos βt (92)
The arbitrary constants C
1
, C
2
. . . C
n
are supposed to be found from initial conditions,
and actually they represent the degree of incompleteness of information that distinguishes
the images from reality. These constants can be speciﬁed if actual values of y
2
are known
at least at n diﬀerent instants of time to be compared with the corresponding images of
y
12
.
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 43
Obviously, the solution (92) satisﬁes the condition (64), since, due to the presence of
harmonic oscillations, there are periods when
˙ y
1
=
˙
D
1
< 0 (93)
By interchanging indices 1 and 2 in Eqs. (89) (93), one arrives at dynamics of interaction
of the agent 2 with its images.
It is worth emphasizing that in this section we are dealing with complex mental
dynamics created by a single agent that communicates with its own images, images of
images, etc.
Thus, we came to the following conclusion: the survivability of Livings, i.e. their
ability to preserve the inequality (2), is proportional to reﬂectionbased complexity of
mental dynamics that is, to complexity of information potential.
6.4 Chain of Abstractions
In view of importance of mental complexity for survival of Livings, we will take a closer
look into cognitive aspects of information potential. It should be recalled that classical
methods of information processing are eﬀective in a deterministic and repetative world,
but faced with the uncertainties and unpredictabilities, they fail. At the same time, many
natural and social phenomena exhibit some degree of regularity only on a higher level of
abstraction, i.e.in terms of some invariants. Indeed, it is easier to predict the state of the
solar system in a billion years ahead than to predict a price of a stock of a single company
tomorrow. In this subsection we will discuss a new type of attractors and associated with
them a new chain of abstraction that is provided by complexity of mental dynamics.
α. Attractors in motor dynamics. We will start with neural nets that, in our terminol
ogy, represent motor dynamics without mental dynamics. The standard form of classical
neural nets is is given by Eqs. (59). Due to the sigmoid functiontanh x
i
, the system (59) is
nonlinear and dissipative, and these two conditions are necessary for existence of several
attractors that can be static, periodic, or chaotic; their type, location, and basins depend
upon the choice of the synaptic weights. For instance, if these weights are symmetric
w
ij
= w
ji
, (94)
then the solution of Eqs. (59) can have only static attractors. As illustrated in Figure
18, static attractors perform generalization: they draw a general rule via abstraction, i.e.
via removal of insigniﬁcant details.
β. Attractors in mental dynamics. Signiﬁcant expansion of the concept of an attractor
as well as associated with it generalization via abstraction is provided by mental dynamics.
We will start with mental neural nets based upon mirror neurons being discussed in
Section 5. First, we will reformulate the motor dynamics (49) by changing notations of
the state variables from v to x to be consistent with the notations of this section
˙ x
i
= (−x
1/2
ii
+ w
ij
tanh x
jj
)
∂
∂x
j
ln ρ(x
1
, ...x
n
) (95)
44 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Here, for further convenience, we have introduced new compressed notations
¯ x
i
=
∞
−∞
x
i
ρdx
i
, x
ii
= D
ii
=
∞
−∞
(x
i
− ¯ x
i
)
2
ρdx
i
,
x
iiii
=
∞
−∞
(x
ii
− ¯ x
ii
)
2
ρdx
ii
...etc
(96)
The corresponding mental dynamics in the new notations follows from Eq. (50)
∂ρ
∂t
= (x
1/2
ii
−w
ij
tanh x
jj
)
∂
2
ρ
∂X
2
j
(97)
In the same way, the mental (mirror) neural nets can be obtained from Eqs. (54)
˙ x
ii
= (−x
1/2
ii
+ w
ij
tanh x
jj
) (98)
where the state variables x
ii
represent variances of ρ.
Obviously, the discussion of the performance of the neural net (54) can be repeated
for the performance of the neural net (98).
6.5 Hierarchy of Higher Mental Abstractions
Following the same pattern as those discussed in the previous subsection, and keeping
the same notations, one can introduce the next generation of mental neural nets starting
with the motor dynamics
˙ x
i
= [(−x
1/2
iiii
+ w
ij
tanh x
jjjj
)
∂
∂x
ii
ln ρ
(x
11
, ...x
nn
)]
∂
∂x
i
ln ρ(x
1
, ...x
n
) (99)
Here, in addition to the original random state variables x
i
, new random variables x
ii
are
included into the structure of information potential. They represent invariants (variances)
of the original variables that are assumed to be random too, while their randomness is
described by the secondary joint probability densityρ
(x
11
, ...x
nn
). The corresponding
FokkerPlanck equation governing the mental part of the neural net is
∂ρ
∂t
= [(x
1/2
jjjj
−w
ij
tanh x
jjjj
)
∂
∂x
ii
ln ρ
(x
11
, ...x
nn
)]
∂
2
ρ
∂X
2
jj
(100)
Then, following the same pattern as in Eqs. (95), (97), and (98), one obtains
˙ x
ii
= (−x
1/2
jjjj
+ w
ij
tanh x
jjjj
)
∂
∂x
ii
ln ρ
(x
11
, ...x
nn
) (101)
∂ρ
∂t
= [(x
1/2
jjjj
−w
ij
tanh x
jjjj
)
∂
2
ρ
∂X
2
jj
(102)
˙ x
iiii
= (−x
1/2
jjjj
+ w
ij
tanh x
jjjj
). (103)
Here Eqs. (101) and (103) describe dynamics of the variances x
ii
and variances of vari
ances x
iiii
respectively, while Eq. (102) governs the evolution of the secondary joint
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 45
probability density ρ
(x
11
, ..x
nn
). As follows from Eqs. (99) (103), the only variables
that have attractors are the variances of variances; these attractors are controlled by Eq.
(103) that has the same structure as Eq. (98). The stationary values of these variables
do not depend upon the initial conditions: they depend only upon the basins where the
initial conditions belong, and that speciﬁes a particular attractor out of the whole set of
possible attractors. On the contrary, no other variables have attractors, and their values
depend upon the initial conditions. Thus, the attractors have broad membership in terms
of the variables x
iiii
, and that represents a high level of generalization. At the same time,
such “details” as values of x
i
and x
ii
at the attractors are not deﬁned being omitted as
insigniﬁcant, and that represent a high level of abstraction.
It should be noticed that the chain of abstractions was built upon only principal vari
ances, while covariances were not included. There are no obstacles to such an inclusion;
however, the conditions for preserving the positivity of the tensors x
ij
andx
ijkq
are too
cumbersome while they do not bring any signiﬁcant novelty into cognitive aspects of the
problem other than increase of the number of attractors, (see Eqs. (42), (43), and (45)).
It is interesting to note that Eqs.(101) and (102) have the same structure as Eqs. (11)
and (12), and therefore, the velocities of variances ˙ x
ii
are entangled in the same way as the
accelerations ˙ v are, (see Eq. (23) ). That means that the chain of abstractions considered
above, gives rise to an associated chain of entanglements of the variables ˙ x
ii
, ˙ x
iiii
, ...etc.
6.6 Abstraction and Survivability
In this subsection, we will demonstrate that each new level of abstraction in mental
dynamics increases survivability of the system in terms of its capability to increase order
(see the condition (64)) regardless of action of random force. For easier physical inter
pretation, we will investigate a onedimensional linear case by starting with Eq. (66).
This equation describes an agent that interacts with its own image in the simple linear
form. As shown in the previous section, such an agent does not expose the property of
living systems (64) and behaves as a physical nonliving particle. Let us introduce now
the second level of mental complexity when the same agent interacts with its image and
the image of this image. The dynamical model describing such an agent follows from a
onedimensional version of Eqs. (99) (103) in which the neural net structure is replaced
by a linear term and to which noise of the strength q
2
is added
˙ x
1
= qL(t) + x
1111
∂
∂x
11
ln ρ
(x
11
)
∂
∂x
i
ln ρ(x
1
) (104)
∂ρ
∂t
= [q
2
−x
1111
∂
∂x
11
ln ρ
(x
11
)]
∂
2
ρ
∂X
2
11
(105)
˙ x
11
= (2q
2
−2x
1111
)
∂
∂x
11
ln ρ
(x
11
) (106)
∂ρ
∂t
= (−2q
2
+ 2x
1111
)
∂
2
ρ
∂X
2
11
(107)
46 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
˙ x
1111
= 4q
2
−4x
1111
(108)
In order to prove our point, we have to show that there exists such a set of initial
conditions that provides the inequality (64)
˙ x
11
< 0 (109)
under the action of random force of a strength q
2
. Let us concentrate on Eqs. (106) and
(108) and choose the following initial conditions
x
1111
= 0, ρ
=
2
σ
√
2π
exp(−
X
2
11
2σ
2
) at t = 0 (110)
where
σ = const, and 0 ≤ X
11
< ∞ (111)
Now as follows from Eqs. (106) and (108)
0 < x
1111
< q
2
at t > 0, and
∂
∂x
11
ln ρ
(x
11
) < 0 at x
11
> 0, t > 0
(112)
Therefore
˙ x
11
< 0 at t > 0 (113)
Thus, an additional layer of mental complexity that allows an agent to interact not only
with its image, but also with the image of that image, makes the agent capable to increase
order under action of a random force, i.e. increase its survivability.
6.7 Activation of New Levels of Abstractions
A slight modiﬁcation of the model of motormental dynamics discussed above leads to a
new phenomenon: the capability to activate new levels of abstraction needed to preserve
the inequality (64). The activation is triggered by the growth of variance caused by
applied random force. In order to demonstrate this, let us turn to Eq. (33) and rewrite
it in the following form
˙ x = qL(t) + λ
α
ρ
∂ρ
∂x
(114)
Then Eq. (36), and (37) are modiﬁed to
∂ρ
∂t
= [q
2
(−λexp
√
D)]
∂
2
ρ
∂X
2
(115)
˙
D = [2q
2
(−λexp
√
D)] (116)
respectively. Here λ is a new variable deﬁned by the following diﬀerential equation
˙
λ =
λ(1 −λ)
˙
D (117)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 47
One can verify that Eq. (117) implements the following logic:
λ = 0 if
˙
D ≤ 0, and λ = 1 if
˙
D > 0, (118)
Indeed, Eq. (117) has two static attractors:λ = 1 and λ = 0; when
˙
D > 0, the ﬁrst
attractor is stable; when
˙
D < 0 , it becomes unstable, and the solution switches to
the second one that becomes stable. The transition time is ﬁnite since the Lipchitz
condition at the attractors does not hold, and therefore, the attractors are terminal,
(Zak, M., 2005a). Hence, when there is no random force applied, i.e. q=0, the ﬁrst
level of abstraction does not need to be activated, since then
˙
D = 0, and therefore.λ is
zero. However, when random force is applied, i.e. q = 0, the variance D starts growing,
i.e.
˙
D > 0. Then the ﬁrst level of abstraction becomes activated, λ switches to 1, and,
according to Eq. (116), the growth of dispersion is eliminated. If the ﬁrst level of
abstraction is not suﬃcient, the next levels of abstractions considered in the previous
subsections, can be activated in a similar way.
6.8 Summary
A connection between survivability of Livings and complexity of their behavior is es
tablished. New physical paradigms – exchange of information via reﬂections, and chain
of abstractions explaining and describing progressive evolution of complexity in living
(active) systems are introduced. A biological origin of these paradigms is associated with
a recently discovered mirror neuron that is able to learn by imitation. As a result, an ac
tive element possesses the selfnonself images and interacts with them creating the world
of mental dynamics. Three fundamental types of complexity of mental dynamics that
contribute to survivability are identiﬁed.
7. Intelligence in Livings
7.1 Deﬁnition and General Remarks
The concept of intelligence has many diﬀerent deﬁnitions depending upon the context
in which it is used. In this paper we will link intelligence to the proposed model of
Livings, namely, associating it with a capability of Livings to increase their survivability
via successful interaction with their collective mind, i.e. with self image and images of
others. For an illustration of this deﬁnition, one can turn to the subsection g of the
section 5, where the preservation of survival (in terms of inequality (64)) is achieved due
to activation of new level of abstraction, (see Eqs. (114) (118)).
7.2 Intelligent Control in Livings
In this subsection we will discuss the ability of Livings to controls their own behavior
using information force as an actuator. These dynamical paradigm links to reﬂective
48 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
control being performed by living systems for changing their behavior by “internal eﬀort”
with the purpose to increase survivability. In this subsection we will modify the model
of Livings’ formalism subject to intelligent control. We will start with the linear version
of the Langevin equations known as the OrnsteinUhlenbeck system
˙ v
i
= −a
ij
v
j
+ L
i
(t),
< L
i
(t) >= 0, < L
i
(t)L
j
(t
) >= q
ij
δ(t −t
), q
ij
= q
ji
, i = 1, 2, ...n
(119)
subject to initial conditions presented in the form
v
i
(0) = v
0
i
, (120)
Err(V
0
i
) = ρ(V
0
1
, ...V
0
n
) = ρ
0
. (121)
v
0
i
=< V
0
i
>=
∞
−∞
V
i
ρ
0
dV
i
...dV
n
, i = 1, 2, ...n (122)
Our attention will be concentrated on control of uncertainties represented by nonsharp
initial conditions, Langevin forces L
i
(t) and errors in values of parameters a
i
. All these
uncertainties will be measured by expected deviations of the state variables from their
mean values (i.e. variances)
D
ij
=< (v
i
− < v
i
>)(v
j
− < v
j
>) > (123)
Now we will introduce the following informationbased control
˙ v
i
= −a
ij
v
j
+ L
i
(t) + ζα
ij
∂
∂v
j
ln ρ (124)
The associated LiouvilleFokkerPlanck equation describing evolution of the probability
density ρ reads
∂ρ
∂t
= a
ij
∂
∂V
i
(V
j
ρ) + (q
ij
−ζα
ij
)
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
j
(125)
while
ρ(t = 0) = ρ
0
(126)
(Multiplying Eq.(125) by V
i
, then using partial integration, one obtains for expecta
tions
d
dt
< v
i
>= −a
ij
< v
j
>, (127)
Similarly one obtains for variances
˙
D
ij
= −a
il
D
lj
−a
jl
D
li
+ 2q
ij
−2ζα
ij
(128)
Thus, as follows from Eqs.(125) and (128), the control force ζα
ij
does not aﬀect the
expected values of the state variables ¡v¿: it aﬀects only the variances.
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 49
Before formulating the control strategy, we will discuss the solution to Eq.(125). In
the simplest case when α
ij
= const., the solution describing the transition from initial
density (126) to current density is given by the following equation (compare with Eq.
(60))
ρ({V }, t{V
}, t
) = (2π)
n/2
[DetD(t −t
)]
−1/2
exp{−
1
2
[D
−1
(t −t
)]
ij
[V
i
−G
ik
(t −t
)V
k
]
×[V
j
−G
jl
(t −t)V
l
]}
(129)
Here the Green function in matrix notation is expressed by Eq. (61). Substituting the
solution (129) into Eq.(124), one obtains the Langevin equation in the form
˙ v
i
= −a
ij
v
j
+ L
i
(t) + ζ[ασ
−1
]
ij
(v
j
−G
jl
v
l
) (130)
If the control forces α
ij
are not constants, for instance, if they depend upon variances
α
ij
= α
ij
({D
kl
}) (131)
the solution (129) as well as the simpliﬁed form (130) of the original Langevin equation
are valid only for small times. Nevertheless, for better physical interpretation, we will stay
with this approximation in our future discussions. First we have to justify the nonlinear
form for the control forces (131). For that purpose, let us turn to Eq. (128). As
follows from this equation, the variances D
ij
are not “protected” from crossing zeros and
becoming negative, and that would not have any physical meaning. To be more precise,
the nonnegativity of all the variances, regardless of possible coordinate transformations,
can be guaranteed only by nonnegativity of the matrix D that, in turn, requires non
negativity of all its leftcorner determinants
DetD
ij
 ≥ 0, i, j = 1; i, j = 1, 2; ...i, j = 1, 2, ...n (132)
In terms of the FokkerPlanck equation (125), negative variances would lead to negative
diﬀusion, and that is associated with illposedness of initialvalue problems for parabolic
PDE. Mathematical aspects of that phenomenon are discussed in (Zak, M.,2005a).
In order to enforce the inequalities (132), we will specify the control forces (131) as
linear functions of variances with one nonlinear term as terminal attractor
α
ij
= b
il
D
lj
+ b
jl
D
li
+ [cD
1/2
]
ij
, b
ij
= 0, c
ij
> 0 (133)
Then, as follows from Eq.(128), for small variances
D
ij
∼
= q
ij
t at D
ij
−→0 (134)
But the strengthofnoise matrix q
ij
is always nonnegative, and therefore, the constraints
(132) are satisﬁed. The role of the terminal attractor will be discussed below. Now the
original dynamical system (124) with intelligent control (133) reads
˙ v
i
= −a
ij
v
j
+ L
i
(t) + ζ(b
il
D
lj
+ b
jl
D
li
+ [cD
1/2
]
ij
)
∂
∂v
j
ln ρ (135)
50 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
or, applying the approximation (129)
˙ v
i
= −a
ij
v
j
+ L
i
(t) + ζ[αD
−1
]
ij
(v
j
−G
jl
v
l
) (136)
where α
ij
is expressed by Eq. (133).
Eqs. (135) and (136) must be complemented by the additional controller that imple
ments the dynamics of variances
˙
D
ij
= −a
il
D
lj
−a
jl
D
li
+ 2q
ij
−2ζ(b
il
D
lj
+ b
jl
D
li
+ [cD
1/2
]
ij
) (137)
As follows from Eq. (137), the dynamics of the controller depends only upon the design
parameters {a}, but not on the state variables {v} of the underlying dynamical system,
and therefore, the control strategy can be developed in advance. This strategy may
include classical leadlag compensation for optimization of transient response or large
steadystate errors, while the role of the classical compensation system is played by the
controlling dynamics (137) in which the design parameters {b} can be modiﬁed for appro
priate change of root locus, noise suppression, etc. Fig.19. However, in contradistinction
to classical control, here the compensation system is composed of the statistical invariants
produced by the underlying dynamical system “itself ” via the corresponding Liouville or
FokkerPlanck equations.
Let us now analyze the eﬀect of terminal attractor and, turning to Eq.(133), start
with the matrix [∂
˙
D
ij
/∂D
lk
]. Its diagonal elements become inﬁnitely negative when the
variances vanish
∂
˙
D
ij
∂D
ij
= −2a
ii
−ζ(4b
ii
−
1
3
c
ij
σ
−1/2
ij
) →−∞ at D
ij
→0 (138)
while the rest elements ∂
˙
D
ij
/∂D
ij
atij = lk are bounded, (compare with Eqs. (54)
and (55)). Therefore, due to the terminal attractor, the controller (53) linearized with
respect to zero variances has inﬁnitely negative characteristic roots, i.e. it is inﬁnitely
stable regardless of the parameters {a} of the original dynamical system as well as of the
chosen parameters {b} of the controller. This eﬀect has been exploited in (Zak, M.,2006a)
for suppression of chaos. Another eﬀect of the terminal attractor is in minimization of
residual noise. A simpliﬁed example of such a minimization has been discussed in the
Section 2, (see Eqs. (3337)) where, for the purpose of illustration, it was assumed that the
noise strength q in known in advance and that allowed us to eliminate noise completely.
In reality, the noise strength is not known exactly, and it can only be minimized using
the proposed controller. Let us turn to Eq.(137) at equilibrium, i.e. when
˙
D
ij
= 0, and
ﬁnd the ratio of residual noise and variance
∂q
ij
∂D
ij
= 2a
ii
+ ζ(4b
ii
+
1
3
c
ij
D
1/2
ij
→
1
3
c
ij
D
−1/2
ij
) →∞ at D
ij
→0 (139)
As follows from Eq. (137), without the terminal attractor, i.e. when c
ij
= 0, this ratio
is ﬁnite; but with the terminal attractor it is unbounded. This means that the terminal
attractor almost completely suppresses noise, (see Fig. 20).
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 51
It should be recalled that a nonliving system may possess the selfimage, but it is
not equipped with the selfawareness, and therefore, this selfimage is not in use. On
the contrary, in living systems the selfawareness is represented by the expectationbased
forces that send information from the selfimage to the motor dynamics, and these forces
can be exploited by Livings as actuators implementing control. Due to this property
that is wellpronounced in the proposed model, an intelligent agent can run its mental
dynamics ahead of real time, (since the mental dynamics is fully deterministic, and it
does not depend explicitly upon the motor dynamics) and thereby, it can predict future
expected values of its state variables; then, by interacting with the selfimage via the
supervising forces, it can change the expectations if they are not consistent with the
objective. Such a selfsupervised, or intelligent control provides a major advantage for
the corresponding intelligent agents, and especially, for biological species: due to the
ability to predict future, they are better equipped for dealing with uncertainties, and
that improves their survivability.
7.3 Modeling Common Sense
α. General remarks. A human common sense has always been a mystery for physicists,
and an obstacle for artiﬁcial intelligence. It was well understood that human behavior,
and in particular, the decision making process, is governed by feedbacks from the external
world, and this part of the problem was successfully simulated in the most sophisticated
way by control systems. However, in addition to that, when the external world does not
provide suﬃcient information, a human turns for “advise” to his experience and intuition,
and that is associated with a common sense. The simplest representation of human
experience is by ifthen rules. However, in real world situations, the number of rules
grows exponentially with the dimensionality of external factors, and implementation of
this strategy is hardly realistic. One of the ways to ﬁght such a combinatorial explosion is
to represent rules in a more abstract and more generalized form by removing insigniﬁcant
details and making the rules more inclusive. This procedure is usually accompanied by
coercion, i.e. by reducing uncertainties about the world via forcing it into a known state
regardless of the initial state. Indeed, many natural and social phenomena exhibit some
degree of regularity only on a higher level of abstraction, i.e. in terms of some invariants.
Within the mathematical formalism of the model of mental dynamics, this means that
only variables of the highest level of abstraction are capable to classify changes in the
external world and send them to the corresponding attractor. Based upon that, the model
reacts to these changes, and that can be associated with commonsensebased decision.
Collaboration, competition and games are examples of those types of human activities
that require common sense for prediction of intentions of a collaborator or a competitor
in order to make a right decision when objective information for a rational decision in
incomplete.
β. The model. In this paper, by common sense we will understand a feedback from
the selfimage (a concept adapted from psychology), and based upon that, we will pro
52 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
pose a physical model of common sense in connection with the decision making process.
This model grew out of the model of Livings proposed and discussed in the previous
sections. Previously similar model in quantum implementation has been introduced and
discussed in (Zak, M., 2000b) We will start with the onedimensional case based upon
the augmented version of Eq. (11)
˙ v = −yζσ
2
∂
∂v
ln ρ, (140)
∂ρ
∂t
= yζσ
2
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
(141)
where
˙ y = −a
y(1 −y), a = const > 0 (142)
Eq. (142) has two equilibrium points: y = 0 and y = 1. At both these points, the
Lipschitz condition does not hold since
∂ ˙ y
∂y
= a
1 −2y
2
y(1 −y)
(143)
and therefore
∂ ˙ y/∂y →∞ if y →0,
∂ ˙ y/∂ y →0 if y →1
(144)
Hence, y = 1 is a terminal attractor, and y = 0 is a terminal repeller, (Zak,M.,1989). Re
gardless of these “abnormality”, the closed form solution is easily obtained by separation
of variables
t =
2
a
arctan
1 −y
y
+ C, C = 0 if y = 0 at t = 0 (145)
However, this “abnormality” becomes crucial for providing a ﬁnite time T of transition
from the repeller y = 0 to the attractor y = 1
T =
π
a
, (146)
It should be recalled that in classical theory of ODE, when the Lipschitz condition is
preserved, an attractor is always approached asymptotically, and the transition period is
theoretically unbounded. Hence, this limitation is removed due to a special form of the
governing equation (142). Qualitatively, the result (146) holds even if a = a (t). Then
the solution to Eq.(142) is
t
0
a(t)dt =2 arctan
1 −y
y
, and
T
0
a(t)dt = π, i.e. T < ∞, (147)
Similar results can be obtained for a < 0: then the attractor becomes a repeller and
wise versa. When the function a(t) changes its sign sequentially, the solution switches
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 53
from 0 to 1 and back, respectively, while the transition time is always ﬁnite. Selecting,
for instance,
a = cos ωt (148)
one arrives at periodical switches (with the frequency ω) from a decision mode to a passive
(predecision) mode and back, since, in the context of this subsection, the state y=0 and
y=1 can be identiﬁed with the passive mode and the decision mode, respectively. As
shown in Fig. 21, after each switch to the decision mode, the system may select diﬀerent
solutions from the same family (15), i.e. a diﬀerent decision, so that the entire solution
will include jumps from one branch of the family (15) to another. In order to preserve
the autonomy of the dynamical model (141), (142), one can present Eq. (148) as a
limitcyclesolution to the following autonomous nonlinear ODE
¨ a −ξ
1
˙ a + ξ
2
˙ a
3
+ ξ
3
a = 0 (149)
The periodic solution (148) to this oscillator is usually associated with modeling brain
rhythms, while the frequency ω is found to be a monotonic function of a stimulus intensity.
The model we propose for common sense simulation is based upon augmented n
dimensional version of Eqs.(140) and (141)
˙ v
i
= ζ[(y −1)f
i
+ y(β
i
+ α
ii
∂
∂V
i
ln ρ)], i = 1, 2, ...n, (150)
∂ρ
∂t
= −
n
ζΣ
i=1
{[(y −1)f
i
+ yβ
i
]
∂ρ
∂V
i
−yα
ii
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
i
} (151)
Here
f
i
= f
i
(¯ v
1
, ...¯ v
n
), α
ii
= α
ii
(ρ), β
i
= β
i
(ρ) (152)
where ¯ v
i
is expected value of v
i
,yis deﬁned by Eqs. (142) and (149), while the functions
f and β provide nonzero mean and nonzero drift of the underlying stochastic process.
The solution to Eq. (151) has the same fundamental properties as the solution to its
simpliﬁed onedimensional version (12). Indeed, starting with the initial conditions
v
i
= 0, ρ = δ(V
i
→0) at t = 0 (153)
and looking ﬁrst for the solution within an inﬁnitesimal initial time interval ε, one reduces
Eq. (151) to the form
∂ρ
∂t
= −
n
Σ
i=1
α
ii
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
i
(154)
since
∂ρ
∂V
i
= 0, at t = 0 (155)
and therefore, all the drift terms can be ignored within the interval ε.
The solution to Eq. (154) is a multidimensional version of Eq. (13). Substitution of
this solution to Eqs. (150) yields
˙ v
i
= ζ[f
i
+ yβ
i
+
v
i
2t
] →ζ[
v
i
2t
] at t →0 (156)
54 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
since the functions f
i
are considered to be bounded. The solution to Eqs. (156) is of the
form (13)
v
i
= C
i
√
t at t →0 (157)
and this can be illustrated by the same Fig.4 with the only diﬀerence that here the solu
tion is valid only within an inﬁnitesimal initial time interval ε. But the most important
phenomenon phase transition occurs exactly in this interval: due to violation of the
Lipchitz condition, the solution splits into ensemble of diﬀerent samples, while the prob
ability of the solution to represent certain sample is controlled by the density following
from Eq. (154). Thus, the solution to Eqs. (150) and (151) within the inﬁnitesimal initial
interval captures instabilitybased randomization eﬀect.
γ. Decision making process. Decision making is the cognitive process of selecting
a course of action from among multiple alternatives. We will distinguish two types of
decision making processes. The ﬁrst type is associated with the concept of a rational
agent; the models of this type are largely quantitative and are based on the assumptions
of rationality and near perfect knowledge. They are composed of agent’s believe on the
basis of evidence followed by construction and maximization of utility function. The
main limitation of these models is in their exponential complexity: on the level of believe
nets, the exponential complexity is caused by the fact that encoding a joint probability
as a function of n propositional variables requires a table with 2
n
entries, (Perl,J.,1986);
the same rate complexity occurs in rulebased decision trees. The second type of a
decision making process is based upon psychological models; these models concentrate
on psychological and cognitive aspects such as motivation, need reduction, and common
sense. They are qualitative rather than quantitative and build on sociological factors
like cultural inﬂuences, personal experience, etc. The model proposed in this paper is
better structured for the second type of decision making process that exploits interaction
between motor and mental dynamics in which the mental dynamic plays the role of a
knowledge base replacing unavailable external information. In order to demonstrate the
proposed approach to decision making, we will augment the model (150), (151) by two
additional devices. The ﬁrst one, a sensor device, measures the diﬀerence between the
actual and expected values of the state variables
Δ =
n
¸
i=1
(v
i
− ¯ v
i
)
2
, ¯ v
i
=
∞
−∞
∞
−∞
...
∞
−∞
V
i
ρdV
1
dV
2
...dV
n
, (158)
The second one, the logical device, is based upon Eq. (142) with
a = A −Δ (159)
where A¿0 is a sensitivity threshold speciﬁed for the decision making process.
We will start the analysis of the model performance from its predecision mode when
Δ = 0, and therefore, y = 0 and
˙ v
i
= ζf
i
(v
1
, ...v
n
) i = 1, 2, ...n, (160)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 55
∂ρ
∂t
= −
n
ζΣ
i=1
f
i
∂ρ
∂V
i
(161)
At this mode, the motor dynamics (150), and the mental dynamics (151) are not coupled.
The performance starts with mental dynamics that runs ahead of actual time, calculates
expected values of the state variables as well as the diﬀerence Δ at the end of a selected
lead time T, (see Eq. (158), and sends this information to the sensor device (159). As
soon as Δbecomes large, it changes the sign of the control parameter a (see Eqs. (142)
and (159)), the value of y changes from zero to one, and the system (160), (161) switches
to the decision mode taking the form (150), (151). After this switch, a deterministic
trajectory deﬁned by the solution to Eq. (160) splits into a family of the solution to the
coupled system (150), (151) (see Eq. (157), and Fig. 21). But, as discussed above, the
system selects only one trajectory of this family at random with the probability deﬁned
by the information forces α
i
(ρ) and β
i
(ρ). Thus, the topology of the proposed model
demonstrates how a decision is made, while the structure of the information forces deﬁnes
what decision is made. This structure will be discussed in the following subsection.
δ. Decision via choice of attractors. Let us return to the system (150), (151) in the
decision mode
˙ v
i
= ζ(β
i
+ α
ii
∂
∂V
i
ln ρ), i = 1, 2, ...n, (162)
∂ρ
∂t
= −
n
ζΣ
i=1‘
(β
i
∂ρ
∂V
i
+ α
ii
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
i
) (163)
and assume that α
ii
and β
i
in Eq. (152) depend only upon two ﬁrst invariants of the
probability density ρ, namely, upon the means ¯ v
i
and principle variances D
ii
α
ii
= α
ii
(¯ v
1
, ...¯ v
n
, D
1
1, ...D
n
n), β
i
= β
i
(¯ v
1
, ...¯ v
1
, D
1
1, ...D
n
n) (164)
As follows from Eqs. (150) and (151), the means ¯ v
i
and the variances D
ii
must satisfy
the following ODE, (Compare with Eqs. (127) and (128))
˙
¯ v
i
= ζβ
i
(¯ v
1
, ...¯ v
n
, D
1
1, ...D
n
n), (165)
˙
D
i
i = −ζα
i
(¯ v
1
, ...¯ v
1
, D
1
1, ...D
n
n) (166)
Thus, although the state variables v
i
are statistically independent, i.e. D
ij
≡ 0ifi = j,
the time evolution of their statistical invariants is coupled via Eqs. (165) and (166).
It should be noticed that Eqs. (165) and (166) can be considered as an ODEbased
approximation to the mental dynamics (163).
Next we will introduce the following structure into the functions (164)
β
i
=
(¯ v
i
−γ
i1
)(¯ v
i
−γ
i2
)...(¯ v
i
−γ
in
)(Σw
ij
Δ
j
), Δ
j
= (¯ v
i
−v
i
)
2
, (167)
α
ii
=
(D
ii
−η
i1
)(D
ii
−η
i2
)...(D
ii
−η
in
)(Σv
ij
Δ
j
), i = 1, 2, ...n, (168)
where γ
ij
, η
ij
, w
ij
, v
ij
are constants, and rewrite the system (165), (166) as follows
˙
¯ v
i
= ζ
[
n
¸
j=1
(¯ v
i
−γ
ij
)](Σw
ij
Δ
j
), i = 1, 2, ...n, (169)
56 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
˙
D
ii
= −ζ
n
¸
j=1
(D
ii
−η
ij
)(Σu
ij
Δ
j
), i = 1, 2, ...n, (170)
We will start our analysis with Eqs. (169). First of all, in that particular setting, these
equations do not depend upon Eqs. (170). Moreover, each equation in the system (169) is
coupled to other equations of the same systems only via the signs of the sums Σw
ij
Δ
j
that
include contribution from all the equations. Indeed, if Σw
ij
Δ
j
> 0, the i
th
equation has
the terminal attractors,
¯ v
0
i
= γ
i2
, γ
i4
, ...γ
im
, i = 1, 2, ...n (171)
and terminal repellers
¯ v
∗
i
= γ
i1
, γ
i3
, ...γ
ik
, i = 1, 2, ...n (172)
where m = n , k = n −1 if n is even, and m = n1, k =n if n is odd.
The n
2
/2 attractors (171) can be prestored using n
2
weights w
ij
. These attractors
are the limit values of the means of the stochastic process that occurs as a result of switch
from the predecision to the decision making mode, and these attractors are approached
in ﬁnite time, (see eq. (146).
Turning to Eqs. (170) and noticing that they have the same structure as Eqs. (169),
one concludes that the principle variances D
ii
of the same stochastic process approach
their limiting values
D
0
ii
= η
i2
, η
i4
, ...η
im
, i = 1, 2, ...n, (173)
that can be prestored using weights u
ij
. Thus, when the system switches to the decision
making mode, it chooses a sample of the corresponding stochastic process, and this sample
represents the decision. The choice of the sample is controlled by the normal probability
density with means and principle variances approaching their limit values (171) and (173).
The choice of a particular attractor out of the set of (171) and (173) depends upon the
initial values of means and variances at the end of the predecision period: if these values
fall into the basin of attraction of a certain attractor, they will eventually approach that
attractor, Fig. 22.
ε. Decision via phase transition. In the previous subsection, we consider the case
when pre and postdecision states are not totally disconnected: they belong to the same
basin of attraction. However, in general, decision may require fundamental change of the
dynamical structure, and that can be achieved via phase transition. The distinguishing
characteristic of a phase transition is an abrupt sudden change in one or more physical
properties of a dynamical system. In physics, a phase transition is the transformation
of a thermodynamic system from one phase to another (evaporation, boiling, melting,
freezing, sublimation, etc). In engineering, such transitions occur because of change of
system conﬁguration (new load, new open valve, new switch or a logic device in control
systems with variable structure, etc.). In living systems, dynamics includes the concept
of “discrete events”, i.e. special critical states that give rise to branching solutions, or
transitions from deterministic to random states and vice versa (for instant, lifenonlife
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 57
transitions). First mathematical indication of a phase transition is discontinuities in some
of the state variables as functions of time. In classical approach, these discontinuities are
incorporated through a set of inequalities imposing unilateral constraints upon the state
variables and the corresponding parameters of the governing diﬀerential equations. The
most severe changes in dynamics are caused by vanishing coeﬃcients at the highest space
or time derivatives. The best example to that is the transition from the NavierStokes
to the Euler equations in ﬂuid dynamics where due to vanishing viscosity, the tangential
velocity on the rigid boundary jumps from zero (the nonslip condition) to a ﬁnal value
(the slip condition). In this subsection, we will modify the proposed model by introducing
phase transitions that are accompanied by ﬁnite jumps of the state variables.
Let us modify Eq. (150), in the following way
(1 −y
i
) ˙ v
i
= ζ[f
i
+ (β
i
+ α
i
∂
∂V
i
ln ρ)], i = 1, 2, ...n, (174)
where y
i
is deﬁned as following
˙ y
i
= −a
i
y
i
(1 −y
i
),a
i
= A
i
−Δ
i
, Δ
i
= (v
i
− ¯ v
i
)
2
(175)
and assume that Δ
n
becomes large; that changes the sign of the control parameter a
n
,
the value of y
n
changes from zero to one, and the system (160), (161) switches to the
decision mode in the form
(1 −y
i
) ˙ v
i
= ζ[f
i
+ (β
i
+ α
i
∂
∂V
i
ln ρ)], i = 1, 2, ...n −1, (176)
0 = f
n
+ (β
n
+ α
.n
∂
∂V
n
ln ρ), (177)
∂ρ
∂t
= −
n
ζΣ
i=1
[(f
i
+ β
i
)
∂ρ
∂V
i
−α
i
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
i
], i = 1, 2, ...n −1, (178)
Since Eq. (177) is stationary, one of the state variables, for instance,x
n
can be expressed
via the rest of the variables. Hence, formally the decision making mode is described by
Eqs, (162)(170), but the dimensionality of the system drops from n to n−1; obviously, the
functions f
i
(v
1
, ...v
n−1
), α
i
(D
11
, ...D
n−1,n−1
), β
i
(¯ v
i
, ...¯ v
n−1
), become diﬀerent from their n
dimensional origins, and therefore, the location of the attractors (171) and (173) becomes
diﬀerent as well , and this diﬀerence may be signiﬁcant. The number of decision making
modes associated with phase transitions is equal to the number of possible subspaces,
and it grows exponentially with a linear growth of the original dimensionality of the
model.
7.4 Emergent Intelligence
In many cases, in order to simulate the ability of living systems to make decisions, it is
more convenient to introduced Boolean model of motion, or Boolean net. Boolean net
consists of N vertices that are characterized by Boolean variables taking values 0 or 1.
58 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Each vertex receives input from other vertices and updates its value according to a certain
rule. Such a model can be associated via a masterslave relationship with the continuous
behavior of the model of Livings discussed above. Indeed, let us turn to Eqs. (56),(57)
and introduce the following Boolean functions:
Y
i
(t) = 0 if v
i
(t) < 0, otherwise Y
i
= 1 (179)
P(Y
1
, ...Y
n
) = 0 if ρ(X
1
, ..X
n
) <
1
2
n
, and P(Y
1
, ...Y
n
) = 1 otherwise (180)
The conditions (179), (180) extract topological invariants of the solution to Eqs. (56), (57)
disregarding all the metrical properties. In terms of logic, Y
i
can be identiﬁed with the
statements variable; then P describes the Boolean truth functions as a set of compound
statements in these variables, and it can be represented in disjunctive normal form as
well as in the form of the corresponding logic circuit. It should be noticed that changes in
statements as well as in the structure of the truth functions are driven by the solution to
the original model (56), (57). Therefore, for nonliving systems when there is no feedback
information potential Π is applied, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics,
the truth function P (as well as its master counterpart ρ) will eventually approach zero,
i.e. the lowest level of logical complexity. On the contrary, as demonstrated above, living
systems can depart from any initial distribution toward decrease of entropy; it means
that the corresponding truth function P can depart from zero toward the higher logical
complexity without external interactions.
The logics constraints Eqs.(179), (180) can be represented by terminal dynamics
(Zak,M., 1992) via relaxing the Lipschitz conditions:
˙
Y = k
Y (1 −Y )v(t), (181)
˙
P = m
P(1 −P)[ρ(t) −
1
2
] (182)
where
k=const, m=const. sign[v(t)]=const, sign[ρ (t)]=const.
Indeed, Eq. (181) has two static attractors: Y = 0 and Y = 1; when v >0, the ﬁrst
attractor is stable; when v <0, it becomes unstable, and the solution switches to the
second one that becomes stable. The transition time is ﬁnite since the Lipschitz condition
at the attractors does not hold, and therefore, the attractors are terminal. The same is
true for Eq. (182). In both cases the transition time can be controlled by the constants
k and m to guarantee that the signs of v(t) and ρ(t) do not change during the transition
period.
Thus, any dynamical process described by the system (56), (57) can be “translated”
into a temporal sequence of logical statements via Boolean dynamics (181), (182) while
the complexity of the truth function can increase spontaneously, and that represents
emergent intelligence. One can introduce two (or several) systems of the type (56), (57)
with respect to variables v
i
and v∗
i
which are coupled only via Boolean dynamics, for
instance
˙
Y
i
= k
Y
i
(1 −Y
i
)(v
i
−v∗
i
),
˙
Y
i
∗ = k ∗
Y
i
(1 −Y
i
)(v ∗
i
−v
i
) (183)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 59
In this case, the dynamical systems will interact through a logicbased “conversation”.
It should be noticed that, in general, decisions made by a living system may aﬀect
its behavior, i.e. the Boolean functions Y and P can enter Eqs. (56), (57) as feedback
forces. That would couple Eqs. (56), (57) and Eqs. (181), (182) thereby introducing the
next level of complexity into the living system behavior. However, that case deserves a
special analysis, here we will conﬁne ourselves only by a trivial example. For that purpose
consider the simplest case of Eqs. (56), (57), (181), and (182) and couple these equations
as following
˙ v = 2(Y −
1
2
)D
∂
∂v
ln ρ(v, t), (184)
∂ρ
∂t
= −2(Y −
1
2
)D
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
(185)
where
β = 2(Y −
1
2
) (186)
˙
Y = k
Y (1 −Y )[v(t −τ) −1] (187)
˙
P = m
P(1 −P)[ρ(t) −
1
2
] (188)
Here τ is a constant time delay. For the initial conditions
v = 0 at τ ≤ t ≤ 0, ρ = δ(t →0), Y (0) = 0, P(0) = 1,
the solution is approximated by the following expressions
v = v
0
e
1−exp(−βt)
(189)
During the initial period v(t − τ) > 1 : β = −1, Y = 0, P = 1. After that, the solution
switches to: β = 1, Y=1, and P = 0. According to the new solution, x(t) starts decreas
ing, and ρ(t) starts increasing. When v(tτ) <1, and ρ(t)>1/2, the solution switches
back to the ﬁrst pattern etc. Thus, the solution is represented by periodical switches
from the ﬁrst pattern to the second one and back, Figure 23. From the logical viewpoint,
the dynamics simulates the operation of negation: P(0) =1, P(1) =0.
7.5 Summary
Intelligence in Livings is linked to the proposed model by associating it with a capability of
Livings to increase their survivability via successful interaction with their collective mind,
i.e. with self image and images of others. The concept is illustrated by intelligent control,
commonsensebased decision making, and Booleannetbased emergent intelligence.
8. Datadriven Model Discovery
The models of Livings introduced and discussed above are based upon extension of
the First Principles of Newtonian mechanics that deﬁne the main dynamical topology of
60 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
these models. However, the First Principles are insuﬃcient for detecting speciﬁc prop
erties of a particular living system represented by the parameters w
ij
as well as by the
universal constant ζ: these parameters must be found from experiments. Hence, we arrive
at the following inverse problem: given experimental data describing the performance of
a living system discover the underlying dynamical model, i.e. ﬁnd its parameters. The
model will be sought in the form of Eqs. (42) and (45)
˙ v
i
= −ζ
n
¸
j=1
α
ij
∂
∂v
j
ln ρ(v
1
, ...v
n
, t), i = 1, 2, ...n. (190)
∂ρ
∂t
= ζ
n
¸
j=1
α
ij
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
j
(191)
where α
ij
are function of the correlation momentsD
ks
α
ij
= −
1
2
(w
ijks
tanh
˜
D
ks
−c
ij
˜
D
ij
), i = 1, 2, ...n,
˜
D
ij
=
D
ij
D
0
, c
11
= 1,
(192)
With reference to Eq. (192), Eq. (191) can be replaced by its simpliﬁed version (compare
to Eq. (51))
˙
D
ij
= −
1
2
ζ(w
ijks
tanh
˜
D
ks
−c
ij
˜
D
ij
), i = 1, 2, ...n,
(193)
Then the inverse problem is reduced to ﬁnding the bestﬁtweights w
ijks
, c
ij
and ζ. It
should be noticed that all the sought parameters enter Eq. (193) linearly.
We will assume that the experimental data are available in the form of time series for
the state variables in the form
v
i
= v
i
(t, C
i
), C
i
= 1, 2, ...m
i
, (194)
Here each function at a ﬁxed C
i
describes a sample of the stochastic process associated
with the variable v
i
, while the family of these curves at C
i
= 1, 2, ...m
i
, approximates the
whole i
th
ensemble, (see Figs. 4 and 9). Omitting details of extracting the correlation
moments
D
ij
= D
ij
(t) (195)
from the functions (194), we assume that these moments as well as their time derivatives
are reconstructed in the form of time series. Then, substituting D
ij
, and
˙
D
ij
into Eq.
(193) for times t
1
, ...t
q
, one arrives at a linear system of algebraic equation with respect
to the constant parameters w
ijks
, c
ij
and ζ that, for compression, can be denoted and
enumerated as Wi
m
¸
i=1
A
i
W
i
= B i = 1, 2, ...m = 2
2n
+ 2
n
(196)
where m is the number of the parameters deﬁning the model, and
A
i
= A
i
(D
ks
,
˙
D
ks
), B = B(D
ks
,
˙
D
ks
), (197)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 61
are the coeﬃcients at the parameters W
i
and the free term, respectively. Introducing
values of A
i
and B at the points t = t
j
, j = 1, ...q, and denoting them as A
ij
, and B
j
,
one obtains a linear system of 2
n
q algebraic equations
m
¸
i=1
A
ij
W
i
= B
j
, j = 1, 2, ...q
,
(198)
with respect to m unknown parameters. It is reasonable to assume that
2
n
q ≥ m, i.e. q ≥ 2
n
+ 1 (199)
so the system becomes overdetermined. The bestﬁt solution is found via pseudoinverse
of the matrix
A = {A
ij
} , i.e. W = A ∗
¯
B (200)
Here
A
∗
= (A
T
A)
−1
A
T
, and
¯
B = {B
j
} (201)
As soon as the parameters W are found, the model is fully reconstructed.
Remark. It is assumed that the correlation moments found from the experiment must
automatically satisfy the inequalities (47) (by the deﬁnition of variances), and therefore,
the enforcement of these inequalities is not needed.
9. Discussion and Conclusion
9.1 General Remarks
We will start this section with the discussion of the testquestion posed in the Intro
duction: Suppose that we are observing trajectories of several particles: some or them
physical (for instance, performing a Brownian motion), and others are biological (for
instance, bacteria), Figure 1. Is it possible, based only upon the kinematics of the ob
served trajectories, to ﬁnd out which particle is alive? Now we are in a better position
to answer this question. First of all, represent the observed trajectories in the form of
time series. Then, using the proposed methodology for datadriven model reconstruction
introduced in Section 7 ﬁnd the mental dynamics for both particles in the form (193).
Finally, calculate the entropy evolution
H(t) = −
V
ρ(V, t) ln ρ(V, t)dV (202)
Now the suﬃcient condition for the particle to be “alive” is the inequality
dH
dt
< 0 (203)
that holds during, at least, some time interval, Figure 3. (Although this condition is
suﬃcient, it is not necessary since even a living particle may choose not to exercise its
privilege to decrease disorder).
62 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
It should be noticed that the condition (203) is applicable not only to natural, but
to artiﬁcial living systems as well. Indeed, the system (190)(191) can be simulated
by analog devices (such as VLSI chips, (Mead,C,1989)) or quantum neural nets, (Zak,
M.,1999)) that will capture the property (203), and that justiﬁes the phenomenological
approach to the modeling of living systems.
The condition (203) needs to be clariﬁed from the viewpoint of the second law of
thermodynamics. Formally it contradicts this law; however, this contradiction is appar
ent. Indeed, we are dealing here with an idealized phenomenological model which does
not include such biochemical processes as metabolism, breezing, food consumption, etc.
Therefore, the concept of an open or an isolated system becomes a subject to interpre
tation: even if the phenomenological model of a living system is isolated, the underlying
living system is open.
From biological viewpoint, the existence of the information potential that couples
mental and motor dynamics is based upon the assumption that a living system possesses
selfimage and selfawareness. (Indeed, even such a primitive living system as a virus
can discriminate the self from nonselves). The concepts of selfimage and selfawareness
can be linked to a recently discovered “mirror” properties of neurons according to which
a neuron representing an agent A can be activated by observing action of an agent B
that may not be in a direct contact with the agent A at all. Due to these privileged
properties, living systems are better equipped for dealing with future uncertainties since
their present motion is “correlated with future” in terms of the probability invariants.
Such a remarkable property that increases survivability could be acquired accidentally
and then be strengthening in the process of natural selection.
The ability of living systems to decrease their entropy by internal eﬀort allows one
to make connection between survivability and complexity and to introduce a model of
emergent intelligence that is represented by intelligent control and common sense decision
making. In this connection, it is interesting to pose the following problem. What is
a more eﬀective way for Livings to promote Life: through a simple multiplication, i.e.
through increase of the number of “primitives” n, or through individual selfperfection, i.e.
through increase of the number m of the levels of reﬂections (“What do you think I think
you think. . . ”)? The solution to this problem may have fundamental social, economical
and geopolitical interpretations. But the answer immediately follows from Eq. (82)
demonstrating that the complexity grows exponentially with the number of the levels of
reﬂections m, but it grows only linearly with the dimensionality n of the original system.
Thus, in contradistinction to Darwinism, a more eﬀective way for Livings to promote Life
is through higher individual complexity (due to mutually beneﬁcial interactions) rather
than trough a simple multiplication of “primitives”. This statement can be associated
with recent consensus among biologists that the symbiosis, or collaboration of Livings, is
even more powerful factor in their progressive evolution than a natural selection.
Before summarizing the results of our discussion, we would like to bring up the concept
of time perception. Time perception by a living system is not necessarily objective: it can
diﬀer from actual physical time depending upon the total life time of a particular living
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 63
system, as well as upon the complexity and novelty of an observed event. In general, one
can approximate the subjective time as
T = T(t, v, H,
˙
H, ...) (204)
In the simplest case, Eq. (204) can be reduced to a Logtime hypothesis used in psychology
(WeberFechner law)
T = ln t + Const (205)
However, our point here is not to discuss diﬀerent modiﬁcations of Eq. (204), but rather
to emphasize that any time perceptions that are diﬀerent from physical time lead to
diﬀerent motions of the living systems in actual physical space due to coupling of motor
and mental dynamics through the information potential
Π = ζ ln ρ(v, t) (206)
9.2 Model Extension
The proposed model of Livings is based upon a particular type of the Liouville feedback
implemented via the information potential Eq.(206). However, as shown in (Zak, M.,
2004, 2005b, 2006a, 2006c, 2007), there are other types of feedbacks that lead to diﬀerent
models useful for information processing. For instance, if the information force is chosen
as
F = α
1
ρ + α
2
∂
∂v
ln v +
α
3
ρ
∂
2
ρ
∂v
2
+
α
4
ρ
∂
3
ρ
∂v
3
(207)
(that includes the information force in the second term), then the corresponding Liouville
equation can describe shock waves, solitons and chaos in probability space, Fig. 24,
(Zak,M., 2004). Let us concentrate upon a particular case of Eq. (207) considered in
the Section 2 (see Eqs. (7a) and (8a). The solution of Eq. (8a) subject to the initial
conditions and the normalization constraint
ρ
0
= ρ
0
(V ), where ρ ≥ 0, and
∞
−∞
ρdV = 1 (208)
is given in the following implicit form (Whitham, G., 1974)
ρ = ρ
0
(ξ), V = ξ + ρ
0
(ξ)t (209)
This solution describes propagation of initial distribution of the density ρ
0
(V ) with the
speed V that is proportional to the values of this density, i.e. the higher values of
ρpropagate faster than lower ones. As a result, any “compressive” part of the wave,
where the propagation velocity is a decreasing function of V , ultimately “breaks” to give
a triplevalued (but still continuous) solution forρ(V, t). Eventually, this process leads
to the formation of strong discontinuities that are related to propagating jumps of the
probability density. In the theory of nonlinear waves, this phenomenon is known as the
64 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
formation of a shock wave, Fig. 24. Thus, as follows from the solution (209), a single
valued continuous probability density spontaneously transforms into a triplevalued, and
then, into discontinuous distribution. In aerodynamical application of Eq. (8a), when
ρstands for the gas density, these phenomena are eliminated through the model correction:
at the small neighborhood of shocks, the gas viscosity ν cannot be ignored, and the model
must include the term describing dissipation of mechanical energy. The corrected model
is represented by the Burgers’ equation
∂ρ
∂t
+
∂
∂V
(ρ
2
) = ν
∂
2
ρ
∂V
2
(210)
This equation has a continuous singlevalued solution (no matter how small is the viscosity
ν), and that provides a perfect explanation of abnormal behavior of the solution to Eq.
(8a). Similar correction can be applied to the case when ρ stands for the probability
density if one includes Langevin forces L(t)) into Eq. (7a)
˙ v = ρ +
√
νL(t), < L(t) >= 0, < L(t)L(t
) >= 2δ(t −t
) (211)
Then the corresponding FokkerPlanck equation takes the form (210).
It is reasonable to assume that small random forces of strength
√
ν << 1 are always
present, and that protects the mathematical model Eqs. (7a), and (8a) from singularities
and multivaluedness in the same way as it does in the case of aerodynamics. It is
interesting to notice that Eq. (210) can be obtained from Eq. (211) in which random
force is replaced by additional Liouville feedback
˙ v = ρ −ν
∂
∂V
ln ρ, ν > 0, (211a)
As noticed above, the phenomenological criterion of life is the ability to decrease entropy
by internal eﬀort. This ability is provided by the feedback implemented in Eqs. (7a) and
(8a). Indeed, starting with Eq. (1a) and invoking Eq. (8a), one obtains
∂H
∂t
= −
∂
∂t
∞
−∞
ρ ln ρdV = −
∞
−∞
˙ ρ(ln ρ + 1)dV =
∞
−∞
∂
∂V
(ρ
2
) ln(ρ + 1)dV
=
∞

−∞
ρ
2
(ln ρ + 1) −
∞
−∞
ρdV = −1 < 0
(212)
Obviously, presence of small diﬀusion, when ν << 1, does not change the inequality (212)
during certain period of time. (However, eventually, for large times, diﬀusion takes over,
and the inequality (212) is reversed). As shown in (Zak, M., 2006c) the model Eqs. (210),
and (211a) exhibits the same mechanism of emergence of randomness as those described
by Eqs. (14) and (15).
If the information force has the following integral form
F =
γ
ρ(v, t)
v
−∞
[ρ(ζ, t) −ρ
∗
(ζ)]dζ (213)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 65
leading to the governing equations
˙ v =
1
ρ(v, t)
x
−∞
[ρ(ζ, t) −ρ
∗
(ζ)]dζ (214)
∂ρ
∂t
+ ρ(t) −ρ
∗
= 0 (215)
then the solution to the corresponding Liouville equation (215) converges to an arbitrarily
prescribed probability density ρ ∗ (V ). This result can be applied to one of the oldest
(and still unsolved) problems in optimization theory: ﬁnd a global maximum of a multi
dimensional function. Almost all the optimization problems, one way or another, can be
reduced to this particular one. However, even under severe restrictions imposed upon
the function to be maximized (such as existence of the second derivatives), the classical
methods cannot overcome the problem of local maxima. The situation becomes even
worse if the function is not diﬀerentiable since then the concept of gradient ascend cannot
be applied. The idea of the quantuminspired algorithm based upon the Liouville feedback
Eq. (213) is very simple: represent a positive function ψ(v
1
, v
2
, ...v
n
) to be maximized
as the probability density ρ
∗
(v
1
, v
2
, ...v
n
) to which the solution of the Liouville equation
is attracted. Then the larger value of this function will have the higher probability to
appear as a result of running Eq. (214). If an arbitrary prescribed probability density is
chosen as a power law
ρ
∗
(V ) =
Γ(
ν+1
2
)
√
νπΓ(
ν
2
)
(1 +
V
2
ν
)
−(ν+1)/2
,
then the system (214), (215) simulates the underlying dynamics that leads to the cor
responding power low statistics ρ ∗ (V ). Such a system can be applied to analysis and
predictions of physical and social catastrophes, (Zak, M., 2007).
Finally, introduction of the terminal Liouville feedback (Zak, M.,2004, 2005b, 2006a)
F
i
= γ
i
(v
i
− ¯ v
i
)
1/3
(216)
applied to a system of ODE
˙ v
i
= f
i
({v}, t) (217)
˙ v
i
= f
i
({v}, t) + γ
i
(¯ v
i
−v
i
)
1/3
, i = 1, 2, ...n. (218)
and leading to the governing equations
∂ρ
∂t
= −
n
¸
i=1
∂
∂V
i
{ρ[f
i
+ γ
i
(¯ v
i
−V
i
)
1/3
]}. (219)
has been motivated by the fundamental limitation of the theory of ODE that does not dis
criminate between stable and unstable motions in advance, and therefore, an additional
stability analysis is required for that. However, such an analysis is not constructive: in
case of instability, it does not suggest any model modiﬁcations to eﬃciently describe
66 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
postinstability motions. The most important type of instability, that necessitates postin
stability description, is associated with positive Lyapunov exponents leading to expo
nential growth of small errors in initial conditions (chaos, turbulence). The approach
proposed in (Zak,M., 2005b) is based upon the removal of positive Lyapunov exponents
by introducing special Liouville feedback represented by terminal attractors and imple
mented by the force Eq. (216) . The role of this feedback is to suppress the divergence of
the trajectories corresponding to initial conditions that are diﬀerent from the prescribed
ones without aﬀecting the “target” trajectory that starts with the prescribed initial con
ditions. Since the terminal attractors include expected values of the state variables as
new unknowns (see Eqs. (218)), the corresponding Liouville equation should be invoked
for the closure (see Eq. (219)). This equation is diﬀerent from its classical version by ad
ditional nonlinear sinks of the probability represented by terminal attractors. The forces
(216) possess the following properties: ﬁrstly, they vanish at v
i
→ ¯ v
i
, and therefore,
they do not aﬀect the target trajectory v
i
= v
i
(t); secondly, their derivatives become
unbounded at the target trajectory:

∂F
i
∂v
i
 = 
γ
3
(¯ v
i
−v
i
)
−2/3
 →∞ at v
i
→ ¯ v
i
. (220)
and that makes the target trajectory inﬁnitely stable thereby suppressing chaos. The
same property has been exploited for representation of chaotic systems via stochastic
invariants, (Zak, M., 2005b), Fig. 25. Such a representation was linked to the stabilization
principle formulated in (Zak, M., 1994) for the closure in turbulence.
So far the extension of the model of Livings discussed above was implemented through
diﬀerent Liouville feedbacks. Now we will return to the original feedback, i.e. to the
gradient of the information potential Eq. (32), while extending the model through a
departure from its autonomy. The justiﬁcation for considering nonautonomous living
systems is based upon the following argument: in many cases, a performance of Livings
include so called “discrete events”, i.e. special critical states that give rise to branching
solutions, or to bifurcations. To attain this property, such system must contain a “clock”
a dynamical device that generates a global rhythm. During the ﬁrst part of the “clock’s”
period, a critical point is stable, and therefore, it attracts the solution; during the second
half of this period, the “clock” destabilizes the critical point, and the solution escapes it in
one of possible several directions. Thus, driven by alternating stabilities and instabilities,
such a system performs a random walklike behavior. In order to illustrate it, start with
the following system (compare to Eq. (11))
˙ v = α
∂
∂v
ln ρ(v, t), α = −2γ
√
Dsin
1/3
√
ω
β
√
Dsin ωt, (221)
where β, γ, and ω are constants. Then one arrives at the following ODE with respect
to the square root of the variance D (compare to Eq. (37))
d
√
D
dt
= γ sin
1/3
√
ω
β
√
Dsin ωt. (222)
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 67
This equation was studied in (Zak, M., 1990, 2005a). It has been shown that at the
equilibrium points
√
D = πmβ/
√
ω, m = ... −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, etc (223)
the Lipschitz condition is violated, and the solution represents a symmetric unrestricted
random walk on the points Eq. (223). The probability ρ∗ that the solution approaches a
point y after n steps is
ρ ∗ (y, n) = C
m
n
2
−n
, m = 0.5(n + y), y =
D,n = ingr(2ωt/π) (224)
Here the binomial coeﬃcient should be interpreted as 0 whenever m is not an integer in
the interval [0, n], and n is the total number of steps. Obviously, the variance D = y
2
performs asymmetric random walk restricted by the condition that D is notnegative,
while Eq. (224) is to be replaced by the following
ρ∗ = C
m
n
2
1−n
. m = 0.5(n + D), D ≥ 0. (225)
Thus, the probability density of the velocity v described by the ODE (221) jumps ran
domly from ﬂatter to sharper distributions, and vice versa, so that increase and decrease
of the entropy randomly alternate, and that makes the system “alive”.
Finally, the model (56), (57) can be further generalized by introduction of delay or
advanced time
˙ v = −ζα • ∇
v
ln ρ(t + τ), (226)
˙ ρ = ζ∇
2
V
ρ(t + τ) • •α, (227)
When τ < 0, the dynamics is driven by a feedback from the past (memories); when τ > 0,
the dynamics is driven by a feedback from the future (predictions). Although little is
known about the structure of the solution to Eqs. (226), (227), (including existence,
uniqueness, stability, etc), the usefulness of such a model extension is obvious for inverse
problems when the solution is given, and the model parameters are to be determined,
(see Section 8, Eqs. (190) (201)).
9.3 Summary
Thus, we have introduced the First Principle for modeling behavior of living systems.
The structure of the model is quantuminspired: it is obtained from quantum mechanics
by replacing the quantum potential with the information potential, Figure 8. As a result,
the model captures the most fundamental property of life: the progressive evolution,
i.e. the ability to evolve from disorder to order without any external interference. The
mathematical structure of the model can be obtained from the Newtonian equations of
motion coupled with the corresponding Liouville equation via information forces. The
unlimited capacity for increase of complexity is provided by interaction of the system
with it’s images via chains of reﬂections: what do you think I think you think. . . .All
these speciﬁc nonNewtonian properties equip the model with the levels of complexity
that match the complexity of life, and that makes the model applicable for description of
behaviors of ecological, social and economics systems.
68 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Acknowledgment
The research described in this paper was performed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology under contract with National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 69
References
[1] Arbib,M., and Hesse, M.,1986,The Construction of Reality, Cambridge University
press.
[2] Berg,H., 1983, Random walks in biology, Princeton Univercity Press, New Jersey.
[3] Gordon,R., 1999, The Hierarchical Genome and Diﬀerential Waves, World Scientiﬁc,
[4] Haken,H.,1988, Information and Selforganization, Springer, N.Y.
[5] Huberman,B., 1988, The ecology of Computation, NorthHolland, Amsterdam.
[6] Lefebvre,V.,2001, Algebra of Conscience, Kluwer Acad. Publ.
[7] Mead,C,1989, Analog VLSI and Neural Systems,Addison Wesley.
[8] Mikhailov,A., 1990, Foundations of Synergetics, Springer, N.Y.
[9] Risken,H., 1989, The FokkerPlanck Equation, Springer, N.Y.
[10] Perl, J., Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems, Morgan Kaufmann Inc. San
Mateo, 1986
[11] Prigogine,I., 1961, Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, John Wiley,N.Y.
[12] Prigogine,I., 1980, From being to becoming, Freeman and co., San Francisco.
[13] Whitham, G., Linear and nonlinear waves, WilyInterscience Publ.;1974.
[14] Yaguello,M,.1998, Language through the looking glass, Oxf. Univ. Press.
[15] Zak, M., ”Terminal Attractors for Associative Memory in Neural Networks,” Physics
Letters A, Vol. 133, No. 12, pp. 1822. 1989
[16] Zak, M., 1990, Creative dynamics approach to neural intelligence, Biological
Cybernetics, 64, 1523.
[17] Zak,M.,1992, Terminal Model of Newtonian dynamics, Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 32,
159190.
[18] Zak, M., 1994, Postinstability models in Dynamics, Int. J. of Theor. Phys.vol. 33,
No. 11, 22152280.
[19] Zak,M., 1999a, Physical invariants of biosignature, Phys. Letters A, 255, 110118.
[20] Zak, M.,1999b, Quantum analog computing, Chaos ,Solitons &fractals, Vol.10, No.
10, 15831620.
[21] Zak,M., 2000a, Dynamics of intelligent systems, Int. J. of Theor. Phys.vol. 39, No.8.
21072140.
[22] Zak,M., 2000b, Quantum decisionmaker, Information Sciences, 128, 199215.
[23] Zak, M.,2002a) Entanglementbased selforganization, Chaos ,Solitons &fractals, 14,
745758.
[24] Zak,M.,2002b, Quantum evolution as a nonlinear Markov Process, Foundations of
Physics L,vol.15, No.3, 229243.
[25] Zak, M., 2003, From collective mind to communications, Complex Systems, 14, 335
361,
[26] Zak,M.,2004, Selfsupervised dynamical systems, Chaos ,Solitons &fractals, 19, 645
666,
70 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
[27] Zak, M. 2005a, From Reversible Thermodynamics to Life. Chaos, Solitons &Fractals,
10191033,
[28] Zak, M., 2005b, Stochastic representation of chaos using terminal attractors, Chaos,
Solitons &Fractals, 24, 863868
[29] Zak, M., 2006a Expectationbased intelligent control, Chaos, Solitons&Fractals, 28,
5. 616626,
[30] Zak, M., 2007a, Complexity for Survival of Livings, Chaos, Solitons &Fractals, 32,3
, 11541167
[31] Zak, M., 2007b, From quantum entanglement to mirror neuron, Chaos, Solitons
&Fractals, 34, 344359.
[32] Zak, M., 2007c, “QuantumClassical Hybrid for Computing and Simulations”,
Mathematical Methods, Physical Models and Simulation in Science & Technology (in
press).
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 71
72 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 73
74 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 75
76 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 77
78 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 79
80 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 81
82 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 83
84 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 85
86 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Noncommunicating agents: Communicating agents:
From order to disorder. From order to disorder to order etc. . .
Figure 16. Complexity and survivability
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 87
Figure 17. Chain of reﬂections
88 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Figure 18. Two levels of abstruction.
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 89
Figura 19. Blockdiagram of intelligent control.
90 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 91
92 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 93
94 Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96
Figure 24. Shock wave and soliton in probability space
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 4, No. 16(II) (2007) 11–96 95
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.