Advertisement

On the Biological Origin of Design in Nature

  • Attila Grandpierre
Chapter
Part of the Cellular Origin, Life in Extreme Habitats and Astrobiology book series (COLE, volume 23)

Abstract

We consider first the most fundamental “design in nature,” the explanatory structure of the universe on the basis of the natural sciences, and the related problem of teleology in nature. We point out that it is necessary to generalize the presently used explanatory scheme of physics. We derive here the first essentially complete scientific world picture and obtain new insights answering to the problem of cosmic design. Considering some important objections against teleology, we present counterarguments and give a new classification of the main classes of teleology and their quantitative complexity measures. Comparing the new classification of teleology with that of Mayr, we give useful examples and indicate why teleology is useful for natural science. As a result, we outline a general picture of the basic types of design in nature and provide their scientific explanation.

Keywords

Biological Behavior Spontaneous Emission Action Principle Input Condition Algorithmic Complexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

4. Acknowledgment

It is a true pleasure for us to thank the inspiring insights and continuous assistance of our friend, Jean Drew, in preparing this work and for lecturing the English of the previous version.

5. References

  1. Barbieri M (2002) Organic codes: metaphors or realities? Sign System Studies 30:743–754Google Scholar
  2. Barrow JD, Tipler FJ (1986) The anthropic cosmological principle. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer E (1967) Theoretical biology (1935: in Russian; 1967: in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, p 51Google Scholar
  4. Brent R, Bruck J (2006) Can computers help to explain biology? Nature 440:416–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown LM (ed) (2005) Feynman’s thesis: a new approach to quantum theory. World Scientific, SingaporezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaitin GJ (1966) On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences. J ACM 13:547–569MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaitin GJ (1985) An APL2 gallery of mathematical physics – a course outline. In: Proceedings of the Japan’85 APL symposium, Publ. N:GE18-9948-0 IBM Japan, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  8. Clayton P, Davies P (2006) The re-emergence of emergence. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 46Google Scholar
  9. Davies P (1984) Superforce. the search for a grand unified theory of nature. Touchstone, New York, pp 104–105Google Scholar
  10. Davies P (1992) The mind of god. The scientific basis for a rational world. Touchstone, New York, 73Google Scholar
  11. Davies P (2004) When time began. New Scientist, October 9Google Scholar
  12. Davies P (2006) The Goldilocks Enigma. Why is the universe just right for life? Allan Lane, Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies P (2011) Why is the universe just right for life? In: Tymieniecka A-T, Grandpierre A (eds) Astronomy and civilization in the new enlightenment, vol 107, Analecta Husserliana. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 199–209Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins R (2006) The god delusion. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. ISBN 0-618-68000-4Google Scholar
  15. Ellis GFR (2005) Physics, complexity and causality. Nature 435:743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feynman RP, Hibbs AR (1965) Quantum mechanics and path integrals. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M (1964) Lectures on physics, vol 2. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Grandpierre A (1995) Quantum-vacuum interactions in the brain. In: Laszlo E (ed) The interconnected universe. Toward a unified science of quantum, cosmos and consciousness. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 113–117, AppendixGoogle Scholar
  19. Grandpierre A (2004) Conceptual steps towards exploring the fundamental lifelike nature of the sun. Interdiscipl Descrip Complex Syst (INDECS) 2:12–28Google Scholar
  20. Grandpierre A (2007) Biological extension of the action principle: endpoint determination beyond the quantum level and the ultimate physical roots of consciousness. Neuroquantology 5:346–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grandpierre A (2008a) Cosmic life forms. Published as a chapter in Seckbach J, Walsh M (eds) From fossils to astrobiology, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 369–385Google Scholar
  22. Grandpierre A (2008b) Fundamental complexity measures of life. In: Seckbach J, Gordon R (eds) Divine action and natural selection: questions of science and faith in biological evolution. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 566–615Google Scholar
  23. Hartle J (1991) Excess baggage. In: Schwarz JH (ed) Elementary particles and the universe: essays in honor of Murray Gell-Mann. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawking S, Mlodinow L (2010) The grand design. Transworld Publ. Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Hempel C (1966) Philosophy of natural sciences. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 71, 72Google Scholar
  26. Henry J (1988) The origins of modern science: Henry Oldenburg’s contribution. Br J Hist Sci 21:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooker R (1996) The European enlightenment and scientific revolution. http://www.wsu.edu/∼dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM
  28. Hunter GK (1996) Is biology reducible to chemistry? Perspect Biol Med 40:130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacob F, Monod J (1961) On the regulation of gene activity. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 26:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitcher P (1999) Function and design. In: Buller DJ (ed) Function, selection, and design. SUNY Press, New York, pp 159–183Google Scholar
  31. Kolmogorov AN (1965) Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Probl Inform Transmission 1:1–7zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurakin A (2010) Order without design. Theor Biol Med Model 7:12. doi: 10.1186/1742-4682-7-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landau LD, Lifshitz EM (2000) Mechanics. 3rd edn. Transl. by Sykes JB, Bell JS. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 2–3Google Scholar
  34. Lefebvre VA (2001) Algebra of conscience, second enlargedth edn. Kluwer Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Lefebvre VA (2003) Mentalism and behaviorism: merging? Reflex Process Control 2:56–76Google Scholar
  36. Martinás K, Grandpierre A (2007) Thermodynamic measure for nonequilibrium processes. Interdiscipl Descrip Complex Syst (INDECS) 5:1–13Google Scholar
  37. Maynard Smith J (2000) The concept of information in biology. Philos Sci 67:177–194MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayr E (1988) The multiple meanings of teleological. Chapter 3 of his Toward a new philosophy of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 38–64Google Scholar
  39. Mayr E (2004) What makes biology unique? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. “mechanism” (1913) Entry in Catholic encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Milonni PW (1994) The quantum vacuum. An introduction to quantum electrodynamics. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Monod J (1974) Chance and necessity. Fontana Books, Collins, London, p 73Google Scholar
  43. Moore TA (1996) Least-action principle. In: Rigden J (ed) Macmillan encyclopedia of physics, 2nd edn. Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, New York, p 840Google Scholar
  44. Moore TA (2004) Getting the most action out of least action: a proposal. Am J Phys 72:522–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagel E (1979) Teleology revisited. In: Teleology revisited and other essays in the philosophy and history of science. Columbia University Press, New York, p 278Google Scholar
  46. Oldenburg H (1661/1928) Letter to Baruch Spinoza, dated London, 27 Sept 1661. In: The correspondence of Spinoza, transl. Wolf A. Allen & Unwin, London, p 80Google Scholar
  47. Pontryagin LS (1978) Optimization and differential games. Uspehi Matematicheskiy Nauk 93:22–28 (in Russian)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Rose S (1997) Lifelines. Biology, freedom, determinism. Penguin, London, pp 10–13, 85–97Google Scholar
  49. Taylor EF (2003) A call to action. Guest editorial. Am J Phys 71:423–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tokin BP (1988) Theoreticheskaia biologiia i biofizika (Zametki v sviazy s tvorchestvom E.S. Bauera) (Theoretical biology and biophysics [Notes on the work of E.S. Bauer]). Trudy Leningradskogo obshchestva estestvoispytatelei 88(I):8–50 (transl. M. Müller)Google Scholar
  51. Vogel G, Angermann H (1984) dtv-Atlas zur Biologie. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, München, p 1Google Scholar
  52. Wheeler JA (1994) It from bit. In: At home in the universe. AIP Press, Woodbury, pp 295–311Google Scholar
  53. Yockey HP (2005) Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Yourgrau W, Mandelstam S (1960) Variational principles in dynamics and quantum theory. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Zee A (1986) Fearful symmetry. The search for beauty in modern physics. Macmillan Publ. Co., New York, pp 107–109, 143Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations