The informative Philip Ball’s By chance, or by design? published in Nature’s New feature section [1] by two decades ago, addressed the controversies and implications of a contemporary scientific fetish to the fundamentals of several biologists research activities
∙ Quanta Magazine analyzes the principles of macroscopic world formation through quantum decoherence and quantum Darwinism. ∙ 'Einselection' fixes specific quantum states… similar to how life preserves information. ∙ Integrating quantum biology from physical and philosophical perspectives, redefining the fundamental principles of life's information processing. [Quantum Biology Society] An in-depth analysis has been proposed on how the bizarre phenomena of quantum mechanics transform into the solid macroscopic reality we observe, and what connection this process has with the evolution of life. Recently, the science media outlet Quanta Magazine reported through a contribution by renowned science writer Philip Ball that the theories of 'Quantum Darwinism' and 'Decoherence,' pioneered by physicist Wojciech Zurek, are the key to connecting biological systems with the macroscopic world. ■ The Reality of 'Survival of the Fittest' Created by 'Einselection' In the quantum realm, particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition), but in the macroscopic world we observe, they appear in only one definite state. According to Dr. Zurek's theory, this happens because quantum systems continuously interact with their surrounding environment, undergoing a process of 'decoherence' where information is dissipated. The core of this process is 'Einselection' (Environment-Induced Superselection). The environment does not accommodate all states; instead, it selects only the most stable and predictable states, known as 'pointer states,' and replicates them innumerably within the environment. Just as only the genetic information advantageous for survival is passed on and spreads in natural selection, the essence of 'Quantum Darwinism' is that quantum information also undergoes a 'survival of the fittest' process dictated by the environment. This ultimately forms an objective macroscopic reality that all of us can commonly perceive. ■ Life, a Product of Evolution that Anchors Quantum Information into Reality Philip Ball noted that these physical principles are strikingly similar to the way biological systems process information. He explains that the vital activities of living organisms—such as recognizing external stimuli, preserving genetic information, and controlling complex metabolic processes—are fundamentally the very processes of filtering meaningful information from quantum superpositions and anchoring them into the physical states of the real world. This report suggests that quantum biology is not merely a discipline that investigates microscopic reactions within cells. Rather, it is a grand unified theory explaining how life has utilized the universe's fundamental principles to process information and evolve. Built upon the theories of Dr. Zurek, a master of modern physics, this analysis presents a new philosophical and physical paradigm that views life as a cosmic entity where matter, information, and quantum mechanics are perfectly integrated.
On August 15, 1932 Niels Bohr gave opening address of International Congress on Therapy held in Copenhagen. Bohr's title was Light and Life, and his purpose was to draw attention to epistemological implications for life sciences of fundamental changes that quantum theory had brought to conception of natural law (Bohr 1933). He thought that these changes, which extend to very idea of nature of scientific explanation, were important not only for a full appreciation of new situation brought to physics by quantum theory. According to Bohr, these developments had also created an entirely new background for viewing problems of biology, especially as concerns our views on position of living organisms in realm of natural science. In particular, Bohr proposed that notion of complementarity, which he had first presented 5 years earlier at International Congress of Physics in Como, relevant also for physiological and psychological aspects of life. Bohr began his address by stating what nowadays stigmatized as reductionist credo, namely that subtle character of riddle of life notwithstanding, any scientific explanation of biological phenomena necessarily must consist of reducing description of more complex phenomena to that of simpler ones. But, Bohr continued, discovery of an essential limitation of mechanical description of natural phenomena, as revealed by recent development of atomic theory, has lent new interest to old problem of how far program of reductive biological explanations can be carried. Bohr then presented a brief historical account of rise of quantum theory in connection with study of light, which he thought is perhaps least complex of all physical phenomena. Yet, it turned out that despite its lack of complexity, phenomenon of light cannot be given a coherent mechanical explanation, inasmuch as from viewpoint of classical physical theories, the quantum of action . . . must be considered as an irrational notion. The spatial continuity of light propagation, on one hand, and atomicity of light effects on other hand, must, therefore, be considered as complementary aspects of one reality, in sense that each expresses an important feature of phenomena of light. Those aspects are complementary, because, although they are conceptually irreconcilable from a mechanical point of view, they can never be shown to be in direct, or empirical, contradiction. The reason for this that any closer analysis of either wave aspect or particle aspect of light demands mutually exclusive observational arrangements.
On August 15, 1932 Niels Bohr gave opening address of International Congress on Therapy held in Copenhagen. Bohr's title was Light and Life, and his purpose was to draw attention to epistemological implications for life sciences of fundamental changes that quantum theory had brought to conception of natural law (Bohr 1933). He thought that these changes, which extend to very idea of nature of scientific explanation, were important not only for a full appreciation of new situation brought to physics by quantum theory. According to Bohr, these developments had also created an entirely new background for viewing problems of biology, especially as concerns our views on position of living organisms in realm of natural science. In particular, Bohr proposed that notion of complementarity, which he had first presented 5 years earlier at International Congress of Physics in Como, relevant also for physiological and psychological aspects of life. Bohr began his address by stating what nowadays stigmatized as reductionist credo, namely that subtle character of riddle of life notwithstanding, any scientific explanation of biological phenomena necessarily must consist of reducing description of more complex phenomena to that of simpler ones. But, Bohr continued, discovery of an essential limitation of mechanical description of natural phenomena, as revealed by recent development of atomic theory, has lent new interest to old problem of how far program of reductive biological explanations can be carried. Bohr then presented a brief historical account of rise of quantum theory in connection with study of light, which he thought is perhaps least complex of all physical phenomena. Yet, it turned out that despite its lack of complexity, phenomenon of light cannot be given a coherent mechanical explanation, inasmuch as from viewpoint of classical physical theories, the quantum of action . . . must be considered as an irrational notion. The spatial continuity of light propagation, on one hand, and atomicity of light effects on other hand, must, therefore, be considered as complementary aspects of one reality, in sense that each expresses an important feature of phenomena of light. Those aspects are complementary, because, although they are conceptually irreconcilable from a mechanical point of view, they can never be shown to be in direct, or empirical, contradiction. The reason for this that any closer analysis of either wave aspect or particle aspect of light demands mutually exclusive observational arrangements.