Dear Lou, Pedro and All,

I am going to present a few opportunistic ideas related to what was said before in this session. Coming back to Pivar’s speculative mechano-topological model of life excluding genetics I wish to turn your attention to another author with a similar idea but on a sound mathematical base, Davide Ambrosi with his resume at https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/cim/events/cim-mathmod-workshop-2015_abstracts.pdf : “Davide Ambrosi: A role for mechanics in the growth, remodelling and morphogenesis of living systems In the XX Century the interactions between mechanics in biology were much biased by a bioengineering attitude: people were mainly interested in evaluating the state of stress that bones and tissues undergo in order to properly design prosthesis and devices. However in the last decades a new vision is emerging. "Mechano-biology" is changing the point of view, with respect to "Bio-mechanics", emphasizing the biological feedback. Cells, tissues and organs do not only deform when loaded: they reorganize, they duplicate, they actively produce dynamic patterns that apparently have multiple biological aims. In this talk I will concentrate on two paradigmatic systems where the interplay between mechanics and biology is, in my opinion, particularly challenging: the homeostatic stress as a driver for remodeling of soft tissue and the tension as a mechanism to transmit information about the size of organs during morphogenesis. In both cases it seems that mechanics plays a role which at least accompanies and enforces the biochemical signaling.” Some more details about this approach can be found here: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1902/3335 http://biomechanics.stanford.edu/paper/MFOreport.pdf In other words, for the core information theorists in FIS, the question is: is there really only (epi)genetic evolution communication in living organisms. Stan Salthe and Lou Kauffman already provided some answers. I begin to believe that the transition from abiotic to biotic structures, incl. Maturana-Varela.-Uribe’s autopoiesis may, really have some underlying matrix/”skeleton”/”programme” which has nothing in common with the nature of DNA, and that DNA and RNA as we know them today http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314006778 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519316001260 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107101405.htm may have emerged as secondary or even tertiary “memory” of something underlying deeper below the microbiological surface. It is at least worth thinking in this direction. I do not mean necessarily the role of the number concept and Platonic origin of the universe, but something probably much more “physical” or at least staying at the edge between physical/material and immaterial such as David Deutsch’s constructor theory (http://constructortheory.org/) and Brian Josephson’s “structural/circular theory” (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.02429.pdf; http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.06774.pdf; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4860.pdf) searching for the theories underpinning the foundations of the physical laws (and following Wheeler’s definition for a “Law without Law”. Some of you may say that QT and Gravitation Theory are responsible for such kind of strange effects, but I would rather leave the brackets open, because the recent discussion about potentialities and actualities in QM brings up the idea that there are still different ways of looking at those concepts (although they are strictly defined in their core domains). This was actually also the lesson from the last special issue on integral biomathics (2015) dedicated to phenomenology, with the different opinions of scientists and philosophers on obviously clear matters in their domains. This is why also the question of what we define as science needs to be probably revised in future to include also such issues that are “felt” rather than “reasoned”, even if we do not have the “proofs” yet, because the proofs also emerge as subjective (or perhaps “suggested”! – ask the psychologists for that aspect) thoughts in the minds of the mathematicians. I am really glad that we began such a phenomenological discussion on this aspect such as Hipolito’s paper ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000899) that was widely commented in the reviewer’s circle. In many cases when we have a “fuzzy” intuition about a certain relationship or analogy we miss the correct definitions and concepts, and so in a creative act to hold down the flying thought we move to using examples, metaphors, pictures. Pedro correctly addressed the explanatory problem of science which presupposes a certain causative and predicative “workflow” to derive a conclusion from the facts, and this is the way in which also proofs are (selectively) made. As a young scholar I often wondered how artificially people like Gauss, Cauchy and Weierstrass design their proofs, but then I got used to that style. I am thankful to Lou for his response on my question about using adequate “resonant” methods to model developmental biology, because this is also an important aspect of the biology (and physics as well) including the phenomenological/first-person view of an “observer-participant” (to use Vrobel’s term) which is crucial for understanding the process of self-reflection/recursion/cycle in science, which is usually led by what?: the intuition, also well recognized by such giants like Poincare and Einstein. Isn’t not “resonance” in the core of detecting such vibration between the observer and the observed? Because logic, back trace, prove come later. And finally, when looking at the clear simple mathematical abstractions of numbers, vectors, directions, sets, algebras, geometries, etc. used by many without scrutinizing when developing system (biological) models of yet another kind of mechanics/automation/machinery of the physical reality, I am asking myself which are the premises for using such tools to describe a model: the parameters, or the idea behind? It is probably not a commonly known fact (even for those who are engaged with such exciting disciplines as algebraic geometry and geometrical algebra, now considered to be very close to what we wish to express in biology) that William Hamilton, the inventor of the quaternions did not simply use the already known concept of “vector” in his method. Instead he used “step” with “direction” to express a duration of time (or “duree” as Husserl called it from the other side of the phenomenological divide) and action (to move from A to B): two very biology-related concepts at that time (although they may be considered as physical or computational today). He actually stated that if there is geometry as a pure science of space, then algebra must be the pure science of time [1]. What did we actually gain for biology from merging space and time in physics? Reference: [1] W. R. Hamilton, 1835. Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic Couples; with a Preliminary or Elementary Essay on Algebra as the Science of Pure Time. *Trans. Royal Irish Acad*., Vol. XVII, Part II. 292-422. Best, Plamen I have a few provoking notes related to what was said before in this session. Coming back to Pivar’s speculative mechano-topological model of life excluding genetics I wish to turn your attention to another author with a similar idea but on a sound mathematical base, Davide Ambrosi with his resume at https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/cim/events/cim-mathmod-workshop-2015_abstracts.pdf : “Davide Ambrosi: A role for mechanics in the growth, remodelling and morphogenesis of living systems In the XX Century the interactions between mechanics in biology were much biased by a bioengineering attitude: people were mainly interested in evaluating the state of stress that bones and tissues undergo in order to properly design prosthesis and devices. However in the last decades a new vision is emerging. "Mechano-biology" is changing the point of view, with respect to "Bio-mechanics", emphasizing the biological feedback. Cells, tissues and organs do not only deform when loaded: they reorganize, they duplicate, they actively produce dynamic patterns that apparently have multiple biological aims. In this talk I will concentrate on two paradigmatic systems where the interplay between mechanics and biology is, in my opinion, particularly challenging: the homeostatic stress as a driver for remodeling of soft tissue and the tension as a mechanism to transmit information about the size of organs during morphogenesis. In both cases it seems that mechanics plays a role which at least accompanies and enforces the biochemical signaling.” Some more details about this approach can be found here: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1902/3335 http://biomechanics.stanford.edu/paper/MFOreport.pdf In other words, for the core information theorists in FIS, the question is: is there really only (epi)genetic evolution communication in living organisms. Stan Salthe and Lou Kauffman already provided some answers. I begin to believe that the transition from abiotic to biotic structures, incl. Maturana-Varela.-Uribe’s autopoiesis may, really have some underlying matrix/”skeleton”/”programme” which has nothing in common with the nature of DNA, and that DNA and RNA as we know them today http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314006778 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519316001260 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107101405.htm may have emerged as secondary or even tertiary “memory” of something underlying deeper below the microbiological surface. It is at least worth thinking in this direction. I do not mean necessarily the role of the number concept and Platonic origin of the universe, but something probably much more “physical” or at least staying at the edge between physical/material and immaterial such as David Deutsch’s constructor theory (http://constructortheory.org/) and Brian Josephson’s “structural/circular theory” (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.02429.pdf; http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.06774.pdf; http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4860.pdf) searching for the theories underpinning the foundations of the physical laws (and following Wheeler’s definition for a “Law without Law”. Some of you may say that QT and Gravitation Theory are responsible for such kind of strange effects, but I would rather leave the brackets open, because the recent discussion about potentialities and actualities in QM brings up the idea that there are still different ways of looking at those concepts (although they are strictly defined in their core domains). This was actually also the lesson from the last special issue on integral biomathics (2015) dedicated to phenomenology, with the different opinions of scientists and philosophers on obviously clear matters in their domains. This is why also the question of what we define as science needs to be probably revised in future to include also such issues that are “felt” rather than “reasoned”, even if we do not have the “proofs” yet, because the proofs also emerge as subjective (or perhaps “suggested”! – ask the psychologists for that aspect) thoughts in the minds of the mathematicians. I am really glad that we began such a phenomenological discussion on this aspect such as Hipolito’s paper ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000899) that was widely commented in the reviewer’s circle. In many cases when we have a “fuzzy” intuition about a certain relationship or analogy we miss the correct definitions and concepts, and so in a creative act to hold down the flying thought we move to using examples, metaphors, pictures. Pedro correctly addressed the explanatory problem of science which presupposes a certain causative and predicative “workflow” to derive a conclusion from the facts, and this is the way in which also proofs are (selectively) made. As a young scholar I often wondered how artificially people like Gauss, Cauchy and Weierstrass design their proofs, but then I got used to that style. It was a question of overall convention. I am thankful to Lou for his response on my question about using adequate “resonant” methods to model developmental biology, because this is also an important aspect of the biology (and physics as well) including the phenomenological/first-person view of an “observer-participant” (to use Vrobel’s term) which is crucial for understanding the process of self-reflection/recursion/cycle in science, which is usually led by what?: the intuition, also well recognized by such giants like Poincare and Einstein. Isn’t not “resonance” in the core of detecting such vibration between the observer and the observed? Because logic, backtracing and proof come later. And finally, when looking at the clear simple mathematical abstractions of numbers, vectors, directions, sets, algebras, geometries, etc. used by many without scrutinizing when developing system (biological) models of yet another kind of mechanics/automation/machinery of the physical reality, I am asking myself which are the premises for using such tools to describe a model: the parameters, or the idea behind? It is probably not a commonly known fact (even for those who are engaged with such exciting disciplines as algebraic geometry and geometrical algebra, now considered to be very close to what we wish to express in biology) that William Hamilton, the inventor of the quaternions did not simply use the already known concept of “vector” in his method. Instead he used “step” with “direction” to express a duration of time (or “duree” as Husserl called it from the other side of the phenomenological divide) and action (to move from A to B): two very biology-related concepts at that time (although they may be considered as physical or computational today). He actually stated that if there is geometry as a pure science of space, then algebra must be the pure science of time [1]. What did we actually gain for biology from merging space and time in physics? And if we apply a specific mathematical-computational technique what is the key idea/intuition behind it?. Because, as a colleague pathologist told me this morning about the model correctness when predicting the development of tumors: the model can be assumed for being correct based on the interpretation of some (limited) set of data, but Ptolemy's system was also considered to be correct in its rather complex way of predicting the movement of the celestial bodies. Where is the difference? I am curious about your opinion. *Reference:* [1] W. R. Hamilton, 1835. Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic Couples; with a Preliminary or Elementary Essay on Algebra as the Science of Pure Time. *Trans. Royal Irish Acad*., Vol. XVII, Part II. 292-422. Best, Plamen ______________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)

_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis