Dear Gavin et.FIS,

Information processing is omnipresent in biology.
Alan Turing's reaction-diffusion model of morphogenesis is certainly

Here are a few more examples implying information processing within
biological systems:

1. Vrancisco Varela's self-reference calculus:

and its implications:;jsessionid=8CC55298874EE9F1A9A0D886491099EA.d04t04?systemMessage

You could find more about it on Google

2. Robert Rosen's Anticipatory Systems and category theoretical studies on
Life Itself (cf.. Amazon) and Aloisius Louie's continuation of that path
with "More than Life Itself".

3. Andree Ehresmann's dynamic CT based Memory Evolutive Systems (MES) (cf.

There are still many aspects of living systems that were not captured "at
the roots" of the phenomena by mathematics and computation to this moment,
despite several attempts for over 60 years. This is a huge field to be
explored yet. But the complexity of the biological phenomena does not imply
the automatic application of standard physicalistic approaches.I am not the
first who claims that an H2O molecule in an the cat Tom is different form
the one in the mouse Jerry, and then from the one in the pool in the
garden. This is e.g. one of the issues where physics as it is cannot help
further (individuality). Using and refining the tools we have in one field,
does not imply a dogmatic denial of the necessity to invent new tools for
another field that could be more effective there. Mathematics and physics
as such cannot explain biology to the extent we need to know. They need to
be developed to include the peculiarities of the phenomena at hand.

I will stop here for now.



On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Gavin Ritz <> wrote:

> Hi FISers
> Can anyone show me a calculus for Information relating to biological
> systems?
> And if so show me the relationship with conceptual mathematics?
> Regards
> Gavin
> Dear FISers:
> Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of
> physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong
> relationship between information and physics in biology, there are striking
> examples where direct correspondences between information, physics, and
> biology seem to depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these
> discrepancies which will undoubtedly give us a better understand of
> information.
> For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and
> J. Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum
> statistics and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum
> mechanical phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to
> be true in ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and
> decision rates may produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum
> statistics. In such cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response
> regulator reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition
> from classical to quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct
> correspondence between quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation.
> Because the particular reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to
> ciliates (i.e., the same phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and
> possibly bacteria), this incongruity may be widespread across life.
> Best regards,
> Kevin Clark
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list

___ ___ ___

Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
landline:   +
fax/ums:   +
mobile:     +
fis mailing list

Reply via email to