Howard wrote:
"Quantum physics runs directly into this conceptual (5995-1)
problem with the (discrete) particle-(continuous)
wave complementarity. Matter cannot be described
without using both concepts in an unintuitive relation. "
I think physicists are ahead of biologists by at least one century, in the
sense that biologists (most, if not all, of them) still believe that the
wave-particle complementarity (WPC) is unique to physics and not
applicable to biology. But I saw several observations on molecular and
cell biology reported at the EMBO/EMBL Conference on Molecular Machines
held in Heidelberg last month that clearly demonstrated the involvement of
both particle and wave properties of matter, but everything is explained
away only in terms of the particle aspect, completely ignoring the wave
aspect of matter. When I pointed this out at the meeting on several
occasions, some young audience (graduate students and postdocs)
apparently liked and agree with my commentaries, as evidenced by the fact
that I was invited to have a drink and dance with them at Cave in
Heidelberg until 3 am !
Also some of the established investigators at the meeting apparently
agreed with me (or at least thought my commentaries were
thought-provoking), since my poster (Experimental and Theoretical Evidence
for the Energy Quantization of Molecular Machines and Living Cells) were
chosen as one of the presentations to be published in a special issue of
Structural and Computational Biotechnology Journal dedicated to the
Conference, the manuscript of which being due in 10 days. In this
manuscript, I will emphasize the fundamental significance of WPC in
interpreting biological data on the molecular and cellular levels, a
conclusion supported by my own recent findings that a wide variety of
biological processes, from protein folding to enzyme catalysis and brain
functions, obeys the generalized Planck equation (also called BRE,
blackbody radiation-like equation, or the Planck distribution) which
consists of two terms one related to standing waves and the other to
their energies.
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
> At 02:58 PM 6/19/2014, Edwina wrote, (following Howard's response to
> Søren):
>
>>Søren wrote: This understanding of experience as
>>an irreducible aspect of reality is very
>>difficult to swallow for so-called scientific realists.
>
> HP: On the contrary, what you call the
> individual's "irreducible aspect of reality" was
> first clearly distinguished by Newton ("his
> greatest discovery" according to Wigner). This
> irreducible aspect is what physicists call the
> local "initial conditions" as contrasted with universal nature's laws.
>
>>Edwina: I think that the 'individual's
>>irreducible aspect of reality' can be traced
>>much further than Newton. How about Aristotle?
>
> HP: Agreed. What can't be traced to Aristotle?
> Nevertheless, to "clearly distinguish" initial
> conditions from laws you need Newton's
> mathematics which described continuity with discrete symbols.
>
> In my opinion, Aristotle's greatest discovery was
> complementarity -- the epistemological fact that
> to understand reality we need multiple models
> that are logically irreducible to each other. His
> four causes are one example. Another example of
> irreducibility is discreteness and continuity:
> "That which moves does not move by counting."
>
> Peirce had trouble accepting the necessity of
> complementary models because they are often
> logically inconsistent. He spent many years
> trying to describe continuity (his synechism) by
> discrete logic (as did many other
> mathematicians). He did not solve the problem
> (e.g., see
> <http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/USC/DP16.html>Continuous
> Frustration: C.S. Peirces Mathematical
> Conception of
> Continuity).<http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/USC/DP16.html>
>
> Quantum physics runs directly into this
> conceptual problem with the (discrete)
> particle-(continuous) wave complementarity.
> Matter cannot be described without using both
> concepts in an unintuitive relation.
>
> Howard
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
