List,
In response to recent calls for submissions for Springer (constructive
biosemiotics) and conferences/gatherings in Poland and Czech, I have been
labouring to put together a paper. But in the end it is evident that it will
never get published, because it is too conjectural, and very difficult to
substantiate or reference. Before abandoning my paper completely, maybe what
I had in mind might resonate with someone in this forum. So heres the basic
outline that I submit in the spirit of brainstorming...
What I wanted to introduce in my paper is the idea of linking identicality
with entanglement... that is to say, whenever any two or more entities are
wholly identical, they will be entangled. This is an unsubstantiated
conjecture... but there are grounds for exploring it, for reasons as will
become clear below.
I have commented before on these forums on knowing how to be and how it
relates not only to humans but to all living organisms, with stem cells
providing a compelling example of what I am getting at. I have also
suggested that maybe atoms and molecules must also know how to be and that
this is the reason why the entanglement/nonlocality of quantum physics is
relevant. In this light, we might better understand decoherence as
recoherence... etc, etc (Ive posted/written on this before if anyone is
interested).
The conjecture that I would like to introduce into our narrative,
particularly in the context of knowing how to be, is that of identicality.
All subatomic particles of any one kind, all atoms of any one kind and all
molecules of any one kind can be said to be identical. However, as we know
from quantum physics, any two or more particles or atoms can be induced in a
laboratory to share a state that is different to their normal state (e.g.,
wrt spin, polarization), and thus, in the narrative of quantum physics, they
are said to be entangled (after theyve interacted with one another).
However, this entanglement is notoriously very fragile, and subject to
decoherence. In previous posts to this forum, however, I suggested that
decoherence might actually be recoherence. This is relevant to the question
of identicality, because recoherence simply relates to the atoms
rediscovering their former narratives, their former states of being, as
they reconnect with their former knowing how to be in order to become
normal again, and thus identical to their peer atoms.
What I want to suggest is that identicality always entails entanglement. And
so entanglement is integral to matter knowing its chemical and physical
properties. This conjecture receives its inspiration from a silly thought
experiment that I briefly entertained as a child... what if I encountered
another me that was identical to me in every way, in every detail (the
materialist paradigm)? Of course such perfect identicality can never happen
between any two multicellular organisms. But can it happen at the
subatomic/atomic/molecular level? What does it mean to be identical? It is
generally assumed that all the DNA molecules within a single living organism
are identical to one another. It is also often suggested that identical
twins share identical DNA, though the question of how experience impacts on
that DNA remains open. Individual personalities are possible because their
DNA is different from person to person. And so we have identities and selves
that can be distinguished from others, while retaining the entanglement
between identical DNA molecules within our bodies that makes each of us
whole (á la binding problem).
The genocentric/mechanistic narrative typically assumes a big bang universe
that belches out particles from its furnace that happen to be identical to
others of their kind, with consistent, replicable properties. But when you
think about it, that is one hell of an assumption to make, an enormous leap
of faith. Why should a hydrogen atom over here be identical to a hydrogen
atom in the Andromeda galaxy? How do atoms and molecules maintain consistent
properties that are useful to nature? And so I conjecture that particle
identicality is integral to understanding matter, entanglement, nonlocality
and how DNA works this is especially interesting for DNA entanglement,
given that the manner in which DNA replicates provides about as good a case
for interaction between particles as one could conceive. [At first glance
the big bang model would be most agreeable with this idea of entangled
matter, given the commencement of all things at a singularity, but I have my
own reasons for being cautiously sceptical of the big bang interpretation]
If we factor identicality and knowing how to be into our paradigm, it
might provide solutions to all sorts of dilemmas, for example:
1) The binding problem (neurons, cells in one body acting as a
whole);
2) While identicality does not provide any explanation for the
structure of empty space and the distinction between in here versus
over there, it does make the connection between entangled particles
somewhat more palatable, and just that little bit easier to swallow;
3) Some of the narratives that I have seen in books popularizing
quantum physics seem to hint at subatomic behaviour that has its parallels
with how humans make choices from culture... e.g., David Bohm and his
implicate/explicate order, Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance;
4) The virtual particles of the quantum void have to know how to
be before they can become the stuff that persists in time and space;
5) Experimental evidence is available that is consistent with DNA
entanglement and the behaviour of neurons sharing the same DNA;
6) The DNA molecule is complex, but there is no computer anywhere
that processes its data... and foreseeably, entanglement is the only
other possible mechanism available to the DNA molecule that might enable it
to do its thing;
7) Entropy, as the destroyer of complexity, has a much harder time
once we factor in entanglement, identicality, and how this all relates to
knowing how to be.
All the other stuff in our biosemiotic paradigm seems now to be quite
straightforward... the categories (within the context of motivation,
habituation and association) can be more or less said to apply to all living
things, and as per Peirces quote provided in Sungs recent post (below), we
are left with the filling up of its details. But there remains
entanglement and quantum physics... maybe the key lies in extending our
biosemiotic narrative to the subatomic/atomic/molecular realm.
On its own, pragmatism and the idea that anything could matter to an
amoeba or a neuron seems just a tad preposterous. And there is one thing
even more preposterous than pragmatism for an amoeba... and that is
pragmatism for an atom or molecule. For how can anything matter to matter?
But when we factor in knowing how to be at this more universal scale,
well, maybe its not that unreasonable. But it does open up ever more
troubling questions as to purpose within universal scales of space and
time... maybe even theism and all that (how can anything matter to matter
unless there was some kind of over-arching collective to inform it?). But I
digress.
Thanks to the internet and reddit science, evidence is emerging from a lot
of places to support this outline... we just need to connect the dots, for
example:
1) Entangled neurons - Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti,
D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural
networks (E. Donkor, A. Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and
Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117. Retrieved August 2,
2015, from:
http://faculty.nps.edu/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf
2) Skull containing brain as a bucket of bugs:
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/biologists_discover_bacteria_communica
te_like_neurons_in_the_brain
3) Broken genocentric paradigm:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44088/title/Lefties--L
anguage--and-Lateralization/
Ultimately, all we have here is an unfalsifiable conjecture. But we need
something, we need a best guess... as part of our axiomatic framework. We
should be encouraged to formulate a vision for how we think the biosemiotic
paradigm might hang together at all levels of knowing how to be. The new
field of biophysics is definitely a step in the right direction, but thus
far they seem to be constrained by the mechanistic narrative... they are
looking for how the mechanisms (properties) utilize entanglement. I suggest
that the reality might the other way around... maybe its entanglement that
accounts for the properties (mechanisms).
This is a conversation that would interest people working in the field of
biophysics, except that most will never have heard of biosemiotics, and so
it wont occur to them to make these reversals in thinking.
If anyone is interested in researching/writing/collaborating on this thesis
further, Im open to getting back into it. But without support or resources
at my disposal, Ill have to take my day-job more seriously J
The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to make a philosophy like
that of Aristotle, that is to say, to outline a theory so comprehensive
that, for a
long time to come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of every
school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, in physical science, in
history,
in sociology, and in whatever other department there may be, shall appear as
the filling up of its details. The first step toward this is to find simple
concepts
applicable to every subject. (Heartshorne and Weiss, 1931, p. vii;
emphases
were added). (111315-1)
sj
-----------------------------
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 .
