Autocatalysis, Autopoiesis, and the Opportunity Cost of Individuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since Varela and Maturana proposed the concept of autopoiesis as the minimal requirement for life, there has been a focus on cellular systems that erect topological boundaries to separate themselves from their surrounding environment. Here, we reconsider whether the existence of such a spatial boundary is strictly necessary for self-producing entities. This work presents a novel computational model of a minimal autopoietic system inspired by dendrites and molecular dynamic simulations in three-dimensional space. A series of simulation experiments where the metabolic pathways of a particular autocatalytic set are successively inhibited until autocatalytic entities that could be considered autopoietic are produced. These entities maintain their distinctness in an environment containing multiple identical instances of the entities without the existence of a topological boundary. This gives rise to the concept of a metabolic boundary which manifests as emergent self-selection criteria for the processes of self-production without any need for unique identifiers. However, the adoption of such a boundary comes at a cost, as these autopoietic entities are less suited to their simulated environment than their autocatalytic counterparts. Finally, this work showcases a generalized metabolism-centered approach to the study of autopoiesis that can be applied to both physical and abstract systems alike.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".