Top-down causation regarding the chemistry–physics interface: a sceptical view

Scerri, Eric R.

doi:10.1098/rsfs.2011.0061

Cited by 25 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, closed‐loop anatomical plasticity highlights an important distinct type of causation in which a counterfactual future state (anatomical setpoint) guides the behavior of the system. Top–down causation and teleology have been hotly debated in physiology, as it has in neuroscience and cognitive science . However, this perspective offers an important and practical strategy for bioengineers: re‐writing the stored setpoint (and letting un‐modified cells build to that new specification), instead of attempting to micromanage (re‐wire) individual cell interaction rules, hoping emergence of desired large‐scale outcomes.…”

Section: Pattern Homeostasis In Development and Regeneration: Setpoinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific examples in developmental and regenerative biology have emerged at the interface between biology and physics, illustrating interesting new aspects of causation. It is impossible here to do justice to the rich literature on causation in biology, and philosophically inclined readers are invited to delve deeper . I adopt a pragmatic view of causation: the best explanation of a system is whatever optimally facilitates effective, minimal‐effort intervention strategies for rational modulation of biological structure and operation, without specific pre‐commitments to the level at which the best explanation must be found .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Biophysics of Regenerative Repair Suggests New Perspectives on Biological Causation

Levin

2020

BioEssays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution exploits the physics of non-neural bioelectricity to implement anatomical homeostasis: a process in which embryonic patterning, remodeling, and regeneration achieve invariant anatomical outcomes despite external interventions. Linear "developmental pathways" are often inadequate explanations for dynamic large-scale pattern regulation, even when they accurately capture relationships between molecular components. Biophysical and computational aspects of collective cell activity toward a target morphology reveal interesting aspects of causation in biology. This is critical not only for unraveling evolutionary and developmental events, but also for the design of effective strategies for biomedical intervention. Bioelectrical controls of growth and form, including stochastic behavior in such circuits, highlight the need for the formulation of nuanced views of pathways, drivers of system-level outcomes, and modularity, borrowing from concepts in related disciplines such as cybernetics, control theory, computational neuroscience, and information theory. This approach has numerous practical implications for basic research and for applications in regenerative medicine and synthetic bioengineering.

show abstract

Section: Pattern Homeostasis In Development and Regeneration: Setpoinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biophysics of Regenerative Repair Suggests New Perspectives on Biological Causation

Levin

2020

BioEssays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meanwhile attempts to show that chemistry is ontologically non-reducible to quantum mechanics or that chemistry emerges or that there is downward causation from chemical to physical levels are entirely unconvincing at least to the present author (Hendry 2010). But to put my case against emergence in chemistry would require an entirely different paper (Scerri 2012). I have also made a start in a recent editorial for this journal (Scerri 2011).…”

Section: Possible Response From Physics and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 96%

What is an element? What is the periodic table? And what does quantum mechanics contribute to the question?

Scerri

2011

Found Chem

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers two important traditions concerning the chemical elements. The first is the meaning of the term ''element'' including the distinctions between element as basic substance, as simple substance and as combined simple substance. In addition to briefly tracing the historical development of these distinctions, I make comments on the recent attempts to clarify the fundamental notion of element as basic substance for which I believe the term ''element'' is best reserved. This discussion has focused on the writings of Fritz Paneth which are here analyzed from a new perspective. The other tradition concerns the reduction of chemistry to quantum mechanics and an understanding of chemical elements through their microscopic components such as protons, neutrons and electrons. I claim that the use of electronic configurations has still not yet settled the question of the placement of several elements and discuss an alternative criterion based on maximizing triads of elements. I also point out another possible limitation to the reductive approach, namely the failure, up to now, to obtain a derivation of the Madelung rule. Mention is made of some recent similarity studies which could be used to clarify the nature of 'elements'. Although it has been suggested that the notion of element as basic substance should be considered in terms of fundamental particles like protons and electrons, I resist this move and conclude that the quantum mechanical tradition has not had much impact on the question of what is an element which remains an essentially philosophical issue.Let me start with the first question, what is an element? We think we all know what elements are. They are things like hydrogen, oxygen, mercury, gold and uranium from which all compounds and consequently all substances are made. They are the building blocks of the whole universe. Of course all this is true but I want to dig a little deeper. I

show abstract

“…(Joos 2000, p. 14). In a recent article, Scerri (2012) recognizes that the question of whether decoherence explains quantum measurement is a subtle matter, and refers to the review paper of Guido Bacciagaluppi (2012); in this paper the author points out that, although naive claims of the kind that decoherence gives a complete answer to the measurement problem are still somewhat part of the "folklore" of the matter, decoherence as such does not provide a solution to the measurement problem, at least not unless it is combined with an appropriate interpretation of the theory.…”

Section: -Decoherence Chirality and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%