The Function and Meaning of Life According to Physics

A falsifiable informational-physics hypothesis

Abstract

This paper proposes a falsifiable framework for distinguishing the function of life from the meaning of life. The central claim is that the function of life is structurally objective, while the meaning of life is subject-relative. Life functions as a bounded, self-preserving informational process that assimilates information, preserves identity, adapts under pressure, and transforms through recursive evolution. Meaning, however, is not identical to the objective experience itself. Meaning is the subjective reflection of objective experience through the evolving identity of the observer. In this model, physics describes the constraints, biology describes the living process, information theory describes learning and memory, and awareness describes reflective interpretation. The hypothesis is falsifiable through measurable predictions involving information assimilation, identity stability, adaptive coherence, meaning construction, and bounded agency.

1. Introduction

The question “What is the meaning of life?” is often treated as a philosophical or religious question rather than a physical one. Conventional physics does not assign a final existential purpose to human life. It explains matter, energy, entropy, fields, information, time, and boundary conditions, but it does not usually say what a life “means.”

However, the question becomes clearer if function and meaning are separated.

The function of life is what life does as a physical and informational system. The meaning of life is how an aware being reflects upon its experience and integrates that experience into its evolving identity.

A plant turns sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, minerals, and environmental signals into living structure. That is function. A person standing before the same plant may interpret it as food, beauty, memory, healing, design, or divine intelligence. That is meaning. The physical event is shared. The meaning is subject-relative.

The thesis of this paper is therefore simple:

Life’s function is coherent informational adaptation. Life’s meaning is the chosen reflective interpretation of experience through the evolving identity of the observer.

This does not reduce meaning to arbitrary opinion. A meaning can be more or less coherent, more or less adaptive, more or less truthful, and more or less stable. The same objective event may be interpreted in multiple ways, but not all interpretations produce the same consequences.

The Unified Informational Physics Ontology treats informational physics as a framework in which structure, pattern, boundary, memory, identity, and exchange shape observable systems. It also distinguishes ontology-grounded interpretation from conventionally established empirical proof, which is important for keeping this paper falsifiable rather than merely philosophical.

2. Core hypothesis

The proposed hypothesis is:

A living system functions by preserving coherent identity through recursive information assimilation and adaptive transformation. An aware system generates meaning by reflecting objective experience through its evolving identity, values, memory, and bounded agency.

This hypothesis has two layers.

The first layer concerns life as a physical process. Living systems maintain boundaries, regulate internal states, exchange energy and matter, process information, repair damage, adapt to stress, and reproduce or transmit structure. They are not static objects. They are persistent processes.

The second layer concerns meaning as an awareness process. Meaning is not simply “what happens.” Meaning is what an evolving identity makes of what happens. A failure can mean humiliation, instruction, warning, initiation, redirection, or liberation depending on the identity-state of the observer. The objective event constrains the possible meanings, but the observer’s identity determines which meaning becomes integrated.

A concise formulation is:

Function = what life does to remain coherent and adaptive.
Meaning = how awareness integrates experience into becoming.

3. Life as a bounded informational system

A living system can be modeled as:

$S = (X, \partial S, E, I, M, R)$ where:

$S$ = living system
$X$ = current system state
$\partial S$ = boundary between system and environment
$E$ = energy exchange
$I$ = information exchange
$M$ = memory or retained structure
$R$ = recursive regulation

A cell has a membrane, metabolism, genetic memory, internal signaling, repair mechanisms, and environmental response. A human being has skin, organs, memory, perception, language, emotion, cognition, and self-reflection. A society has borders, institutions, laws, history, narratives, and feedback systems.

The essential point is that life requires a boundary. Without boundary, there is no organism. But the boundary cannot be absolute. If nothing enters or leaves, the system dies. Life exists in the tension between separation and exchange.

A useful metaphor is a campfire. A pile of ash is structure without living process. A flame is process with recognizable identity. It takes in fuel and oxygen, releases heat and light, changes every second, yet remains “the same fire” for as long as its pattern persists. Life is similar. It is stable not because it is motionless, but because its motion remains organized.

The ontology’s concept of Informational Boundary Conditions is relevant here: a system remains viable only within limits that preserve coherence, curvature, and identity. It also defines the Coherence Expansion Principle as the tendency of self-maintaining informational systems to evolve under allowable operations toward non-decreasing coherence.

In simpler language, life must change without ceasing to be itself.

4. The function of life

The function of life can be represented as a life-function functional:

$\mathcal{L}(t) = \alpha \frac{dC}{dt} + \beta \frac{dI_a}{dt} + \gamma \frac{dA}{dt} + \delta \frac{dM}{dt} – \epsilon D$

where:

$\mathcal{L}(t)$ = life-function score at time $t$
$C$ = coherence, or alignment among system parts
$I_a$ = assimilated information
$A$ = adaptive capacity
$M$ = memory or retained useful structure
$D$ = destructive divergence, overload, or disorganization
$\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta, \epsilon$ = weighting constants

The formula says that life functions well when it increases coherence, assimilates useful information, improves adaptive capacity, preserves functional memory, and limits destructive disorganization.

The important term is $I_a$ , assimilated information. Life does not benefit from information merely because information arrives. Too much unfiltered information can overwhelm a system. A person scrolling through endless noise is not necessarily learning. A cell flooded with dysregulated chemical signals is not becoming healthier. A society saturated with contradictory signals may become less coherent, not more informed.

Information must be metabolized.

This gives the first major claim:

Life learns by converting selected environmental difference into usable internal structure.

5. Information assimilation

Information assimilation may be modeled as:

$I_a = I_{in} – I_{noise} – I_{unintegrated}$

where:

$I_a$ = assimilated information
$I_{in}$ = incoming information
$I_{noise}$ = irrelevant, misleading, or low-value signal
$I_{unintegrated}$ = information received but not incorporated into usable structure

This distinction matters. Exposure is not learning. Accumulation is not wisdom. A system learns only when incoming information changes its future capacity to perceive, predict, decide, repair, adapt, or create.

A digestive metaphor helps. Food does not nourish the body by touching the tongue. It must be broken down, filtered, absorbed, and incorporated into tissue, blood, energy, and repair. Information follows the same pattern. Raw information is not yet growth. Assimilated information is growth.

This is why the function of life may be stated as “to learn,” but only if learning is defined precisely. Life does not merely collect data. Life assimilates information into adaptive coherence.

6. Identity preservation through change

A living system must change while preserving enough continuity to remain itself. This can be represented as an identity-stability metric:

$IIM(X) = \frac{\langle X, R(X)\rangle}{\|X\| \|R(X)\|}$

where:

$IIM(X)$ = informational identity metric
$X$ = present state of the system
$R(X)$ = recursively updated state
$\langle X, R(X)\rangle$ = similarity between current and updated state
$\|X\|\|R(X)\|$ = normalization factor

If $IIM(X)$ remains high, the system changes while preserving identity. If it falls too low, the system may fragment, collapse, or become something else.

This applies across scales. A child becomes an adult but remains the same person through memory, body continuity, name, relational history, and self-model. A forest after fire may regrow because seed banks, soil chemistry, mycorrhizal networks, and ecological memory remain. A company may pivot products while keeping its mission and culture. A theory may evolve while preserving its core explanatory structure.

The Luminarch glossary defines informational identity as the pattern that allows a system to remain recognizable across change, and informational recursion as the process where outputs feed back into the system as new inputs, allowing systems to learn, adapt, and evolve.

A useful metaphor is jazz. A musician improvises. Notes change. Tempo shifts. The melody bends. But the song remains recognizable because variation occurs within structure. Life is not rigid repetition. It is coherent improvisation.

7. Transformation through THD

Triune Harmonic Dynamics describes transformation through three recurring phases: Emergence, Contrast, and Integration. The 3–6–9 pattern is defined as a transformation structure in which 3 corresponds to emergence, 6 to contrast or tension, and 9 to integration or completion.

This can be represented as:

$T(n) = H(3n + 6n^2 + 9n^3)$

where:

$T(n)$ = transformation state after $n$ n cycles
$H$ = scale-balancing harmonic factor
$3n$ = emergence
$6n^2$ = contrast
$9n^3$ = integration

Applied to life:

Emergence is new formation.
Contrast is environmental testing.
Integration is adaptive reorganization.

A seed germinates. That is emergence. It meets gravity, soil density, light, drought, microbes, and competition. That is contrast. It roots, branches, and stabilizes into a plant. That is integration.

The same pattern applies to human growth. A person encounters a new experience. The experience creates tension with the current identity. If the experience is integrated, the person becomes more coherent, more capable, or more mature. If not, the person may fragment, deny, repeat, or collapse into defensive patterns.

This leads to the second major claim:

Growth is not change alone. Growth is integrated change.

8. Meaning as subjective reflection of objective experience

Function belongs primarily to life as a system. Meaning belongs primarily to awareness as a reflective process.

The key formula is: $M = R_{\psi}(E_o, I_s(t), V, A_b, C_m)$

where:

$M$ = meaning
$R_{\psi}$ = reflective interpretation through a value-frame $\psi$ ψ
$E_o$ = objective experience
$I_s(t)$ = identity-state of the observer at time $t$ t
$V$ = values
$A_b$ = bounded agency, or available viable choices
$C_m$ = coherence produced by the interpretation

This formula states that meaning is not the objective event alone. Meaning is the event reflected through the observer’s evolving identity.

Two people can objectively experience the same storm. One sees danger. Another sees renewal. Another sees divine warning. Another sees data. Another sees childhood memory. The storm is real. The meanings differ because the observers differ.

Even within one person, meaning changes over time. A painful rejection at age 20 may mean shame. At age 35 it may mean redirection. At age 60 it may mean protection from the wrong path. The event may remain historically fixed, but the identity reflecting upon it has evolved.

A useful metaphor is a mirror that changes shape as it matures. Objective reality is the light. Identity is the mirror. Meaning is the reflected image. As the mirror changes, the same light reflects differently.

This gives the central refinement:

Meaning is not what happens. Meaning is how an evolving identity integrates what happens into its becoming.

9. Bounded agency and free will

Free will in this model does not mean unlimited choice. No living being chooses outside all constraints. Bodies age. Gravity operates. Trauma affects perception. Culture shapes options. Biology imposes limits. Economic and social systems constrain action.

Free will is better defined as bounded agency:

$A_B(t) = \{a \in A : a \text{ satisfies physical, biological, social, and informational constraints}\}$

where:

$A_B(t)$ = available bounded action set at time $t$ t
$A$ = all conceivable actions
$a$ = a possible action

The person is not free to choose everything. The person is free to choose among viable pathways.

A bounded agency index may be written:

$BAI = H(A_B) – H(A_F)$

where:

$BAI$ = bounded agency index
$H(A_B)$ = entropy or range of viable available actions
$H(A_F)$ = range of action removed by force, compulsion, ignorance, fear, addiction, coercion, or structural constraint

Meaning strengthens when the observer can choose an interpretation and action that align with identity, values, and coherence. It weakens when the observer experiences life as externally imposed, internally fragmented, or structurally trapped.

This explains why two lives with similar outward conditions may carry different meaning. The difference is not only the event. It is the relationship between event, identity, values, and agency.

10. Falsifiable predictions

This framework is falsifiable. It makes testable claims.

First, systems that assimilate information should adapt better than systems that merely receive information. In education, therapy, AI training, organizational learning, and biological adaptation, integrated information should predict future performance better than raw exposure.

Second, identity-preserving adaptation should predict long-term viability better than either rigidity or incoherent change. People, organizations, species, and cultures should perform better when they preserve core identity while adapting behavior.

Third, meaning should correlate more strongly with identity-congruent interpretation than with objective experience alone. Two individuals may experience the same event, but the one who integrates it into a coherent self-narrative should show greater resilience, agency, and long-term stability.

Fourth, meaning should change predictably as identity changes. Longitudinal studies should show that major experiences are reinterpreted as a person’s self-model, values, and life-stage evolve.

Fifth, excessive unassimilated information should reduce coherence. In individuals, this should appear as stress, confusion, indecision, or identity fragmentation. In organizations, it should appear as meeting overload, unclear priorities, duplicated work, and strategic drift.

Sixth, experiences that increase bounded agency should increase experienced meaning, even when they do not increase pleasure. A difficult chosen sacrifice may produce more meaning than an easy imposed reward.

11. Falsification conditions

The hypothesis would be weakened or falsified if the following were observed.

If raw information exposure consistently predicted adaptation better than information assimilation, the function model would fail.

If identity-preserving adaptation did not predict viability better than rigidity or incoherent change, the identity-stability claim would weaken.

If meaning were shown to depend only on objective external events and not on identity, values, memory, interpretation, or agency, the reflective-meaning model would fail.

If people did not reinterpret major life events as their identities evolved, the claim that meaning changes through evolving identity would weaken.

If agency had no measurable relationship to meaning, resilience, or coherence, the bounded-agency model would be incomplete.

If the emergence–contrast–integration sequence failed to improve predictions of learning or transformation over simpler models, the THD layer would require revision.

12. Discussion

The function of life and the meaning of life are often confused because both involve growth. But they operate at different levels.

Function is structural. It describes what life must do to persist: maintain boundaries, process energy, assimilate information, preserve identity, adapt under pressure, and transform through recursive feedback.

Meaning is reflective. It describes how awareness interprets experience: what the event becomes inside the identity of the observer.

This distinction resolves a common tension. Some argue that life has no meaning because physics does not assign one. Others argue that life must have a universal meaning because human experience feels significant. The informational-physics position is more precise: physics defines the field of constraint and transformation; meaning emerges when awareness reflects that field through identity and choice.

Life is not meaningful merely because events happen. Life becomes meaningful when experience is integrated into becoming.

The strongest final formulation is:

The function of life is to transform information into coherent adaptation. The meaning of life is the subjective reflection of objective experience through the evolving identity of the observer.

Or, more simply:

Life learns and grows. Awareness decides what that growth means.

References

Brown, Kevin L. Unified Informational Physics Ontology: Master Framework V1.2. 2025.

Brown, Kevin L. Triune Harmonic Dynamics: The Universal Pattern Behind Energy, Matter, and Mind. 2025.

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press, 1959.

Friston, Karl. “The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2010.

Landauer, Rolf. “Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process.” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1961.

Schrödinger, Erwin. What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press, 1944.

Shannon, Claude E. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 1948.

Steger, Michael F. “Experiencing Meaning in Life: Optimal Functioning at the Nexus of Well-Being, Psychopathology, and Spirituality.” In The Human Quest for Meaning, 2012.

Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press, 1948.