What is Life? (Canto Classics): With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches

I had already savoured a bit of Schrodinger’s writing as I came to this book after first reading Ken Wilber’s “Quantum Questions” and Samuel Guo’s “Quantum Memoirs”. (Reader alert, by the way: the “Autobiographical Sketches” section is identical in both this book and the one edited by Guo.) I still derived great pleasure in reading this book as it gave me a more considered and sustained perspective into what one of the giants of science thought about how science influenced and shaped our lives and also science’s limitations. Schrodinger does not claim to have answers to all the questions he raises (although the title of this collection may sound unintentionally grandiose. Moreover, even if Schrodinger had all the answers, it is a good bet that some would have been “falsified” - as is the nature of science - over the last sixty or seventy years since this collection was first published). On more than one occasion, Schrodinger refers also to his limitations in subjects other than quantum physics and apologises for “the dilettante character of [his] summary.” None the less, his knowledge of biology and issues in neuroscience and philosophy as expressed in this collection are so deep, one feels that there is no need for such contrition. Schrodinger begins “What is Life” by trying to use Newtonian physics to explain chromosomes, life’s road maps. Such an attempt is effective to some extent as chromosomes comprise of millions of atoms (thus forming a single substantial entity) and the laws of classical physics are able to a large extent explain the behaviour of objects at such a macro level. However, it is now well-known that classical laws hit some restrictions when we try to describe events at an atomic level. Schrodinger feels that this is where quantum physics could be applied to explain how genetics works. He equates, for instance, genetic mutations to quantum jumps. Schrodinger contends furthermore that organisms use quantum mechanical effects to combat entropy by continually drawing “negative entropy” from their environment. This is another case where Schrodinger’s arguments here would turn out to be so prescient, as this book laid also the foundations of quantum biology. While “What is Life” touches only incidentally upon such mystical questions as the limitations of science in explaining life and its purpose, “Mind and Matter” deals with such issues in much more depth. Schrodinger covers here a whole gamut of related questions such as the theory of evolution and its philosophical underpinnings, how consciousness and the mind arise, why we feel the need to believe and the place of God in a scientific world-view. Schrodinger argues that as science is circumscribed by the parameters of space-time, it is not adequate to explain the mind as the “mind is always now. There is really no before and after for mind.” You suspect that he would certainly not have subscribed to a functional theory of the mind.

The breadth of the work is fascinating.

I should say that the first part of this book, the "What is Life?" part merits 5 stars in my opinion. It is the With Mind and Matter portion that I often found Schrödinger's viewopint a little less intriguing. The "What is Life" part is excellent, especially given the time when it was produced. I like Schrödinger's modesty as a physicist poking into biology themes, but also offering insightful arguments. I didn't like his argument about "negative entropy" as what he was talking about was free energy, but he then addresses this in a paragraph for fellow physicists. This candor and honesty about trying to reach lay audiences is well-appreciated. I still have great qualms about Schrödinger's identification of entropy with disorder, but for the points he's making they are fine. The Mind and Matter portion I didn't find quite as insightful, as it depends somewhat on the idea that our minds are one (this ambiguity of all minds being one or each single mind being indivisible is left open, in my opinion), and I think discoveries (like split-brain patients) strongly challenge Schrödinger's assumptions about consciousness. There's nothing wrong with it, but I wasn't as interested in this argument, and while Schrödinger avoids going into mysticism, there just wasn't a lot of experiments or great observational data that could be used to test mind ideas at the time. The final autobiographical sketches are a fun read for anyone who enjoys physicist history. Overall, I felt the mind and matter part were ok, while the other parts were excellent and worth reading if you have an interest in history or physics/biology crossover.

CLEARLY IMPORTANT In his 1991 foreword Roger Penrose ranks the small booklet of Schrödinger 'among the most influential of scientific writings in this century' and mentions --besides others-- especially J.B.S.Haldane and Francis Cricks as examples of young men, which have been strongly influenced by Schrödinger's ideas, and Ernst Peter Fischer gives 1987 in his introduction of a German translation of Schrödinger's booklet a good readable historical account of the situation before Schrödinger's lectures 1943 and the development since that time until1987. This places Schrödinger very well in the center of the encounter between modern physics and biology. HOW IS LIFE POSSIBLE AGAINST ENTROPY? The many reviewers until now have pointed out many important aspects related to this book. Thus I have not to repeat this here. My personal interest in this booklet was caused by my own questions while trying to understand the phenomenon of life against the background of physics. Being myself a computer scientist and philosopher as well I was puzzled by the fact that even at the beginning of the 21.century 'everyday knowledge' regarding the question why life is possible in a physical world is not easily available (and you will not find any answer to this question in the modern books about genetics with 900 and more pages!). While I have learned from Boltzmann something about entropy and the general tendency of a physical system to increase the entropy, this introduced the riddle why living organisms seem to work 'against' entropy by increasing order. FROM DISORDER TO ORDER In his lectures Schrödinger follows the nice strategy to show why and how genetic information is rooted in the chromosome molecules and illustrates then step by step why such a molecule from the point of physics seems to be highly exceptional. While the general laws of thermodynamic would lend a structure to dissolve it's bindings to increase the atomistic disorder (and thereby to increase entropy) the biological systems demonstrate a strong 'resistance' instead; they keep the order of the molecules and even more they are able to increase these orders steadily. Not only generates disorder here order, but order even generates more order (p.80). From the point of physics does this mean that biological systems are 'consuming' order (which can be called 'negative entropy' or 'free entropy' or the like) from their environment (a concept which leads back to Josiah Willard Gibbs). Thus to 'keep order' in the physical universe presupposes the availability of already existing order (some form of energy). NON-PHYSICAL LAWS Schrödinger recognizes that the 'explanation' with the consumption of available order (energy, neg-entropy...) gives a minimal account of the phenomenon of biological systems, but this does not 'really explain', why there is this tendency of a continuous increase of order against disorder. The availability of order (energy) is necessary, but not sufficient to explain these phenomena. While Schrödinger allowed himself the question whether physics has to accept 'new kinds of laws' --'non-physical' or 'super-physical' (p.80)-- he did not answer this question. I do not know any text who gives a sufficient answer to this question. I remember some texts from Eigen and Prigogine years ago which dealt with the special principle of biological systems, but I have to read these again whether they really offered some useful arguments. This story is not finished at all...... I recommend everybody to read this wonderful booklet of Schrödinger.

This is one of the most important books in science and was written by one of the great minds of the 20th Century. In this book, written at the end of the 1940s, Schrodinger tells us how off the rails science was at that time. We have seen evidence in the 21st Century that he was profoundly correct. He basically tells us back in the 1940 that science must to be deconstructed then reconstructed to embrace all phenomena of life. We see today that he was right. Today, because science knows nothing of man, science is trying to build artificial intelligence and robots. Science has given us no real insights into man's nature so that even more than in WWII mankind stands closer to the brink of extinction. Many forms of life have already been made extinct because of a world polluted by the works of scientists who don't even understand themselves. Yet, they blindly follow the drum beat of a falsely built science. We have a heavily drugged society, which seems that given time will be completely on drugs. We take drugs for two reasons: to ease pain (physical, mental and spiritual) and to kill ourselves. Science as constructed and pursued has given mankind very little understanding of itself but has given it many dangerous and dehumanizing drugs and many toys. This book is not an anti-science manifesto because Schrodinger knew we needed science to help mankind understand itself. Science has also given us a path to the stars. And someday we will reach those far distant planets and stars. But because science has failed to embrace all of the phenomena that is mankind, we, sadly, will take all our current and future problems and destructive behavior with us. Postscript: you read today about machines surpassing mankind in intelligence. Let us say this could occur. But in reality it could only occur if science fails to help mankind truly understand itself and unlock potential that makes any conceivable form of AI look moronic.

In the preface Roger Penrose writes: “It makes point that . . . have the ring of truth; yet they are still blindly ignored by a disconcertingly large proportion of people who should know better.” I suppose the reader can decide which points these are. Schrödinger’s opinions about life were far less mechanical than I expected. I am one of the few scientists who believe that life and consciousness are intrinsic qualities of the universe. While the “rationalist” dismiss this as “irrefutable and unprovable, and thus of no value for knowledge,” though he ignores the fact the this is just as true of the assumption that life arose haphazardly, Schrödinger points out “what an uncanny gap he thereby allows to remain in his picture of the world.” Had consciousness not appeared, existence would “otherwise have remained a play before empty benches, not existing for anybody, thus quite properly speaking not existing.” Since consciousness exists, it necessarily had potential existence from the instant of the Big Bang. If existence had no consciousness of existing, how would that be different from nonexistence? But materialists mock those who suggest that this potential might be intrinsic rather than acquired accidentally. It is amusing to see how angry materialists get at the suggestion that their existence is not accidental and that life might have meaning. So instead we should believe that molecules just happen to exist that just happened to assume a form, in a cell nucleus too small to see with the naked eye, capable of developing into human beings capable of building computers, writing symphonies, and doubting validity of existence? Really? I also especially appreciated what Schrödinger had to say about ethics. “The ethical law in its simplest general form (be unselfish!) is plainly a fact . . . agreed upon by the vast majority of those who do not very often keep it. I regard its puzzling existence as an indication of our being in the beginning of a biological transformation from an egoistic to an altruistic general attitude, of man being about to become an animal social.” “Egoism is a destructive vice in any kind of community.” Since “consciousness is a phenomenon in the zone of evolution,” then it follows “that consciousness and discord with one’s own self are inseparably linked up.” Nietzsche frenetically disagrees with this, but his philosophy was based upon the premise that the universe is fundamentally immoral, rather than merely amoral as materialists believe, so perpetual war, and exploitation of the defeated, is the supreme virtue. Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” was based upon a blatantly dishonest and shallow definition of the word. It does make sense that if consciousness has intrinsic existence, then it would also possess certain qualities. Perhaps the wise men of the ages have an inkling of those qualities. Religious experiences are overwhelming, not easily, or at least not convincingly, explained from the materialist model of reality; and these experiences, however superstitiously interpreted, have not only shaped human history but also determined how people think about themselves. However hypocritically. Schrödinger also has fascinating speculations about how behavior altered by traits acquired by natural selection may mimic Lamarckian evolution. He also points out that natural selection is not like artificial selection, because the former relies upon mutations. He likens mutations to quantum jumps in the gene molecule. Mutations are rare, most of them are harmful, yet these mutations must harmonize in order for an organism to develop something such as an eye. The eye is useless without a skull socket able to contain it, and a brain capable of interpreting the information it gathers. This all relies upon DNA producing the correct proteins, which are often hundreds of units long and require very specific sequencing. Calculations easily show how improbable it is that even one of them could be produced haphazardly within the lifetime of the universe. Yet there they are. Why is it considered irrational to suppose there might be a natural harmony at work here?

I must say I expected more from this book, based on the rave reviews. Having studied graduate physics, I was intrigued to see this physics giant's view on the big questions, but I was a bit disappointed. I found his purely reductionist physicist's approach to biology and philosophy naive, but then we do stand on the shoulders of generations of advances in science and technology since most of this book was written: IT, systems theory, molecular biology, gene sequencing, fMRI, emergence & complexity.... These all make Schrodinger's broad musings seem no more than quaint on the scientific front, unless you are a science historian, although my take on philosophy is that we have advanced little since his hero, Kant. I am reminded that an expert in one field does not necessarily have anything of value to say in vastly different fields - our heroes are relevant only in their areas of strength. My favourite section of the book is his autobiographical sketches, which give valuable insights into this likeable man, European life and physics during he world war years and the heyday of early quantum mechanics. I would recommend that unless you are interested in Schrodinger per se, then rather get up to speed by trying anything by Hofstadter, Kaufmann, Prigogine or Dawkins.

Schrödinger's What is Life? Is a classic. In spite of the new advancements in genetics that supersede some of the notions addressed, this book remains fundamental to science and for anyone with an interest in biology, physics and chemistry. Published in 1944, nine years before the discovery of the structure of DNA, this book was written after a series of lectures given by Erwin Schrödinger. It is intended to the general reader, as it offers detailed explanation of the topics, however, it must be read carefully because of the complexity of the issues. Schrödinger answers the question of how can physics and chemistry explain the events that take place in living organisms. As a physicist's he is very humble, given that he is approaching a topic outside of his expertise area, however his insight is brilliant. He makes a theoretical prediction and based on sound arguments he proposes an "aperiodic crystal" that contains genetic information. This reprint edition is completed with a nice preface by physicist Roger Penrose, but the highlight is the accompanying text Mind and Matter, also by Schrödinger. This offers a great finale, with a philosophical discourse dealing with consciousness, free will and determinism.

This book inspired me to study a degree in physics with biology. Four years later and I can read/write all the complicated equations but still think about "what it means" in the ways outlined in this book****. The overview of statistical mechanics is brilliant and exactly on point - the example using the magnetisation of oxygen captures the essence of thermodynamics perfectly. Regarding his predictive powers on DNA - it's worth noting that a lot of research had already been done in this area. At the time he wrote this, it wasn't known if proteins were responsible for the "genetic code" or this funny little acid chain that seemed to be in all the cells but these were the two best candidates. The book contains his reasoning for why he believed it likely to be the acid "quasi-crystal" (ie DNA). Watson, Crick and Franklin's contribution was working out exactly what the chemical composition and structure of DNA was. Sorry to be "political" but Franklin was undermined by a suboordinate who resented working under a woman and shared her results without permission - I would encourage you to verify this for yourself. ***I just had a flick through the book and noticed the equation on page 15 was in my final physics exam at Cambridge. They wanted us to give a physical interpretation (as well as mathematical working) and my answer was essentially the same as the description he gives in the footnote on page 16 - just with slightly more modern wording. If you're curious go to Camphys.com and look at Part II Physics Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 2024, which will be publicly viewable a few months after the exam. See question 6d. Whilst in a different context, it's the same equation!

Great book.

With today’s rapid developments in molecular biology and the increasing possibilities in biotech Engineering some basic knowledge of genetics seems to be more and more important. Although the DNA helix was not discovered at the time Schrödinger‘s lecture covers the very fundaments of our modern days understanding of genetics. For today’s reader it may connect the dots or, what may be more important, it can offer insight into a way of thinking about the subject.

What Is Life? es el trabajo de divulgación más famoso de Erwin Schrödinger. Se trata de un libro corto, pero de valor incalculable, en el que el físico especula sobre algunas de las características que distinguen a la materia viva de aquella a la que consideramos inerte. Escrito en la primera mitad del siglo pasado, muchos de los conceptos manejados por Schrödinger han sido esclarecidos en la actualidad, y algunos incluso, desmentidos, sin embargo, la claridad de pensamiento del autor se sobrepone siempre a sus limitaciones tanto temporales como de formación (ya que las investigaciones dedicadas a generar conocimientos sobre aspectos como la naturaleza del proceso hereditario y la búsqueda de la molécula maestra de la herencia eran llevadas a cabo, principalmente, por biólogos y bioquímicos, de manera que Schrödinger aportó a estos temas desde su particular punto de vista de físico de partículas); sus ideas son sólidas y la mayoría ciertas, para sorpresa de muchos biólogos de la época. El libro comienza con una explicación breve pero concisa sobre la naturaleza estadística de la física: las llamadas leyes siempre son obedecidas en nuestra experiencia porque la posibilidad de que algo distinto suceda se acerca cada vez más a cero conforme más átomos participen en el fenómeno. Schrödinger especula sobre la naturaleza posiblemente molecular de un gen (una deducción absolutamente brillante tomando en cuenta la poca información que tenía) y mediante algunos cálculos (se podría decir que hechos "a ciegas") determina el probable número máximo de átomos involucrados en su estructura. Un número muy bajo como para sentirse cómodo lo lleva a invocar el extraño mundo de la teoría cuántica, cuyas leyes le permiten explicar la "permanencia" de los genes, no sin antes exponernos al principal generador de variación entre los organismos y mecanismo por el cual los seres vivos evolucionan: las mutaciones. El capítulo referente a las mutaciones, donde Schrödinger argumenta sobre su posible naturaleza (¿un evento de excitación de escala atómica?), es en mi opinión la mejor parte del libro, ya que las ideas expuestas valen oro. La parte final del texto alude a las posibles implicaciones biológicas y filosóficas derivadas de la inclusión de un modelo cuántico en el campo del estudio de la vida; esta parte final dista del brío del resto del libro, pero concluye con seguridad y optimismo un texto que ya es considerado clásico por la mayoría de los científicos y divulgadores actuales. Se agradece también la inclusión de uno de los textos compañeros del físico titulado "Mind and Matter", en el cual se discute un tema mucho más elusivo: la naturaleza de lo que llamamos "conciencia". Ambos textos se reproducen en su versión original en inglés, pero el carácter técnico empleado por Schrödinger facilita su posible lectura por hispanohablantes que estén medianamente inmersos en el quehacer científico. La edición que presenta Canto Classics es impecable, y el precio es bajo en comparación con la riqueza del texto que se ofrece. Enormemente recomendado, un clásico de la literatura científica de todos los tiempos.

Absolutely amazing, as a physicist I would recommend it to any other physicist with a minimum interest in biology