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

[John M <***>]

Judith,

interesting bio-data. I was smarter at 22 than I am now.

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics
Concept


> 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
> >