Hypothesis, will be discussed in the final section, see also Fig. 1. We will also address
the longstanding disagreements between molecular- and evolutionary biologists [10]
on how natural selection acts, while supporting a trans-level semiotics that is
appropriate for geno-phenotypic translations including the role of somatic programs
in a Darwinian perspective. We will also compare and discuss our findings with other
results and strategies made recently in connection with the self-referential paradox
associated with the concept of consciousness. To make the presentation
self-contained, yet without bequeathing too many excruciating details, some brief
reviews are incorporated for the convenience of the prospective reader.
2 The Ontological Framework
Today Darwin’s theory of evolution, in spite of initially being a badly split field, has
reached a certain consensus and acquired a synthetic unification known as the evolutionary synthesis [10]. Nevertheless it is still classed as a sort of unfinished business
as the materialistic Neo-Darwinism
2 has recently been seriously critiqued and
appraised [11]. Our answer to the issues and questions rendered above, has been
considered conceptually as the Paradigm of Evolution, see e.g. Refs. [9, 11] and
references therein. The formulation derives from a general extension of standard
mathematical representations of stationary states in separation from the environment
to so-called open (dissipative) systems.
3 The logical framework should be general
enough to include the axioms of quantum mechanics. Below, we will, as already
mentioned, give a short account, but for more details we refer to [9, 11, 13].
Before activating a reading of the specifics needed for a more basic portrait, we
must recognize already at the start that there are many controversial undertakings
instigated by the various practitioners of science and their views of what should be
considered as fundamental concepts in the scientific description of Mother Nature.
For instance Barbour [14] rhetorically asks whether time is ‘real’, while at the same
time advocating a timeless theory of the universe. Furthermore Primas, in his Mind
and Matter article [15] projects a holistic reality, where time is not taken to be an a
priori concept. These examples of deviation from standard practice are well
enunciated, yet they run the risk of drawing unwanted consequences that incur more
problems than it solves, e.g. the unavoidable emergence of internal times, the
imperative dependence on boundary conditions, or paraphrasing Primas: ‘the death
of natural laws’ by being trapped in a Gödelian self-reference.
4 We will return to
this question further below.
2
For discussions on the somewhat controversial concept of Neo-Darwinism, see e.g. [10, 11].
3
The concept of dissipative systems and their irreversible processes has been the focus of Prigogine and the Brussels–Austin School, [12].
4
Note that the Gödel (self-referential) paradox can be translated to a consistently formulated
mathematical singularity of a suitably extended logic [16].
384
E. J. Brändas
the longstanding disagreements between molecular- and evolutionary biologists [10]
on how natural selection acts, while supporting a trans-level semiotics that is
appropriate for geno-phenotypic translations including the role of somatic programs
in a Darwinian perspective. We will also compare and discuss our findings with other
results and strategies made recently in connection with the self-referential paradox
associated with the concept of consciousness. To make the presentation
self-contained, yet without bequeathing too many excruciating details, some brief
reviews are incorporated for the convenience of the prospective reader.
2 The Ontological Framework
Today Darwin’s theory of evolution, in spite of initially being a badly split field, has
reached a certain consensus and acquired a synthetic unification known as the evolutionary synthesis [10]. Nevertheless it is still classed as a sort of unfinished business
as the materialistic Neo-Darwinism
2 has recently been seriously critiqued and
appraised [11]. Our answer to the issues and questions rendered above, has been
considered conceptually as the Paradigm of Evolution, see e.g. Refs. [9, 11] and
references therein. The formulation derives from a general extension of standard
mathematical representations of stationary states in separation from the environment
to so-called open (dissipative) systems.
3 The logical framework should be general
enough to include the axioms of quantum mechanics. Below, we will, as already
mentioned, give a short account, but for more details we refer to [9, 11, 13].
Before activating a reading of the specifics needed for a more basic portrait, we
must recognize already at the start that there are many controversial undertakings
instigated by the various practitioners of science and their views of what should be
considered as fundamental concepts in the scientific description of Mother Nature.
For instance Barbour [14] rhetorically asks whether time is ‘real’, while at the same
time advocating a timeless theory of the universe. Furthermore Primas, in his Mind
and Matter article [15] projects a holistic reality, where time is not taken to be an a
priori concept. These examples of deviation from standard practice are well
enunciated, yet they run the risk of drawing unwanted consequences that incur more
problems than it solves, e.g. the unavoidable emergence of internal times, the
imperative dependence on boundary conditions, or paraphrasing Primas: ‘the death
of natural laws’ by being trapped in a Gödelian self-reference.
4 We will return to
this question further below.
2
For discussions on the somewhat controversial concept of Neo-Darwinism, see e.g. [10, 11].
3
The concept of dissipative systems and their irreversible processes has been the focus of Prigogine and the Brussels–Austin School, [12].
4
Note that the Gödel (self-referential) paradox can be translated to a consistently formulated
mathematical singularity of a suitably extended logic [16].
384
E. J. Brändas