The internalist stance grounded
upon both ubiquitous internal measurement and conservation laws
can generate quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle in
particular, and also can encompass biology in providing the material
basis to those participants involved in internal measurement.
The internalist stance clarifies how interacting material units
serve as agents of complexification and organization.
1 Introduction
Although a considerable amount of attention has recently been directed toward how to understand the phenomenon of complexity and organization on material basis, the role of the observer perceiving the phenomenon is yet to be worked out [1]. If one takes an externalist stance such that the phenomenon perceived by an external observer does not allow in it any capacity of doing observations internally, the observed phenomenon would be considered to be merely out there just as observed. Furthermore, if the externally observed phenomenon can be described consistently internally no matter how complex it may be, the complexity thus described would also be seen consistent internally. The resulting complexity maintaining its internal consistency as observed would now come to remain stationary unless exerted upon externally. For any member being consistent with others lacks forces to disturb the very consistency.
In particular, if there happens to be an increase of complexity or complexification in time, the present externalist stance would have no alternatives other than letting the phenomenon simply be subject to external contingencies. No rational identification of the causes of variations in complexity could be expected once external contingencies are taken to be the sole factor of influencing the complexity. This externalist perspective on complexity is, however, undoubtedly meager compared to the one we experience in the empirical realm, because variations in the complexity we observe there certainly have their material basis that cannot be a mere victim being wholly vulnerable against external contingencies. If variations in the complexity have their material origin as they should, the externalist stance alone cannot meet the challenge. Variations in complexity and complexification of material origin require stances other than the externalist one [2].
A polar opposite to the externalist stance is the internalist counterpart such that observers of material origin are ubiquitous and an observer observing other observers is the rule, but not the exception. The internalist perspective letting whatever material units including, of course, biological organisms be internal observers is due simply to the fact that no signals of physical origin propagate faster than light does. Finiteness of the propagation velocity of whatever signals lets every interacting material unit be an observer. Insofar as a common denominator among all of the conceivable observers is understood to be that they cannot completely specify what signal they will receive before they have actually received it, the internalist stance is firm and remains invincible. The externalist stance just happens to be a limiting case in which all of the observers could be dismissed except for the observer or the theoretician maintaining the very externalist perspective. Unless forced by stipulations of extremely theoretical nature, the internalist stance has to be observed and maintained.
Nevertheless, the internalist stance begs its own questions instead of settling the controversial matter surrounding complexity and organization of material origin. At issue is how to accommodate the internalist stance with quantum mechanics serving as the physical basis of material processes of any sort. If one wishes to derive the internalist stance from the theoretical framework of quantum mechanics, this endeavor would come to mean that the externalist perspective be required to generate the internalist counterpart within itself. Strangely enough, however, the actual situation is just the opposite.
The externalist perspective is merely an extreme case of the internalist one in which only one observer may be allowed to survive who happens to be the theoretician coming up with the very externalist position. In particular, in view of the fact that observation generates theory but not vice versa, the theory of quantum mechanics cannot generate the internalist stance. What now comes up is the possibility of whether the internalist stance can generate quantum mechanics. The burden to generate quantum mechanics should be upon the shoulder of the internalist stance is as a matter of fact the necessary price to pay for the sake of vindicating both the parties at the same time. Practicing quantum mechanics from the externalist perspective does not vex itself with the problem of how to justify the perspective itself because this is merely a matter of imposition. The origin of the externalist stance can be thought even detached from its own subject matter.
In contrast, the internalist perspective
of material origin cannot be detached from quantum mechanics as
a theoretical framework that any material process is supposed
to follow [3]. It is thus the internalist perspective which should
be responsible for generating and accommodating quantum mechanics
rather than the other way around, since any theoretical framework
pertaining to empirical phenomena bases itself upon sense experience.
If it were claimed that sense experience be conditioned by a rigid
theoretical framework, the claimant to such a theoretical thesis
would be taxed by the burden of where to ground the sense experience
of itself. The internalist stance is under the pressing burden
to generate quantum mechanics from scratches of observers observing
observers.
2 The Uncertainty Principle from Measurement and Conservation Laws
Fundamental to quantum mechanics is the uncertainty principle serving as the bridge between empirical observations on the other hand and their theoretical distillation on the other. What is required to the internalist stance is to generate the uncertainty principle from uncompromising empirical facts about observation and measurement [4,5]. In particular, a representative of well-tested and unbeaten empirical facts about measurement is the observation of conservation laws. We thus come to face the inevitable problem of whether the process of measurement proceeding internally and the conservation law of energy, for instance, can generate the energy-time uncertainty principle, that is to say, whether one could generate Planck's constant from measurement and the conservation law alone.
One attempt in this direction is to start from a seemingly most simple system, namely, a vacuum [6]. Empirical facts culminating in special relativity tells us that a vacuum generates an electron-positron pair as a mode of its own fluctuation. If such a pair is generated spontaneously, the energy imparted to the pair is about =2mc in which m is the mass of electron and c is light velocity. Since the electron-positron pair interact electrostatically, the typical distance r between the pair should be determined so as to satisfy the energy conservation in the form of e /r=2mc , in which e is the electric charge of electron. The typical unit of length now turns out to be r=e /2mc . Furthermore, since the time interval
required for traversing the distance r yields =e /2mc , the spontaneous creation of the electron-positron pair is to induce the energy flow fluctuation of its intensity J= / (=4m c /e ). The energy flow fluctuation J, however, cannot survive indefinitely, otherwise the conservation of energy would be violated. Accordingly, if there is a minimum time interval t over which the energy flow fluctuation J vanishes its net contribution, the time interval t has to be such that both the creation and annihilation of an electron-positron pair would lose their further spill-over beyond the interval. In fact, the possible minimum time interval t for vanishing the net contribution of the energy flow fluctuation in accordance with the conservation of energy is six times of the time required for nullifying the resultant two-way contribution from the creation and annihilation of a single electron-positron pair, or t=12 . This is because each of a pair creation and annihilation requires the time interval and because there are six different equally likely positions for generating an electron-positron pair with the least energy around an arbitrary point in the isotropic three-dimensional vacuum space in the sense that there are only six different nearest neighbor points around an arbitrary lattice point when the distance is fixed. The symmetry of the three-dimensional vacuum space does not allow any privileged direction. Both the conditions of minimizing the intensity of the energy flow fluctuation and of observing the symmetry of the three-dimensional vacuum space now yield that the minimum time interval for vanishing the net contribution of the energy flow fluctuation is t=12 .
Once the minimum time interval for measurement being compatible with empirical conservation laws is identified, the energy flow fluctuation J will be measured by the surroundings as a fluctuation in the energy intensity by the amount of E= J t. Accordingly, the product of the energy fluctuation E and the minimum time interval for measurement being compatible to the energy conservation law t gives E t=144e /c (=1.106x10 erg.sec). This product is quantitatively almost equivalent to the energy-time uncertainty relationship in the form of E t h (=1.052x10 erg.sec), in which h is Planck's constant divided by 2 . In other word, the vacuum polarization due to the creation and annihilation of electron-positron pairs is found to generate the energy-time uncertainty relationship solely from measurement and the conservation of energy.
The uncertainty principle perceived
from measurement and the conservation law points to that energy
flow fluctuations caused by internal measurement for the sake
of energy flow continuity as a local expression of the conservation
of energy survive over a nonvanishing finite time interval. In
essence, the uncertainty principle in the form of E t h implies
that the minimum time interval required for generating energy
variations E for the sake of establishing energy flow continuity
is h/ E. That the internalist stance generates quantum mechanics
is found within the empirical fact that the minimum time interval
for measuring conservation laws internally remains finite and
nonvanishing.
3 Measurement: Should It Be Macroscopic?
That there exists a minimum time interval for measuring conservation laws internally presumes that measurement proceeds internally. Ubiquity of internal measurement is due simply to the fact that no signals propagate faster than light does. Nevertheless, there has been one persistent argument for that measurement or, more specifically, measurement apparatuses have to be macroscopic because the result of any measurement is definitive as classical mechanics applied to macroscopic bodies is. This thesis on measurement being macroscopic is, however, vulnerable against the charge on where can we draw a demarcation line separating between being macroscopic and microscopic. In reality, the macroscopic nature of any measurement apparatus prepared and designed experimentally is in the aspect that it can provide a set of macroscopic degrees of freedom that can respond to signals coming from the outside and that could remain idle otherwise. The presence of such idle degrees of freedom on the part of experimentally contrived measurement apparatuses certainly satisfies the requirement that no measurement can foretell what it will identify in advance. What these idle degrees of freedom actually imply is that the measurement apparatus thus designed remains indifferent to distinguishing between whether the apparatus is inactivated or it receives no signal. These idle degrees of freedom remain indefinite and indecisive unless signals exerting upon them is fed into.
However, the asymmetry of measurement between before and after events does not always necessitate the presence of idle degrees of freedom. Quite to the contrary, every interacting degree of freedom communicating with others no faster than light always remains indefinite with regard to what signal it will receive from others at any time yet to come. The internalist stance grounded upon that nothing propagates faster than light does lets every interacting degree of freedom be an agent doing measurement internally.
Of course, preparing a set of
idle degrees of freedom is one possibility of attaining the distinction
between the indefiniteness in anticipation and the definiteness
in the record. An advantage of designing a macroscopic measurement
apparatus carrying an enormous amount of idle degrees of freedom
such as a bubble chamber for detecting high energy elementary
particles is that the designer can assign specific meanings to
each of the indefiniteness and the definiteness those degrees
of freedom would exhibit. The present advantage cannot be dismissed
especially in the respect of its practicality. Nevertheless, the
mere practicality does not undermine the fundamental significance
of measurement proceeding internally. Whether measurement is macroscopic
or microscopic is simply irrelevant to the internalist stance
admitting that every interacting degree of freedom participates
in the process of measuring others anywhere and anytime.
4 Complexification and Organization
The internalist stance grounded upon both ubiquitous internal measurement and conservation laws can generate quantum mechanics at least in reproducing Planck's constant from empirical observations on special relativity. Once the consistent relationship between the internalist stance and quantum mechanics has been established, our problem on complexification and organization comes to put upon the internalist stance the burden to figure out how they could be possible [7]. This problem is almost equivalent to facing the difficulty of bridging the chasm between quantum mechanics on the one hand and biology on the other, the latter of which is certainly full of complexities and complexification.
One of the molecular phenomena connecting quantum mechanics and biology is slow conformational changes exhibited by proteinous enzymes [8]. That slow conformational changes of biomolecules require energies for their realizations implies that those biomolecules are involved in actualizing energy flow continuity between the energy sources such as ATP (adenosine triphosphate) molecules and various biological activities like respiration. The slowness of molecular conformational changes in the energy transduction points to that energy flow fluctuations caused and perceived by the concerned molecules for the sake of energy flow continuity is kept for a sufficiently long time.
For instance, a myosin as an enzyme for hydrolyzing ATP molecules changes its own conformation continuously while it is extracting energy from a single ATP molecule, and this conformation change lasts over about 10 milli seconds. On the other hand, the uncertainty principle specifying the minimum time interval for establishing energy flow continuity while generating variations in the energy intensity would give 10 seconds as the minimum time interval for establishing energy flow continuity of the conservation of energy, because it releases energy by the amount of 10 erg through its hydrolysis. The present observation suggests that there are those material phenomena in which energy flow fluctuations caused for the sake of energy flow continuity can last much longer than the time interval set by the uncertainty principle. Slow conformational changes of biomolecules just manifest that the internalist stance based upon both internal measurement and conservation laws can generate more than what the uncertainty principle provides, in which one can find a source of complexification exceeding the extent which the standard practicing of quantum mechanics provides us with.
Complexification in the form of enhancing the time interval required for fulfilling energy flow continuity beyond the one the uncertainty principle specifies does necessarily induce alternations of the participants involved in internal measurement. The standard practicing of quantum mechanics is peculiar in limiting the participants in internal measurement only to those that serve as quanta each of which functions as a unit minimizing the time interval for fulfilling energy flow continuity. The internalist stance upon measurement and conservation laws, however, can generate those participants that significantly increase their time interval for fulfilling energy flow continuity as generating energy flow fluctuations far beyond the one that each energy quantum in quantum mechanics takes for granted. The enhancement of the time interval for establishing energy flow continuity manifests that when viewed from quantum mechanics, there occurs an increase in the organization among former energy quanta.
The internalist stance grounded
upon internal measurement and conservation laws encompasses both
quantum mechanics on the one hand and biology on the other, and
thus provides a material basis for bringing complexification and
organization in the material world.
References