Possibility spaces and the notion of novelty: from music to biology
- 77 Downloads
We provide a new perspective on the relation between the space of description of an object and the appearance of novelties. One of the aims of this perspective is to facilitate the interaction between mathematics and historical sciences. The definition of novelties is paradoxical: if one can define in advance the possibles, then they are not genuinely new. By analyzing the situation in set theory, we show that defining generic (i.e., shared) and specific (i.e., individual) properties of elements of a set are radically different notions. As a result, generic and specific definitions of possibilities cannot be conflated. We argue that genuinely stating possibilities requires that their meaning has to be made explicit. For example, in physics, properties playing theoretical roles are generic; then, generic reasoning is sufficient to define possibilities. By contrast, in music, we argue that specific properties matter, and generic definitions become insufficient. Then, the notion of new possibilities becomes relevant and irreducible. In biology, among other examples, the generic definition of the space of DNA sequences is insufficient to state phenotypic possibilities even if we assume complete genetic determinism. The generic properties of this space are relevant for sequencing or DNA duplication, but they are inadequate to understand phenotypes. We develop a strong concept of biological novelties which justifies the notion of new possibilities and is more robust than the notion of changing description spaces. These biological novelties are not generic outcomes from an initial situation. They are specific and this specificity is associated with biological functions, that is to say, with a specific causal structure. Thus, we think that in contrast with physics, the concept of new possibilities is necessary for biology.
KeywordsNovelty Possibility space Biological functions Organization Emergence
I am grateful to Ana Soto, Giuseppe Longo, Carlos Sonnenschein, Marc Godinot, Paul-Antoine Miquel, Arnaud Pocheville and the anonymous reviewers for their critical insights on previous versions of this article. I also would like to thank Guillaume Lecointre for helpful discussions and Jean Lassègue for pointing out the work of Leibniz.
- Adams, A., Zenil, H., Davies, P., & Walker, S. (2017). Formal definitions of unbounded evolution and innovation reveal universal mechanisms for open-ended evolution in dynamical systems. Scientific Reports, 7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00810-8.
- Anderson, P. W., & Stein, D. L. (1985). Broken symmetry, emergent properties, dissipative structures, life: Are they related? In E. F. Yates (Ed.), Self-organizing systems: The emergence of order (pp. 445–458). NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- Beatty, J. (1995). The evolutionary contingency thesis. In Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
- Bergson, H. (2014). La pensée et le mouvant. Editions Flammarion.Google Scholar
- Borges, J. L. (1998). The library of babel. Collected fictions.Google Scholar
- Camalet, S., Duke, T., Julicher, F., & Prost, J. (2000). Auditory sensitivity provided by self-tuned critical oscillations of hair cells. In Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, pp. 3183–3188. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.7.3183.
- David, L., Ben-Harosh, Y., Stolovicki, E., Moore, L. S., Nguyen, M., Tamse, R., et al. (2013). Multiple genomic changes associated with reorganization of gene regulation and adaptation in yeast. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30, 1514–1526. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
- de Vladar, H. P., Santos, M., & Szathmáry, E. (2017). Grand views of evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.01.008.
- Gilbert, S. F., & Epel, D. (2009). Ecological developmental biology: Integrating epigenetics, medicine, and evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
- Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Heams, T. (2014). Randomness in biology. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 24, https://doi.org/10.1017/S096012951200076X.
- Kauffman, S. (1996). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. (2002). Investigations. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kauffman, S. A. (2016). Humanity in a creative universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Koutroufinis, S. (2014). Beyond systems theoretical explanations of an organism’s becoming: A process philosophical approach. In S. Koutroufinis (Ed.), In life and process (pp. 99–132). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110352597.
- Koutroufinis, S. (2017). Organism, machine, process. Towards a process ontology for organismic dynamics. Organisms. Journal of Biological Sciences, 1, 23–44. http://ojs.uniroma1.it/index.php/Organisms/article/view/13878.
- Leibniz, G. W. (1991). De l’horizon de la doctrine humaine. Vrin. 1666.Google Scholar
- Longo, G., & Montévil, M. (2013b). Extended criticality, phase spaces and enablement in biology. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, pp. 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2013.03.008.
- Longo, G., & Montévil, M. (2014). Perspectives on organisms: Biological time, symmetries and singularities. Lecture notes in morphogenesis. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35938-5.
- Longo, G., Montévil, M., & Kauffman, S. (2012). No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere. In Genetic and evolutionary computation conference. New York, NY: ACM: GECCO’12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330784.2330946.
- Loreto, V., Servedio, V. D. P., Strogatz, S. H., & Tria, F. (2016). Dynamics on expanding spaces: Modeling the emergence of novelties. In M. Degli Esposti, E. G. Altmann, & F. Pachet (Eds.), Creativity and Universality in Language (pp. 59–83). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (1963). Animal species and evolution (vol. 797). Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Mazzola, G. (2012). The topos of music: Geometric logic of concepts, theory, and performance. Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
- Muller, G. B., & Wagner, G. P. (1991). Novelty in evolution: Restructuring the concept. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, pp. 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.22.110191.001305.
- Pachet, F., & Roy, P. (2014). Imitative leadsheet generation with user constraints. In ECAI 2014 (pp. 1077–1078). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-1077.
- Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life. Columbia U. P.Google Scholar
- Ruiz-Mirazo, K., Peretó, J., & Moreno, A. (2004). A universal definition of life: Autonomy and open-ended evolution. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 34, 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ORIG.0000016440.53346.dc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Soros, L., & Stanley, K. . O. (2014). Identifying necessary conditions for open-ended evolution through the artificial life world of chromaria. In ALIFE 14: The fourteenth conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, pp. 793–800. https://doi.org/10.7551/978-0-262-32621-6-ch128.
- Stephan, A. (1999). Varieties of emergence. Evolution and Cognition, 5, 50–59.Google Scholar
- Tohme, M., Fini, J.-B., Laudet, V., & Demeneix, B. (2012). Chapter 8 small model organisms as tools in food safety research. In Hormone-disruptive chemical contaminants in food (pp. 136–153). The Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781849732970-00136.
- West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar