An Answer to Schrödinger’s What Is Life?

That semiosis is specific to the living world is the cornerstone of biosemiotics. For checking an information-theoretic interpretation of this statement already proposed at the 2009 Biosemiotics Gathering in Prague, it is first attempted here to answer a question asked by Kupiec and Sonigo in Ni Dieu ni Gene (2000) on what differentiates living objects and those resulting from a geophysical process. Similar questions were asked by Schrodinger in his essay What Is Life? where the emphasis was laid on the relationship of the atomic scale of the genes and the macroscopic scale of living beings. This essay was published in 1944, before information was introduced as a scientific entity, at a time when DNA was not yet identified as the vector of heredity. We undertake answering some of these questions, arguing that the living world is made of organisms, i.e., of assemblies possessing in a genome the information needed for their replication and their maintenance while the inanimate world only contains aggregates. In short, a biological process keeps its order through the use of information. For defining order, it is proposed that an orderly object can be produced by a construction (e.g., the copy of a template) using available data within some given context. In other words, replicating an orderly object does not bring new information into its context. Order in this meaning appears as specific to the living world, at variance with the inanimate world which is basically disorderly. A better understanding of what separates the living world from the inanimate world results: the use of information is the distinguishing feature which defines their border. Any living thing contains a symbolic information, referred to as its genome, inscribed into DNA molecules. This genome can indeed be copied but, its support being embedded in the physical world, it incurs disturbances which result in symbol errors. Keeping its order thus needs endowing any genome with error correction ability: it must belong to a redundant code, i.e., a set of sequences separated by some minimum distance. The larger its minimum distance, the more immune to errors are the elements of a code. Then genomes become as distinct as to ensure order. Identity and specificity result. Although conservative according to the above definition of order, the living world actually exhibits an extreme diversity which even tends to increase as evolution proceeds. In sharp contrast, homogeneity and monotony are observed in the inanimate world, assumed however non-conservative. In order to solve this paradox and justify the proposed definition of order, it is argued that the error-correcting means which ensure the conservation of genomes fail with some low, but non-zero, probability. Although very infrequent, regeneration errors result in genomes largely different from the initial ones; and the correction mechanisms conserve the mutated genomes just as the original ones. The operation of life changes scales, since the regeneration errors which originate in atomic events have observable consequences at the macroscopic scale.