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

[John M <***>]

Dear Ionel,

I stopped my involvement in conventional science after retirement, I even
resigned from consulting assignments as well, since I realized my
"professional solitude" - away from the institutional flow of events and
literature, not to speak about experimetntal activities. Inevitably I am to
become obsolete, not worthy of the retainers by clients. My earlier
'pioneer' experience is not enough.

This was the point when - as I said - "I started to think".
Bogdanov (Malinovsky), Bohm, Bertalanffy, and many others helped me into the
'wholistic interconnectedness' worldview, which I found akin to Rosen's
systematic philosophy (not the math technique based biological examples he
provided for scientists).

You are in a different position: active in your science, continuing the
trail you devloped (what evolved?) over the decades. I see no controversy in
working with reductionist science ) while pursuing
a wholistic philosophy (theoreticall) if the two do not coincide. However:
both require a total person, and infiltration of the practical activity
seems likely into the ways of thinking.

I have a feeling that your practival (conventional) science does 'flavor'
even the RR-reminiscences and your explanations are interwoven with
classical (quantum?) physics. That is no criticism: it si YOU, your
lifeline, achievements, yourself. Useful and successful. You are a
professor, responsible for teaching a curriculum and do not want to abandon
your published background. You are not alone with such problems among
advanced thinking scientists. I am not 'against' reductionist science,
I value its practical results (live with them) and realize that this is the
only productive way of the present level of the human mind. Without
reductionistic model-learning we would live in the cave.
We just want to look ahead and find better ideas for understanding.

I want to keep this in mind and remind other listmembers that your very
persuasive argumentations may skew the Rosennian thinking which is aimed at
the world of impredicative, wholistic, totally interconnected and
Turing-noncomputable qualia, not mixable with formalistic and math-quantized
physics-based conventional science theories. I drew the line and abandoned
the latter: I could afford it, I do not belong to any science-related
establishment.

I appreciate your experience and wisdom, your achievements, but always do
keep up the filter to separate the conventional (redux) science-aspects from
the Rosennian idea. So, as you said, the two of us may have (earlier)
matching topical periods, but for now I prefer not to argue with you. Our
worldviews are at different planes.

Best regards

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Professor I.C. Baianu" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics
Concept


> Dear John M.:
>
> I appreciate very much you interesting thougths and timeline; it would
seem
> we started opposite ways, somewhat continued going opposite ways, but now
> we seem to be partially overlapping our 'wave functions'. In the late 80's
> I had quite a bit of work done and published on organic, as well as
> biological-origin polymers.
>
> I became involved in the exciting field of Relational Biology in 1965/6
> when I was 20, although I was studying for my master's
> in Physics & Medical Biophysics; in parallel, although we had plenty of
> poorly presented maths and so-called "mathematical physics" classes (that
> were totally useless being presented by mathematical "non-entities", lots
> of biology, biochemistry (not enough), molecular biology (not quite
> enough), classical genetics, cytology,physiology, and of course lots and
> lots of medicine and biophysics classes and labs. My best, local friends
> were, however, established mathematicians and physical chemists.
> I audited their new and exciting courses on mathematical applications
> of Category Theory, and the p.chem. experiments on Fluorescence of DNA,
> Proteins, Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
> (NMR) studies of biological and organic, inorganic systems ---mostly
> solutions, but solids also. The latter one couldn't do at all without the
> big Quantum 'Mechanics' Bibles on NMR (e.g., Abragam, 12 editions since
> 1962, Oxford Univ. press>> 1000 paqges) and ESR (e.g. Abragam and Bleaney,
> 1970; Clarendon press, Oxford:DEDICATED TO VAN VLECK ! 911 pages; both
> chock-full of nicely worked out examples that give very numerous
> experimental results EXACTLY as predicted by 'standard', Hamiltonian QM
> computations, with due approximations whenever necessary). I've never
> stopped using quantum theory computations in my published papers on
p.chem.
> applications to inorganics, organics and biological systems, involving
> Magnetic Resonance. Even managed to write a second phys.chemistry master's
> thesis on the Hyperfine analysis of ESR of inorganic and organic solutions
> (both liquid and solid) of divalent copper salts, and the Dynamic Jahn-
> Teller effect at 277K, and static at ~77 K, analized of course with
> standard quantum theory Hamiltonians (kindly provided by the
> Bleaney's 'Bible' on ESR). A famous p.chem. advisor was delighted to
> approve the thesis, seconded by an equally famous 'nuclear'/
> /magnetic resonance--ESR physics professor. We also looked at ESR of
> live photosynthetic systems where it has provided, and continues to
provide
> invaluable results.
>  In fact, the largest QT item I wrote was in 1992-- a chapter or two of
> quantum theory in my textbook on physical chemistry applications.
> Notably, Magnetic Resonance Imaging  (MRI) is currently one of the highly
> valued, noninvasive techniques for FUNCTIONAL and Diagnostic Medical
> Imaging. Behind the MRI operation , the observation principles and correct
> analysis are as laid out by quantum theory. This means saving lots and
lots
> of people's lives. It did save mine too, as I was the 'diagnostician' who
> ASKED FOR the MRI and, also produced the correct diagnostic of a
suspected,
> but false cancer, after examining two not-so-hot pictures for two full
> hours!  Because, if I didn't, I would not be writing to you now!!!
> Therefore, I have to disagree strongly about the usefulness of Quantum
> Theory: it is established beyond any doubt in phys. chem./ biophys. chem.
> etc., and also in Medical application developments; sometimes--quite
often,
> in fact--a reductionist approach has its uses, as long as it does not
claim
> that it provides the final, complete answers, that no modeling can do
> anyway! And also , as long as it does not make any claim, <that's the only
> way 'to skin the cat'>-- be it Schrodinger's or anybody else's.
>
> What I did not say so far is that I did/do continue developing the
> Relational Biology approach throughout the 80' and late 90's looking for
> the essential mathematical tools, "new physics" and biological data needed
> for refining the non-reductionist 'programmatic' approach that Nicolas
> Rashevsky, Robert and I have assembled back in the early 70's with
> substantial contributions from others such as George Karreman (Relational
> Quantum Biology), Anthony Bartholomay (Relational Medicine and Diagnosis),
> Matthew Witten (Measurement and Biological Observation theory), W. Foster
> (M,R)-systems, to name just a few. It's been slow going but things are
> obviously speeding up from all sides.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ionel
>
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:34:01 -0400, John M <***> wrote:
>
> >Dear Ionel,
> >not that I want to argue, (I am on divergent lines of thinking), just a
> >remark about my "other" hero: David Bohm:
> >
> >He diverted from his conventional physics interest by the 60s and really
> >became one of the founders of "modern thinking" - from the side of a
> >physicist what he never ceased to be. (Once a physicist...)
> >His ~1952 ideas were far from his later philosophy and in my opinion it
was
> >a mistake to make a posthumus edition of the physics he wrote THEN,
without
> >pointing out his (later) changed natural philosophy system. He WAS a
great
> >physicist but a GREATER philosopher.
> >The "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"  is a fundamental work
> >and he spent the rest of his thinking life in this domain, even when he
was
> >teaching 'college-physics'.
> >
> >I wrote my ~100 publications and books in polymer (chemistry) before I
> >started to "think". My present ideas should not be mixed with the former
> >(reductionist-researcher) work, as well, as RR also did have different
> ideas
> >before developing his "complexity" system.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >John Mikes
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ionel" <***>
> >To: <***>
> >Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:04 PM
> >Subject: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics
> >Concept
> >
> >
> >> I am adding a new part to my response on "States" and the measurement
> >> problem in Quantum Theory. Some authors, such as David Bohm (fmrly. at
> >> Oxford) and MacKay at Harvard, feel strongly that Quantum & Mechanics
is
> >> a "misnomer" for quite different reasons, although not totally
> >unconnected.
> >> Thus David Bohm says that all systems are connected in the entire
> Universe
> >> (s?) at the quantum, microscopic level, and that different properties
of
> >an
> >> electron, for example, are exhibited with different interacting
systems;
> >> David Bohm in his Quantum Theory (1951 edn, 2nd edn. 1991) also goes
> >> further in stating that the measurement system/detectors/apparatus and
> the
> >> quantum system that is observed have to be considered as a "whole" in
the
> >> quantum theory. Bohmm also states that therefore, even 'simple systems'
> >> such as the electron exhibit complex behaviors at the microscopic
level.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> David Bohm also has some other interesting and provoking thoughts on
why
> >> and how quantum processes and the thought process in humans exhibit
some
> >> basic similarities, and he also cites some older views by Niels Bohr
that
> >> are labelled as 'highly speculative' on this subject. (See also my
> >previous
> >> posting on the preprint "N-Categories in Neuroscience" by Ronnie Brown
> >> (freely downloadable at his site). On the whole, Robert's ideas about
> >> measurement in complex systems do seem to be rather similar to David
> >Bohm's,
> >> although Robert doesn't cite Bohm in either his "Essays on Life..." or
in
> >> his original article on Quantum Genetics in 1956. Because, really, the
> >root
> >> of all discussion about Schrodinger's "What is Life?" and Robert's
"Life
> >> Itself", or F. Crick's "Life Itself..." is Quantum / Molecular
Genetics.
> >>
> >> MacKay' lecture notes at Harvard on the "Mathematical Foundations of
> >> Quantum Mechanics" (Theory?) makes the point that one cannot define a
> >Phase
> >> Space of single, dynamic state points, in Quantum Statistical Mechanics
> >> because--according to Heisenberg's principle-- one cannot observe
> >> simultaneously velocity and position at any "point in time". (Quantum)
> >> States are then defined by means of a probability measure for certain
> >> observables whose eigenvalues determined through measurement. Moreover,
> >> just like Von Neumann and Robert, he distinguishes between "pure
states"
> >> and "mixtures of states" in quantum theory... but no hidden variables.
> >> David Bohm agrees in his new edition: hidden variables won't work in
> >quantum
> >> theory, and therefore, "causality" in the Newtonian mechanical sense-
or
> >> Einstein's-- for that matter, won't work in quantum theory.
> >> Both David Bohm and Werner Heisenberg agree on one thing : quantum
theory
> >> is not in the final, completed stage yet, more new physics is needed.
In
> >> this, Robert is in agreement with both of them. They seem to separate
> when
> >> it comes to the means by which to achieve/ develop the new physics.
David
> >> Bohm doesn't exclude biology from the new , quantum physics
> >> but "speculatively" suggests possible bridges between quantum theory
and
> >the
> >> thinking processes in the human brain. In my paper published back in
> 1972,
> >> "A Category- Theoretical Analysis of Processes involved in
> >EEG.",(RRM),that
> >> we're scanning soon, I have obtained estimates of the energy needed to
> >> sustain 'thinking processes' based in neural circuits/networks
localized
> >in
> >> the brain's cortex, based on a combinatorial approach combined with
> >> Category theory.