Re: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics Concept

[Judith Rosen <***>]

It's important to bear in mind that the paper Ionel cites was written by my
father when he was very young (in 1957, my father was only 22/23), whereas
my conversations with my father about his work began in my mid teens. I was
born in 1960. I started really talking to him about his ideas while we were
still in Nova Scotia and he was all fired up about his work on "Anticipatory
Systems". At that time, however, my curiosity about my father's work was
somewhat diluted by other concerns that tend to creep in with teenaged
girls. By the time I was 23, I was an "old married lady" with a newborn
daughter, and began to take my writing much more seriously, which in turn
led to discussions with my father about creativity, about writing in
general, and about the similarities in our respective mental approach to
such things. In short, the adult friendship phase of my relationship with my
father had begun, and most of my knowledge of his work was developed in the
15 year span after that.

To say that his ideas changed since he was at Chicago is an understatement.
He spoke of this in his autobiographical paper, which most of you have seen
(anyone who hasn't, email me off list and I'll send it to you). He has also
written about this in several of his books and myriad papers that are far
more recent than the ancient paper cited in the current discussion. What he
said to me was that all of the then-current physics-based scientific
approaches, including Quantum stuff, were cut from the same cloth. By then,
he had long concluded that it WOULD NOT WORK, no matter how much you shake
it, turn it sideways, or squint your eyes at it.

Now, that's not to say he felt it was a waste to study phenomena in the
universe using quantum tools or physics-based tools; quite the contrary. He
merely said it was pointless, if you restrict yourself to those tools, to
try to analyze and understand the fundamental processes of life and living
systems (which was exactly where his interests lay). Furthermore, he
believed that tools developed to study biological systems would also yield
extremely important scientific breakthroughs when applied to a large
proportion of the same phenomena that Quantum /Physics-based tools were
being applied to. The reason for that is due to what he called "Natural
Law": In my father's opinion, the fundamental nature of all material reality
in the universe is organization-based, not particle-based.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ionel" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional
Dynamics Concept


> Hi, Judith:
>
> Not only I read Robert's papers on Quantum Genetics carefully but also
> wrote an essay on that subject back in 1968.
>
> The fact is that Robert's paper on Quantum Genetics is quite substantial
in
> both length and content, and it is in essence based--to a great extent--on
> von Neumann's formalization of Quantum Mechanics. Wish I did have
> the BMB volume were he published the two papers on the subject to point
out
> specifically to you all of that. That he may have changed his ideas later
> it's conceivable but I am not at all certain of it. His conclusions
> were, however, in disagreement with the central dogma of molecular
biology,
> and it is quite likely that how he began the modeling with
Metabolic-Repair-
> Replication Systems. It is a pretty good guess as he cites in his first
MR's
> the Quantum Genetics papers he wrote and links to his conclusions
mentioned
> above
> The subject is far too important to 'drop the ball' on this one, and the
> facts speak for themselves.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ionel
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:32:05 -0400, Judith Rosen
> <***> wrote:
>
> >> Ionel wrote:
> >> This may, thus suggest that complexity, even in Robert's sense, does
> >> originate at the quantum, microscopic level in biological organisms, as
> he
> >> was pondering on this question back in 1956, in his Quantum Genetics
> >> article published in BMB.
> >>
> >
> >I don't think so, Ionel. The results of his "pondering" didn't leave him
> >with any illusions that Quantum Theory would be useful in his quest.
> >
> >My father initially had hopes that Quantum thoery might herald
fundamental
> >changes for physics, but, after some intensive analysis of what was being
> >developed, he came away disappointed. He said, very much as Tim pointed
out
> >in his post, that Quantum theory kept the original premises that were
> >already at the root of physics and merely added to them, changing only
the
> >outer edges. The state-based reality as depicted in Quantum theory, he
> said,
> >is not going to explain "life" as a property of living systems. Since
> >finding the scientific explanation for "life" was the initial/continual
> >driving force behind everything he achieved during his career, and
remained
> >his main focus and his passion; once he realized Quantum theory would not
> >advance his purpose any further, he walked away. Whatever else the tool,
> >represented by Quantum theory, was good for scientifically, it was as
> >useless to him as gardening paraphernalia in a leaky boat.
> >
> >Judith
>