We give an overview of an interdisciplinary meeting held last year in Windsor to discuss the evidence for fine-tuning in living systems. Many of the papers presented there appear in this volume, so this serves as an introduction to them. We also briefly review a meeting held the previous year in Cambridge to assess the evidence for fine-tuning in physics and cosmology.

There is a set of molecules common to all forms of life on Earth that are often described as ‘the molecules of life’. This should not be taken to imply that life can only be made from just these components, or that life on Earth always was. These molecules are parts of a machine, the essential design of which is also common to all life on Earth, but which is so complex and well organized that it looks like a product of evolution through natural selection, an evolution that was effectively frozen at some stage before a ‘last common ancestor’. There are hints in the structure of our biochemical pathways as to which of the present components of this machine came first, and intimations of an earlier altogether different genetic system in our ancestry.

Evolution, broadly construed, has become a powerful unifying concept in much of science – not only in the biological evolution of plants and animals, but also in the physical evolution of stars and planets, and the cultural evolution of society and its many varied products. This paper (1) explores the bulk structure and functioning of open, non-equilibrium, thermodynamic systems relevant to the interdisciplinary field of astrobiology, (2) places the astrobiological landscape into an even larger, cosmological context, (3) defines life, complexity and evolution writ large, (4) claims that life depends ultimately on the expansion of the Universe and the flow of energy derived therefrom and (5) proposes a quantitative metric to characterize the rise of complexity throughout all of natural history. That metric is neither information nor negentropy, for these inveterate yet qualitative terms cannot be quantified, nor even defined, to everyone's satisfaction in today's scientific community. Rather, the newly proposed metric is normalized energy flow, a revision of a long-cherished term – energy – that is physically intuitive, well defined and readily measurable. All ordered systems – from rocky planets and shining stars, to buzzing bees and redwood trees – can be best judged empirically and uniformly by gauging the amount of energy acquired, stored and expressed by those systems. Appeals to anthropism are unnecessary to appreciate the impressive hierarchy of the cosmic evolutionary narrative, including a technological civilization that now embraces an energetics agenda designed to better understand, and perhaps to unify, all the natural sciences.

A new method is proposed to search for extraterrestrial life adapted to cold environments far from the Sun. To keep warm, using the light from a distant sun, any life-form must grow a system of optical concentrators, lenses or mirrors, to focus sunlight on to its vital parts. Any light not absorbed, or any heat radiation emitted from the vital parts, will be focused by the optical concentrators into a narrow beam pointing back towards the sun. To search for such life-forms, we should scan the sky with optical and infrared telescopes pointing directly away from the Sun. Any living vegetation will be seen as a bright patch in strong contrast to its dark surroundings, like the eyes of a nocturnal animal caught in the headlights of a car. This method of search may be used either with space-based or with ground-based telescopes. Examples of places where the method would work well are the surfaces of Europa, Trojan asteroids or Kuiper Belt objects. Any life-form that adapted successfully to a vacuum environment would be likely to spread widely over objects with icy surfaces in the outer regions of the solar system.

For more than four decades, a small group of researchers has sought to find evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence in situ, by detecting microwave signals that would betray its existence. Despite the failure to find these signals so far, there is continued and even accelerated effort to press the search. Recent advances include greater emphasis on experiments at optical wavelengths, and the construction of a new radio telescope that is deliberately designed for such reconnaissance. In addition to these instrumental improvements, several strategies have been proposed that might better the chances of ‘looking in the right place, at the right time’. This review of the current state of SETI research concludes with a speculative look at the nature of the sought-for extraterrestrials, and when it is likely we might find them.

The oft-repeated claim that life is ‘written into’ the laws of nature is examined and criticised. Arguments are given in favour of life spreading between near-neighbour planets in rocky impact ejecta (transpermia), but against panspermia, leading to the conclusion that if life is indeed found to be widespread in the universe, some form of life principle or biological determinism must be at work in the process of biogenesis. Criteria for what would constitute a credible life principle are elucidated. I argue that the key property of life is its information content, and speculate that the emergence of the requisite information-processing machinery might require quantum information theory for a satisfactory explanation. Some clues about how decoherence might be evaded are discussed. The implications of some of these ideas for ‘fine-tuning’ are discussed.

To recognize alien life, we would have to be clear about the defining criteria of ‘life’. Metabolism – in other words, biochemical fine-tuning – is one of these criteria. Three senses of metabolism are distinguished. The weakest allows strong artificial life (A-life): virtual creatures having physical existence in computer electronics, but not bodies, are classed as ‘alive’. The second excludes strong A-life but allows that some non-biochemical A-life robots could be classed as alive. The third, which stresses the body's self-production by energy budgeting and self-equilibrating energy exchanges of some (necessary) complexity, excludes both strong A-life and living non-biochemical robots.

Random Boolean networks (RBM) were introduced about 35 years ago as first crude models of genetic regulatory networks. RBNs are comprised of N on–off genes, connected by a randomly assigned regulatory wiring diagram where each gene has K inputs, and each gene is controlled by a randomly assigned Boolean function. This procedure samples at random from the ensemble of all possible NK Boolean networks. The central ideas are to study the typical, or generic properties of this ensemble, and see 1) whether characteristic differences appear as K and biases in Boolean functions are introducted, and 2) whether a subclass of this ensemble has properties matching real cells.

Such networks behave in an ordered or a chaotic regime, with a phase transition, ‘the edge of chaos’ between the two regimes. Networks with continuous variables exhibit the same two regimes. Substantial evidence suggests that real cells are in the ordered regime. A key concept is that of an attractor. This is a reentrant trajectory of states of the network, called a state cycle. The central biological interpretation is that cell types are attractors. A number of properties differentiate the ordered and chaotic regimes. These include the size and number of attractors, the existence in the ordered regime of a percolating ‘sea’ of genes frozen in the on or off state, with a remainder of isolated twinkling islands of genes, a power law distribution of avalanches of gene activity changes following perturbation to a single gene in the ordered regime versus a similar power law distribution plus a spike of enormous avalanches of gene changes in the chaotic regime, and the existence of branching pathway of ‘differentiation’ between attractors induced by perturbations in the ordered regime.

Noise is serious issue, since noise disrupts attractors. But numerical evidence suggests that attractors can be made very stable to noise, and meanwhile, metaplasias may be a biological manifestation of noise. As we learn more about the wiring diagram and constraints on rules controlling real genes, we can build refined ensembles reflecting these properties, study the generic properties of the refined ensembles, and hope to gain insight into the dynamics of real cells.

I shall present three arguments for the proposition that intelligent life is very rare in the universe. First, I shall summarize the consensus opinion of the founders of the modern synthesis (Simpson, Dobzhanski and Mayr) that the evolution of intelligent life is exceedingly improbable. Secondly, I shall develop the Fermi paradox: if they existed, they would be here. Thirdly, I shall show that if intelligent life were too common, it would use up all available resources and die out. But I shall show that the quantum mechanical principle of unitarity (actually a form of teleology!) requires intelligent life to survive to the end of time. Finally, I shall argue that, if the universe is indeed accelerating, then survival to the end of time requires that intelligent life, though rare, to have evolved several times in the visible universe. I shall argue that the acceleration is a consequence of the excess of matter over antimatter in the universe. I shall suggest experiments to test these claims.

A recurrent argument against the reality of biological evolution is the claim that there is insufficient time for the emergence of biological complexity. Such a view is a staple of creation ‘scientists’, but even cosmologists and biochemists have been overheard murmuring similar sentiments. Certainly the stock response, that the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, must be made. However, it is also the case that whilst the efficacity of natural selection is not in dispute, it is context-free and fails to explain the specificities of life. This observation is usually greeted with a Gallic shrug: ‘Yes, the biosphere is very rich, but so what?’ Indeed, the standard scientific response is that evolution is dogged by contingent happenstance, with the implication that a given complexity, say intelligence, is an evolutionary fluke. This, however, is inconsistent with the ubiquity of evolutionary convergence. Here I outline the argument for such convergence providing a ‘road-map’ of possibilities that arguably has universal applications and as importantly points to a much deeper structure to life.