Abiogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
397
2 Sub-dynamics and Quantum Theory
It is clear that a microscopic theory of biological systems by default should be
engrained in QM and to originate in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or
its Liouville companion. This demand is by many regarded a tall order, since it is
generally felt that the wet and warm environment, such as in a human brain, would
be too complex and messy
8 to prohibit decoherence thereby rendering traditional
quantum mechanics inapplicable [25]. On the other hand, recent progress in quantum chemistry and chemical physics, see e.g. Refs. [17, 21, 26] for some relevant
presentations, do indeed commend a positive and precise response that quantum theory is of crucial importance to unite biophysical and biochemical descriptions of the
cell, its constituents, and interactions with the environment. In this evaluation lies a
code-forbidden decoherence rule that combines the temperature, the time scales and
its underlying teleonomic evolution. In what follows we will essentially characterize a biological structure as complex enough, viz. a CES, that is able to develop a
teleonomic apparatus as recognized in [23]. The definition may sound a bit vague so
it will be revisited later during this journey.
First some remarks and thoughts regarding the role of irreversible processes in
sub-dynamics, see Prigogine [14, 18, 27]. The central idea concerns the problem
of going from a time invariant Schrödinger-Liouville equation to a thermodynamically irreversible formulation without invoking any approximations. One reason for
the present somewhat stagnant interaction between the various subdisciplines here is
most likely semantic-based. Starting off with the Einstein-Bohr discussions on quantum theory, standard QM interpretations have replicated epistemological viewpoints
and possible underlying ontological levels. Another divide concerns the way a state
of the actual system is encoded. Atmanspacher and Primas [28] offered a detailed
account on how epistemic and ontic perspectives are related to scientific knowledge,
and that so-called emergent behaviour should be viewed as transitions from ontic to
epistemic descriptions.
Although the passage, an epistemic state refers to the knowledge that can be
obtained about an ontic state, quoted in [28], the actual difference could well recede
in a Gödelian self-referential statement. Specifically, ontic significance might become
graded fostering ontological commitments such as experienced e.g. in chemistry. As
an example, Per-Olov Löwdin,
9 [26], defined the subdiscipline quantum chemistry in
terms of a so-called pure theory in a restrictive sense: if it derives for instance chemical
data from the knowledge of only the physical values of the electronic mass and charge,
Planck’s constant, the atomic numbers and the form of the Schrödinger Equation,
which itself represents the quintessence of a great deal of physical experience. In this
8 In the foreword to [25] Sir Roger Penrose asks the question: Is it merely the complexity of biology
that gives living systems their special qualities and if so, how does this complexity come about? Or
are the special features of strongly quantum-mechanical system in some way essential? Penrose’s
answer is well-known, but we will not discuss his “Orch OR” theory, nor in detail Tegmark’s
decoherence argument.
9 By many considered the father of quantum chemistry, see [26] for rationales.
397
2 Sub-dynamics and Quantum Theory
It is clear that a microscopic theory of biological systems by default should be
engrained in QM and to originate in the time-dependent Schrödinger equation or
its Liouville companion. This demand is by many regarded a tall order, since it is
generally felt that the wet and warm environment, such as in a human brain, would
be too complex and messy
8 to prohibit decoherence thereby rendering traditional
quantum mechanics inapplicable [25]. On the other hand, recent progress in quantum chemistry and chemical physics, see e.g. Refs. [17, 21, 26] for some relevant
presentations, do indeed commend a positive and precise response that quantum theory is of crucial importance to unite biophysical and biochemical descriptions of the
cell, its constituents, and interactions with the environment. In this evaluation lies a
code-forbidden decoherence rule that combines the temperature, the time scales and
its underlying teleonomic evolution. In what follows we will essentially characterize a biological structure as complex enough, viz. a CES, that is able to develop a
teleonomic apparatus as recognized in [23]. The definition may sound a bit vague so
it will be revisited later during this journey.
First some remarks and thoughts regarding the role of irreversible processes in
sub-dynamics, see Prigogine [14, 18, 27]. The central idea concerns the problem
of going from a time invariant Schrödinger-Liouville equation to a thermodynamically irreversible formulation without invoking any approximations. One reason for
the present somewhat stagnant interaction between the various subdisciplines here is
most likely semantic-based. Starting off with the Einstein-Bohr discussions on quantum theory, standard QM interpretations have replicated epistemological viewpoints
and possible underlying ontological levels. Another divide concerns the way a state
of the actual system is encoded. Atmanspacher and Primas [28] offered a detailed
account on how epistemic and ontic perspectives are related to scientific knowledge,
and that so-called emergent behaviour should be viewed as transitions from ontic to
epistemic descriptions.
Although the passage, an epistemic state refers to the knowledge that can be
obtained about an ontic state, quoted in [28], the actual difference could well recede
in a Gödelian self-referential statement. Specifically, ontic significance might become
graded fostering ontological commitments such as experienced e.g. in chemistry. As
an example, Per-Olov Löwdin,
9 [26], defined the subdiscipline quantum chemistry in
terms of a so-called pure theory in a restrictive sense: if it derives for instance chemical
data from the knowledge of only the physical values of the electronic mass and charge,
Planck’s constant, the atomic numbers and the form of the Schrödinger Equation,
which itself represents the quintessence of a great deal of physical experience. In this
8 In the foreword to [25] Sir Roger Penrose asks the question: Is it merely the complexity of biology
that gives living systems their special qualities and if so, how does this complexity come about? Or
are the special features of strongly quantum-mechanical system in some way essential? Penrose’s
answer is well-known, but we will not discuss his “Orch OR” theory, nor in detail Tegmark’s
decoherence argument.
9 By many considered the father of quantum chemistry, see [26] for rationales.