Archive for February, 2010

The Intrinsic Probabilistic Character of Contemporary Knowledge

Posted by on Monday, 22 February, 2010

Non-Classical Meanings of Probability

One of the main characteristics  of contemporary development of physics is the re-integration of organization in its conceptual – methodological apparatus, aspect considered by Norbert WIENER – in his well known study dedicated to dynamic systems in physics and biology – as having  first rate importance for the future of physics. It is well known that Renaissance physics was obliged to exclude the organizational issue because it involved an excessive complexity for mathematical ( mechanist ) models of its era. Between a non-mathematizable complexity and a simplicity susceptible to mathematization, with immediate theoretical and practical results, has been – realistically – preferred the second variant, option loaded with ample methodological consequences, which have particularized the Cartesian science as a simplist, abstract science, centered on “ thing ” ( and not on living being), on distinct separable objects, subordinating the synthesis (of a summative essence anyway ) to analysis and respectively the qualitative to quantitative.

In the last decades, under the influence of some intrinsic factors (nonlinear physics, relativity theory, complementarity principle, physical synergetics ) or external (cybernetics, respectively functional approach, organizational chemistry, etc.), the object of general physics is progressively characterized as an organized complexity.  For the manner in which actual theory of relativity– centered on physical ( but still realist-local ! ) continuum – pledges for an organizational physics, it is very indicative the two step opinion of a remarkable physicist from the first half of the XX century – A.S. EDDINGTON:

  1. “ We often consider that an accomplished study for “one” allows us to know all about “ two ” because “ one ” AND  “ one ” makes “ two ”. This way we forget that we have to study “ and ”; the second physical horizon is just the study of this “ and ” namely of organization.”
  2. “ The environment should never be overlooked. In theory of relativity , we do not recognize the concept of an atom as a completely separated system. We can no longer contemplate an atom without a physical universe…just as we can not contemplate a mountain without a sustaining planet.”

    To understand that necessity is intrinsic probabilistic has been needed that contemporary science to assimilate nonlinearity, respectively that physics to become organizational, involving what I have designated as “ the activation of possible ” – defining aspect of contemporary knowledge, to which the following paragraph will be dedicated.

The activation of possible:  from Prigogine to…Chuang-Tze

In far from equilibrium states and especially in nonlinear conditions, the systems display a totally different behavior from their typical equilibrial or close to equilibrium states. Through nonlinearity / ergonic activation the system accedes to a different space ( set ) of possibilities, abruptly rising the number of accessible states and correlatively its choosing ability (organizational instability). Also, the potential barrier between the real / actualized and potential – possible states significantly decreases, the system becoming very sensitive to small variations of intrasystemic and environmental parameters. In the special area of the bifurcation point, the qualitative rapport between necessity and randomness changes in favor of stochasticity: this time the selection (actualization) of a state from the potential – possible states repertoire of the system ( repertoire delimited by the kinetic equations ) is decisively controlled by the stochastic factors – fluctuations of intrinsic or extrinsic parameters.  In these conditions, when real proposes and  possible disposes, within the phase  space of the system there are surprising processes such as trajectories decompartment – a form of non-classical instability having an exceptional scientific and philosophical significance through implications on modernization of some categories, principles, laws.

For instance, by uncovering of strange attractors within the phase space of some systems ( including macroscopic ones ) , from molecules to living cells and from human couple to nuclear reactors ( all considered in nonlinear conditions ) we are compelled to replace the classical attributive properties with probabilities (functions).  Methodological and conceptual reasons of such reconsideration can be found in dissipative structures theory as well as in the works dedicated to dynamics resurrection (as stochastic dynamics) and ergodic theory (see I. Prigogine, I. Sinai, A. J. Lichtenberg, M.A. Lieberman, and others.)

The activation of possible should not be in the least limited to physical / chemical systems, it equally bestowing the activation of some potential (forgotten) states / processes of the biological systems (especially – the human being), these being approachable through accurate scientific techniques.

This time the right brain hemisphere is preferentially involved in reaching of some psycho-physiological states of superior conscience, states / processes of great integrative – adaptive relevance, designated by alternative terms such as: “ cosmic conscience ” ( Dr. M. Bucke), “ spiritual resonance ”, etc. This activation of the “psi” – possible is favored by meditation, through which the stochastic action of the daily stress is limited, respectively the “ mental block ” (exerted by the left hemisphere) and usually manifested through rejecting / diminishing reactions of the spiritual states. This state of spiritual activation comes very close to Wu (Emptiness) requirement of Tao’s teaching, Chuang-Tze, one of the Taoism founders (contemporary with Lao-Tze, the famous author of “Tao Te Ching” manual, about 2,500 years old) demanding  the sage interested by spiritual integrity and expansion to be  as much as possible detached from the surrounding world, equally “corrupt and chaotic.”

X

As previously shown, in the new non-Cartesian (nonlinear, organizational, spiritual) context we perceive a genuine  change of perspective:  the necessity becomes inherent ( as a particular case ) to randomness, concomitantly reality  becomes  inherent ( again as a particular case ) to possibility and stability becomes inherent to instability; all these rapports allow just as many quantitative measures respectively meanings / senses of probability. The integrative, organizational significance of probability will naturally result as an integral of these particular senses above mentioned:

Probability, in its integrative  meaning, measures the generalized non-univocity of the actualization (selection) process, respectively the degree of participation of necessity to randomness, of real to potential, of stable to instable.

Existence in Broad Sense. Fundamental Reality

Posted by on Saturday, 20 February, 2010

From classical objective reality to fundamental reality



Reality (Existence ) has to be  understood not as a collection of  separated objects  but rather as a process of undivided integrality.Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles, that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I ‘m proposing the reverse , that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment and these particles are abstractions from that.
David BOHM

According to modern vision about the world, we are living into a universe constituted from stable objects, separated and well localized in space time, having well defined properties; in this  ( realist- dogmatic ) universe  the potential possible is practically non-existent , being imperceptible ( according to Berkeleyan criterion – esse is percipi ). This model of universe, exclusively composed from integrable systems was preferred, among others, by Einstein to whom “ is real only what it can be conceived as object.” Even traditional thinkers truly interested by the modernization of methodological status of the possible, did not hesitate to annex possible to real: “ Necessity and possibility are conditioned by real, pre-existing them ” ( N. Hartmann, 1938 ). The reductionism of the Western culture toward potential – possible, has been tightly correlated with the consideration of the becoming systems ( supposedly stable ) as one “ ontological scandal ”: indeed, from Aristotle to Einstein, to be consistent science / knowledge has to remain objectual, accepting without any reservations the postulate “ a thing either exists or does not exist ”, or in Plato’s version – what is becoming, it is not. This position static and realistic of the world, has been supported by the fact that in the surrounding, macroscopic world, the becoming itself was evanescent, as well as by the linear- analytical options of some reference  philosophers, such as: “ in nature, the generative processes are inexistent   “ ( G.W.F. Hegel ) or “ nature is characterized by total independence of its parts ” ( J.P. Sartre ).  This explains why even presently many researchers continue to be “ blinded by real ” ( W. Biemel, 1973 ), promoting – voluntary or not – conceptual confusions between real / existent, real / perceptible, real / reflected, etc.

An indisputable reversal of perspective: the real is always possible


The failing of modal decoupling “ either real or possible” could not have been delayed for long: hadronic systems ( strong interactions ) introduce for the first time an effective connection between  the objective real and objective potential, qualitatively modifying the real / possible relation thus clearly raising the problem of an imperative modernization of the traditional category of existence ( which was identifying existence with objective reality ) as well as the re-thinking of the methodological status of becoming. The new quantum mechanics, nonlinear physics, dissipative structures theory, synergetics, etc. have decisively contributed to “ activation / triggering of the possible ” imminently leading to the transition from Cartesian model “world as machine” to the model (metaphor) “world as potentiality ”.  The methodological  contemporary status of categories real / possible ( matter/ /spirit, animate / inanimate ) contains a double revelation: not only that they are not  opposite ( such in the case of Cartesian – Hegelian  antinomic dualism, Fig. 5a ) but they allow reciprocal transitions! Indeed, presently there is a remarkable perception in science / knowledge of a complementary continuity between real and potential possible ( Fig. 5b ), from this indisputable continuity deriving the so-called syncategories and especially the existence in broad sense, with its correlate – fundamental reality ( a reality connected with its concrete potentiality ), for any microobjects, as well as any other type of fundamental reality, being characteristic a perpetual transformation, in both directions on the track connecting possible to real:

possibility / potentiality ↔ actualization / realization



Fig. 5   Existence in broad sense

a.   traditional, objective reality

b.  fundamental reality

c.  the soap foam model

Some final remarks:

  • Traditional, objective reality has proven to be empirical, non-fundamental one, without genesis, and without genuine becoming ( time been reduced to a scalar / parameter = duration). Existence in broad sense allows the restoration of becoming into existence, this time, the fundamental reality being articulated with potentiality through existential processes perpetually unfolding in double directions: actualization potentialization; the time in broad sense becomes a processual entity, becoming alive, active, fluctuant.  Also the fundamental reality allows in a firm manner the introduction of miracle into science; this methodological mutation, which I consider an extraordinary gift given to all willing to understand the deep, subtle, non-reductionist pathways of life / nature / universe, is described in decoherence theory literature in the following terms: “ Everything that is possible becomes real no matter how improbable it is. And that is fairly solid physics. ”
  • The recognizing of the empirical, non-fundamental character of the traditional real, implies de-absolutization of some concepts / models / principles considered by the modern science as fundamental, intangible: formal logic, dynamic trajectories, atomism, time as duration, properties ( length is no longer a primary quality but rather a function), occurrence probability (no real is 100% real because being in contact with a field of non-zero probability possibilities, the existence probability of any “ alive ” real becomes subunitar), linear – analytical rationality, etc.

In the following I want to highlight  some of the most interesting conceptual repositions which have decisively contributed to the reversal of the traditional perspective.

W. Heisenberg: The world “ is ” made of possibility waves. The wave function describes a set of possibilities.  Particles are merely potentialities.”

G. Lukacs: “ in potentiality are contained in nuce all determinations constitutive for every  new system   in social existence.”

V. A. Fock: “Presently, the understanding of  existence itself has to be broaden until inclusion in it alongside of the realized states and of potentialpossible states.”

I. A. Manin: “ for contemporary physicists the most important collections are not the object sets (atoms, molecules, etc.) but rather the sets of potential possible distinct states. ”

E. Agazzi: “ the object of contemporary science is constituted not just from the real states but even from the possible states.”

I. R. Prigogine: ‘ Far from equilibrium all possible states are actualizing, co-existing and interfering with each other, the system being concomitantly everything it may be.”

D. Bohm: “ Reality (existence) has to be understood not as a collection of separated objects but rather as a process of undivided integrality.”

M. Heidegger: “ The authenticity of living being is guaranteed by the persistence into possible. ”

C. Noica :” Today we  live into possible.”

Conclusions:

  • Possible (potential possible) as well as its correlate – the spirit in broad sense, should not be conceived as two “empty” categories, devoid of any physical content. A similar position will further promote, in a subtle manner, the discontinuity in real / possible relation, aiming among others to block the existential pathways that introduce into science the miracle – a physical possible event having an occurrence probability extremely small but non-zero.
  • Fundamental reality designates the subsystem of existence in broad sense which is constituted from the totality of actualized (realized) states found in effective contact with potential possible.
  • The main particularities that distinguish the fundamental reality and classical objective reality are:
  1. an efficient connection between real (actualized) and possible, which confer to the actualized (realized) state an intrinsic instability and correlatively a subunitar occurrence probability.
  2. The essence of fundamental reality is intrinsic stochastic (probabilistic), the dissipative structures being, for instance “ huge fluctuations ” ( I. Prigogine ) whose upkeep is assured through energy and / or substance consumption, unlike classical structures ( molecules, crystals ) which can preserve their normal states indefinitely without any resource utilization.
  3. The fundamental reality brings into forefront the continuum values ( coupling, whole / totality, inseparability, etc.) which involves some new objectivity criteria since as a rule the classical criteria are centered on independence, individualization, localization.

The Conventional Medicine (CM) – a Business Against Nature

Posted by on Saturday, 13 February, 2010

The Cartesian medicine ( conventional or allopath ) has reached its competence limits – scientific, methodological and ethical.  Automatically guided, as well as the entire modern knowledge, toward failure into simulacrum, this type of medicine has proven to be non-fundamental, being disconnected from nature, from living being / subject, from genuine,  real  healing. Let me show you some of the main methodological minuses of the Cartesian, conventional medicine:

  • MC is not a natural science in itself and is not centered on one either: being an heteroclite conception, it ignores the genuine living being, usually promoting anti-living ( against nature ) treatments, such as the well known, traditional anti-cancer treatments: cut, poison, burn, which destroy without any discrimination the cancerous cells and normal, healthy cells, even though there is a well known / confirmed risk of tumor regeneration, sometimes after a couple of weeks / months. The more recent procedures characterized by less devastating interventions are not qualitative different because they continue to remain limited to the control of symptoms, leaving untouched the  cancer generator ( cause ).
  • Following the general development line of modern science / knowledge which  systematically de – individualizes  the studied systems,  CM became a no subject conception, working solely on a statistical basis.  From here the well known, simplistic clichés such as “ a pill for all “ or prescribing standard drug dosages, even though it is well documented that the specifications such as excess / deficiency / normal are  individual par excellence: what is normal for some, it could be an excess or deficiency for others.
  • For CM genuine healing concept does not exist, or is irrelevant, being replaced with a conceptual – operational artifact of the following type “ to match drugs ( remedies ) to symptoms ( outcomes ) “.  Moreover, the regular drugs (  indisputable useful in many crisis situations ! ) cannot even contribute to genuine healing, since they are structurally and functionally foreign to the living organism.
  • CM is also uninterested by the natural history of the condition ( how is the disease course without any medical treatment ).  Integrative doctors, without negating the existence within allopathic medicine of some healing performances ( including in area of  advanced / invasive cancers ) still remain interested by natural recoveries ( spontaneous remissions ) cases, their frequency being  higher than any traditional expectations.
  • The growing role played within CM by screening /  diagnosis procedures ( mammograms and biopsies  )  are threatening the well being and even life of patients. More and more doctors, allopathic included, have brought to the attention that mammograms themselves increase the annual cancer rate by about 3%.  By now the well known Norwegian study from Nov. / Dec. 2008 ( to which I will later return ) confirms these findings, suggesting for breast cancer even higher annual rates (4% or circa 20% within 5 years).  As expected, CM aristocracy became very … vocal towards this study, asserting that it represents an over simplification of a complex situation (understandable: the modern screening even though a routine activity is extremely profitable ).

X

The above aspects ( and even more similar ones ) should not be seen as a call for indiscriminate demolishing of the traditional medicine, conversely, I want to highlight now that this form of medicine had / has indisputable contributions ( sometimes really heroic ) to the preservation of the well being of planet’s population, BUT presently, especially due to some methodological requirements, the entire situation has been radicalized: there is an imperative need to change the concept of medicine itself and, correlatively,  the way the medical assistance is provided, being necessary a transition to a NEW MEDICINE, which instead of dissolving the individual in statistics, to rely on individualized healing approaches  which could be objectively tested / scanned and specifically /efficiently  influenced, including through some remote actions  ( nonlocality ).  This objective is expressed not just by European doctors or by the methodologists of Asian inspiration ( Taoist, etc. ) but equally by numerous, more numerous American specialists ( doctors, biologists ).  I will exemplify this by using the call to a change dealing with “ a system driven approach to medicine “ ( to read a Holistic – type of medicine ), launched by Dr. L. E. HOOD – Institute for System Biology, Seattle – project known as “ P4 Medicine “ , according to which the new medicine has to be:  Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, Participative. Intentionally or not, Dr. Hood has omitted a 5th P, which in my opinion, should find itself on the top of the list – Psychotherapy ( in broad sense ); if this omission of a spiritual factor comes from the fear to be suspected by…shamanism, I have to recognize that yes, this danger is still a real one.  At the same time, Dr. Larry DOSSEY has conclusively and elegantly demonstrated, that this risk should be assumed without any reserves, but…not every Saul becomes Paul.

Vital Properties of the Microsystems. Thermal Membranes and Quantum Detoxification

Posted by on Thursday, 11 February, 2010

It is well known the fact that from all 90 natural elements the most often found in the living matter composition are the following six:

C,    H,    O,    N,    P,    Na

The most abundant chemical elements in proteins are C and H ( representing 80% from total number of atoms ), the next two being O and N (19%).  These four constituents of the living matter account for at least 95% from its mass. Which are the criteria that directed this evident natural selection exerted on atomic level?  How did these microsystems proven more competitive than others? It can be asserted that the highly organized state (very low entropy) which characterizes biopolymers should have its main explanation at elementary level. From the series of elements with the lowest caloric capacities ( Andrew A. COCHRAN ), from which I show just the first ten, it can be observed that our interesting systems occupy a very significant position:

C,    H, B,    N, Be, Si,    O, F, P,    S

To mention that from all chemical elements which are solid at 25 0 C, and tightly correlated with the caloric capacity, the carbon has the lowest entropy. The caloric capacity can be defined as the instantaneous amount of thermal disorder added to ( or extracted from ) the system, entropy itself being the total measure of thermal disorder accumulated by the system between O 0 K and T 0 K. For instance, from an entropic viewpoint, carbon is clearly more advantageous than silicon for generating some highly ordered and highly functional structures, the entropy of solid silicon being = 4.51 cal /   0 C / gram atom, being almost eight times higher than carbon’s entropy ( diamond’s entropy = 0.585 ). The fact that a material system (atomic, molecular) owns a low caloric capacity has a crucial significance for its evolutive destiny, since for this system the quantum exchange of energy with its environment is a lot less frequent than in the case of systems with high caloric capacities, which allows all biopolymers to keep their high degree of order and organization / information unaltered by the environmental thermal disorder. The explanation of the very low caloric capacity of the proteins has to be looked for at the elementary level ( atoms and inter-atomic bonds ), its formulation being given in the following terms:  oscillatory energy E of the atom into a molecule is approximately given by (1):

E = (n + ½) h√0 (1)

Where 0 = classical frequency of the oscillatory system, being defined by the eq. (2):

0 = ½ Π  .  √K/m (2)

In (2)  m represents the atomic mass and K is the ratio between force that produces the displacement and displacement itself of atom within molecule, K being proportional  with the strength of the inter-atomic bond. When frequency is reduced, the quantum energy involved in energy exchange is also reduced.  In the protein structure there are concomitantly involved atoms with very low atomic mass and very strong inter-atomic bonds, which determines very high values for 0, viz.  high energy quanta.  Since the environment itself is a co-evolutive ( tuned ! ) entity, it cannot regularly provide photons of such high energy, it results that just a small fraction of atoms absorb and emit quanta within a given time frame.  This is the quantum reason of the fact that proteins ( biopolymers in general ) possess a very low caloric capacity / entropy, at regular ambient temperatures; this highly protective property, I have designated years ago by the term “ thermal membrane ”.  To notice that a low caloric capacity of a material system means concomitantly:

  • only a reduced fraction of the constitutive atoms participates at quantum exchange with their environment ( which highlights the predominance of the particle character of these atoms ) and
  • a large fraction of atoms manifest predominance of wavy/ coherent properties.

The wavy properties that are clearly predominant for any substance at O0 K, are typical at usual, terrestrial temperatures for all biopolymers and living matter.  It can be concluded that the series of elements above mentioned concomitantly represents ( this time in descending order ) the series of elements with the highest wavy nature. Based on the above data I have correlated wavy character / coherence / life, on one side and particle character / decoherence / disease (death) on the other side, this way introducing the concept of quantum detoxification, essential to maintain / restore the living systems to optimum rapport between coherence / decoherence.  As previously shown ( see section “ Consciousness in Broad Sense ” ), the metabolism, sleep, meditation, etc represent the most efficient means of quantum detoxification available to the human organism.

Alive ( the living thing ) in Broad Sense: Ability to Choose

Posted by on Tuesday, 9 February, 2010

From living thing as thing, to thing as a living thing

For centuries, the Cartesian methodology systematically promoted the ” itself ” ( the closure that remains closed ), leading to reductionist approach of alive, respectively to denaturation of the living thing, transformed into a simulacrum; this dogmatic situation has long reached its limits being obliged to gradually give way to a non-reductionist program centered on recognizing the priority of the living being toward the closed type essences.  M. Heidegger was the thinker that pointed out that the significance of the being ( living thing ) is the big question of contemporary philosophy, suggesting at the same time the optimal way to reach this goal: penetrating beyond the things horizon ( beyond Descartes ).

Two underlines:

  • Following Danish School of Philosophy, Heidegger constantly proclaimed that the genuine living thing is guaranteed by  its persistence in possible, which involves the opening of the reals  to possible and concomitantly, promoting a new type of R / P complexity –  the case of fundamental reality, which considers both the actualized / realized states and correlative potential possible states ( see section “ Existence in Broad Sense” and here, the following “ Original Situation in Chemistry ” ).
  • The main requirement of occidental contemporary civilization development decidedly points to a living thing  civilization rather than towards a Tao civilization; right, Tao possess equally Fundamentality and Living thing, but it is lacking the fundamentality and living thing, which partially explains the disregard of New Age movement toward “ inferior ” social forms: individual, couple, micro-social groups, etc.

Alive in Broad Sense = ability to choose

The idea of elaborating “ alive in broad sense ” category was  due to an old suggestion coming  from a remarkable Russian physicist ( N.A. UMOV, 1901 ):

Selection must be  recognized as a fundamental physical process,  being one of the future physics basic concepts.

Starting from this fundamental feature of the alive – ability to make choices : allego ergo sumother defining requirements which should be fulfilled by a system to be alive in broad sense are:

  • opening to environment ( exchanging matter, energy, information );
  • opening toward intrinsic fluctuations ( potential possible states );
  • a certain distance from the thermodynamic equilibrium ( ensuring this way the optimal communication, being known that at equilibrium the latent communication are decoupled by thermal movement; this aspect determined I. Prigogine to affirm that non-equilibrium state is rather a revelator than a creator of order);
  • nonlinearity – small inputs being able to produce huge, catastrophic outputs, this explains why the nonlinear systems are characterized as catastrophic systems;
  • sensitivity to extrinsic stimuli ( defined as the reverse of the necessary energy to shift the system between two states );
  • resilience ( suppleness in selection: Fig. 7B ), required for adaptivity performance;
  • minimal systemic memory;
  • genuine historicity.

Fig. 7   Selection as absorption / emission of radiation

A.  Rigid selection

B.  Flexible selection

After the quantum mechanics  debut, the usual models regarding energy absorption / emission by microsystems ( atoms, molecules ) were based on rigid selection, considering that the energetical levels remained unaffected by the organizational coupling between system / medium  ( Fig. 7A ):

∆E = Ei – Ej,   respectively   √i,j = ∆E / h

In reality, according to Chen and Takeo, any interaction of collision type, etc. of the microsystem with its environment has to manifest in the spectrum bands of emission / absorption. As a result every energetical level is characterized by a width  ∆Ei and, correspondingly,  every transition by the band’s width  ∆Ei,j ( Fig. 7B ).

The above mentioned data suggest the unlimited adaptive resources of the microsystems as well as the significant contribution of the environmental factors in reaching ( actualization ) of a certain potential state of the system. Taking in consideration that any microsystem has its own quantum signature ( a certain emission / absorption frequency ) as well as a certain sensitivity, the reader will immediately understand that we have reached something  fundamental, susceptible to explain not just subjectivity in broad sense ( the physical support of non-univocal selection and “ free will ” ) but equally the mechanism of oriented evolution and of tuned activity exerted by the Whole. Essential to this approach is to activate  all determinations of the inanimate system – ignored or undervalued by modern science and philosophy – which allow potentiality to fully manifest, conferring to the system its individuality, ability to choose and correlatively genuine historicity.

Genuine historicity

How is constituted genuine historicity of the alive in broad sense systems?

My answer is provided by the following schema – centered on nonlinearity and  non-univocal selection:

Equilibrium ↔ Non-Equilibrium ↔ Nonlinearity ↔ Instability ↔ Non-univocal  selection → Irreversibility → Historicity

Recognizing / promoting of the non-univocal  selection and, correlatively,  of genuine historicity in inanimate nature still represents a risky option from a methodological viewpoint, most of researchers preferring the conventional, comfortable position of Cartesian  ( clear and distinct ) separation between animate and unanimate, historicity and non-historicity.

Cartesianism is succumbing but does not capitulate

T states in chemical kinetics

The chemical kinetics contributed in the most direct way to highlighting the obsolete character of the rigid separation between “thing” and “living thing” populating – unexpectedly for the modern experts – the vast territory between animate and inanimate with new concept / models and systems / processes of transient nature (T states) for instance: bifurcations and strange attractors, self-oscillation systems / processes and dissipative structures,…  The unbelievable perplexity of modern experts (named by me Legion Statu Quo – LSQ ) toward these new, non-Cartesian developments has been proven by their categorical refuse  to acknowledge, promote and publish an extraordinary fact, namely BELOUSOV reactions (1950s) later known as Belousov – Jabotinski reactions, under the disqualifying pretext that “ a perpetuum mobile in chemical kinetics cannot exist ”.  Presently, such phenomena, which according to LSQ decree “ does not exist ”, can be demonstrated in any high school laboratory averagely equipped, they being able to be equally produced in open systems regimen, as well as in a closed one with limited durations.

GAIA – the homeostatic model

A similar situation, of rejecting a methodological innovation of the highest quality, having an exceptional explanatory value, is provided by LSQ from biology, who refused to recognize the integrative ( physical / biological ) model named Gaia, elaborated by Dr. James LOVELOCK, considering the Earth as a system alive in broad sense. This non-Cartesian, homeostatic model has been appreciated by modern experts as a pseudo-science sample, of teleological / finalist inspiration or shortly…. Gaia is worthless.

Original Model ( Essence / Situation )

The holism in broad sense ( Syntegration ) as well as the fundamental reality are based on genuine living wholes / totalities, the synthesis between real / possible being the initial generative moment of becoming of all systems, animated or inanimated. This non-traditional viewpoint evidently contradicts all analytical clichés of Cartesian inspiration ( such as atomism, molecularism, etc ) which conversely consider that elements ( simplicity, analyticity, things ) generate and founds the complexity, living thing.  As previously shown by me, the explanation of this reversed perspective comes from the fact that modern science has separated real from potential – possible ( modal decoupling ). In Bohmian terms, to be viable the alive in broad sense systems have to be generated and later absorbed by the whole ( holomovement ): everything emerges by unfoldment from the holomovement, then enfolds back into the implicate order. This means that holomovement represents the universal original situation, generative – dissolutive for all finite, derived systems.  It can be asserted ( with Plato and Hegel ) that the situation ( project, idea ) was / is the starting point. In his work “ Devenirea intru fiinta” ( Becoming into living thing ),  Editura St. Encicl.,  Bucharest, 1981, p. 207, C. Noica also underlines the preferential status of the situation: “ In the beginning it was the situation…principles and categories are themselves emanated  from a situation.”  To note that the acceptance of a big attractor within the morphogenetic space of biology ( or the equivalent formulation: the law of form precedes the emergence of form itself ) constitutes an alternative manner to state: in the beginning it was the situation. Finally, we have to specify that the final dimension in any alive whole implies an oriented development under the action of original situation.

Original Situation in Chemistry: is atomism fundamental ? Russian Chemists’ suggestion: see the Big Picture!

Similar conclusions of  a specific morphogenetic law  action can and have to be extended on  Chemistry, because here too is needed a proper approach of the living being problem.  The modern chemists support the realist – naïve idea that because the molecules are composed from atoms, the atomism should be considered fundamental. I consider this nothing less than one of the  biggest methodological mistakes of Cartesian science. Let us examine the abstract reaction schema:

A  +  B  =  C

where C represents the final molecular product.  Even in 1890 and after the Russian chemist Nikolai MENSHUTKIN has brought to attention that no reaction can be modeled overlooking the reaction milieu / medium; Menshutkin sent to us a very contemporary message : see the big picture. In non-Cartesian terms, we have to consider the genuine , “ alive ” totality, which according to N.N.SEMIONOV ( 1954 ) incorporates:   reactants ( A,B ) , co-reactants, catalysts, solvents, the walls of the reactor, additives, impurities, intermediate products, final products ( C ), energy…This inventory ( however realist ! ) is impressive, but is it sufficient to form an original, authentic situation?  Evidently, no: any of the above mentioned subsystems, as well as the global system itself, have to be considered together with their correlative potential – possible states, otherwise  syntegrative condition cannot be reached, the system remaining abandoned somewhere between the Cartesian whole ( holism in narrow / classical sense ) and the genuine whole ( See  the section ” Holism in Broad Sense ). This authentic whole is the result of a morphogenetic law action, pre-existent in the potential-possible;  without this action ( more exactly in – formation )  A, B  and  C would be impossible to appear and / or  survive within the reaction milieu:  therefore A,B,C  are non-fundamental chemical entities, they being tuned realities conform to an original, fundamental situation / attractor.