In the first part of the present paper we give an analysis of the ontic nature of quantum states to be intended as potentialities and of the central role of spin to be considered as the basic essence of quantum mechanical reality: using an algebraic quantum like structure we give mathematical proof on the transition from potentiality to actualization : we recall here what was recently given by us in arXiv quant-ph/0607196. However, as may be expected, it is not so easy to introduce examples containing an adequate description of ontic potentialities through detailed models of systems. The central aim of this paper is to attempt to reach this objective giving direct cases of systems in which ontic potentialities act jointly to actualization. Our aim is to provide evidence for the possible importance of potential states in the sphere of the biological dynamics giving detailed examples of interest for biological studies. We outline the possible implications of potentialities at the level of linear and non linear biological dynamics.
In the first part of the present paper we give an analysis of the ontic nature of quantum states to be intended as potentialities and of the central role of spin to be considered as the basic essence of quantum mechanical reality: using an algebraic quantum like structure we give mathematical proof on the transition from potentiality to actualization : we recall here what was recently given by us in arXiv quant-ph/0607196. However, as may be expected, it is not so easy to introduce examples containing an adequate description of ontic potentialities through detailed models of systems. The central aim of this paper is to attempt to reach this objective giving direct cases of systems in which ontic potentialities act jointly to actualization. Our aim is to provide evidence for the possible importance of potential states in the sphere of the biological dynamics giving detailed examples of interest for biological studies. We outline the possible implications of potentialities at the level of linear and non linear biological dynamics.
It is given a preliminary discussion on the ontic nature of quantum states to be intended as potentialities and on the central role of spin to be considered as the basic essence of quantum mechanical reality. The possible fundamental role of potentialities and of spin is evidenced in the framework of physical as well as of biological reality. After such preliminary deepening, using a quantum like scheme delineated on the basis of an algebraic structure, it is given for the first time mathematical demonstration of the transition from potentiality of states to their actualization as basic mechanism of our reality.
Founders of quantum mechanics (QM) anticipated that revisions to classical physics due to strange elements of quantum reality, would necessitate similar changes in biology. Complexity theory, systems biology and quantum biology provide possible solutions indicating that subject/object separation is a useful fiction for reductive science. Direct correlates to such QM observational/measurement issues as Complementarity and Uncertainty may justify the introduction of an analog of Heisenberg's uncertainty and the Planck constant for living systems. The phase space of "adjacent possibles" for biological systems from which one "actual" is selected resembles the collapse of the QM wave function. Since biological systems are hierarchical, this occurs across organizational scales resulting in biological coherence. The location of a quantum/classical boundary is unclear due to complexity. Whether biological systems' characteristics arise directly from QM or are of a different origin remains unsettled. To combine non-linear with quantum properties across biological scales we propose the Method of Coherent Structures (MCS), developed for quantum many-body systems. In MCS, a higher-level scale provides a classical envelope for quantum fluctuations at the lower scale. It yields a seamless transition from non-linear classical fields to quantum excitations and accounts for the emergence of complexity by incorporating metabolic energy supply.
Quantum biology, as introduced in the previous chapter, mainly studies the dynamical influence of quantum effects in biological systems. In processes such as exciton transport in photosynthetic complexes, radical pair spin dynamics in magnetoreception, and photo-induced retinal isomerization in the rhodopsin protein, a quantum description is a necessity rather than an option. The quantum modelling of biological processes is not limited to solving the Schrödinger equation for an isolated molecular structure. Natural systems are open to the exchange of particles, energy or information with their surrounding environments that often have complex structures. Therefore the theory of open quantum systems plays a key role in dynamical modelling of quantum-biological systems. Research in quantum biology and open quantum system theory have found a bilateral relationship. Quantum biology employs open quantum system methods to a great extent while serving as a new paradigm for development of advanced formalisms for non-equilibrium biological processes. In this chapter, we overview the basic concepts of quantum mechanics and approaches to open quantum system (or decoherence ) dynamics. Here, we do not intend to discuss all aspects of about a century-old theory of open quantum systems that dates back to the original work of Paul Dirac on atomic radiative emission and absorption (Dirac, 1927). Instead, we mainly focus on the integro-differential equations that are commonly used for modelling quantum-biological systems. Interested readers can learn more about open quantum systems in various books and review articles in both physics and chemistry literature, including the references (Kraus, 1983; Breuer and Petruccione, 2002; Kubo et al. , 2003; Weiss, 2008; May and Kühn, 2011).
Abstract. I review some characteristic aspects of quantum reality and make the connection to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's vision and a generally new quantum perspective of biological evolution. The quantum phenomena make it possible to conclude that the basis of the material world is nonmaterial; that the nature of reality is that of an indivisible wholeness; and that elementary particles possess aspects of consciousness in a rudimentary way. The quantum perspective of evolution makes it possible to conclude that the emergence of complex order in the biosphere is not from nothing (ex nihilo) but by the actualization of virtual quantum states—that is, by actualizing empty states which are part of the mathematical structure of material systems, representing a logical order that is not real in a material sense but, predetermined by system conditions, has the potential to become real in quantum jumps. I show how the existence of virtual states makes it possible to suggest that a transcendent reality underlies the visible order of the world and is immanent to it; and constantly new forms evolve from it.
The idea that the world is made of particles — little discrete, interacting objects that compose the material bodies of everyday experience — is a durable one. Following the advent of quantum theory, the idea was revised but not abandoned. It remains manifest in the explanatory language of physics, chemistry, and molecular biology. Aside from its durability, there is good reason for the scientific realist to embrace the particle interpretation: such a view can account for the prominent epistemic fact that only limited knowledge of a portion of the material universe is needed in order to make reliable predictions about that portion. Thus, particle interpretations can support an abductive argument from the epistemic facts in favor of a realist reading of physical theory. However, any particle interpretation with this property is untenable. The empirical adequacy of modern particle theories requires adoption of a postulate known as permutation invariance (PI) — the claim that interchanging the role of two particles of the same kind in a dynamical state description results in a description of the identical state. It is the central claim of this essay that PI is incompatible with any particle interpretation strong enough to account for the epistemic facts. This incompatibility extends across all physical theories. To frame and motivate the inconsistency argument, I begin by fixing the relevant notion of particle. To single out those accounts of greatest appeal to the realist, I develop the logically weakest particle ontology that entails the epistemic fact that the world is piecewise predictable, an ontology I call ‘minimal atomism’ (MA). The entire series of scientific conceptions of the particle, from Newton’s mechanically interacting corpuscles to the ‘centers of force’ in classical field theories, all comport with MA. As long as PI is left out, even quantum mechanics can be viewed this way. To assess the impact of PI on this picture, I present a framework for rigorously connecting interpretations to physical theories. In particular, I represent MA as a set of formal conditions on the models of physical theories, the mathematical structures taken to represent states of the world. I also formulate PI — originally introduced as a postulate of non-relativistic quantum mechanics — in theory independent terms. With all of these pieces in hand, I am then able to present a proof of the inconsistency of PI and MA. In the second part of the essay, I survey responses to the inconsistency result open to the scientific realist. The two most plausible approaches involve abandoning particles in one way or another. The first alternative interpretation considered takes the property bearing objects of the world to be regions of space rather than particles. In this view, the properties once attributed to particles in quantum states are attributed instead to one or more regions of space. PI no longer obtains in this case, at least not as a statement about the permutation symmetry of property bearers. Rather, the new interpretation naturally imposes an analogous constraint on quantum states. The second major approach to evading the inconsistency result is to dispense with objects altogether. This is the recommendation of so-called ‘Ontic Structural Realism’ (OSR). The central OSR thesis is that structure rather than entities are the basic ontological components of the world. OSR is intended to embrace the ‘miracle’ argument in favor of scientific realism (it would be a miracle if a scientific theory were predictively successful unless it were also approximately true with regard to its description of reality) while avoiding the pessimistic meta-induction (most predictively successful theories along with their associated ontologies have been overturned, so we should expect the same of our current theories). I demonstrate that one principal motivation for OSR based on the under-determination of interpretations in QM is actually dissolved by the incompatibility result. At the same time, I suggest reasons to think that OSR fares no better with respect to the pessimistic meta-induction than traditional realism does. Thus, while PI and MA may be incompatible, object ontologies remain the best option for the realist.