COMPLEXITY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Reprint: Amoroso, R.L. & Amoroso P.J., 2004, The Fundamental Limit and Origin of Complexity in Biological Systems: A New Model for the
Origin of Life, in D.M. Dubois (ed.) CP718, Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS03 - Sixth International Conference, Liege, Belgium,
August 11-16, 2003, New York: American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0198-5/04/$22.00.
The Fundamental Limit and Origin of Complexity in
Biological Systems: A New Model for the Origin of Life
Richard L. Amoroso*, Paul J. Amoroso¶
*Noetic Advanced Studies Institute - Physics Lab, 120 Village Square MS 49, Orinda, CA 94563-2502 USA,
Email: cerebroscopic@mindspring.com
¶DoD Injury Surveillance and Prevention Work Group, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental
Medicine, Natick, MA 01760 USA, Email: paul.amoroso@na.amedd.army.mil
Abstract. Generally unicellular prokaryotes are considered the most fundamental form of living system. Many researchers
include viruses since they commandeer cellular machinery in their replication; while others insist viruses are merely complex
infective proteins. New biological principles are introduced suggesting that even the prion, the infectious protein responsible
for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, qualifies as the most fundamental form of life; and remains in general
concordance with the six-point definition of living systems put forth by Humberto Maturana and his colleagues in their
original characterization of living organisms as a class of complex self-organized autopoietic systems in 1974.
Keywords: Autopoiesis; Biological mechanism, Complexity; Living-systems; Prion
1 INTRODUCTION
“What is the necessary and sufficient organization for a given system to be a living unity?” [1]. Maturana and his
collaborators posed this question in their effort to formalize the general definition of a living system. They further
stated that all other functions are secondary to the task of establishing and maintaining this unitary organization;
defining this process as autopoiesis [1]. For review, the description of an autopoietic living system is as follows:
Autopoiesis from the Greek ‘self-production’ is a fundamental expression of the basic complementarity of
structure and phenomenology [2,3,4]. An autopoietic system is self-organized, complex, open, dissipative, selfreferential,
auto-catalytic, hierarchical, far from equilibrium and autonomous. A system is autopoietic when its
primary function is self-renewal through self-referential activity. This contrasts an allopoietic system like a robot
deriving function from an external source. Stated another way autopoiesis is a network of production components
participating recursively as a globally stable structure operationally separable from the background [1,2].
These properties operate in an ascending hierarchy:
• An autopoietic system is an open non-equilibrium system. If closed in equilibrium all processes die down.
• The processes are cyclical.
• As a complex self-organized system, operations occur within multi-levels where higher levels contain all
lower levels.
• Function – the primary function of the system is autopoiesis as defined above [1].
1.1 Summary Of Maturama’s Six-Point Key For The Determination Of Life
1. Does the entity have identifiable boundaries?
2. Does the entity have unique constitutive elements?
3. Is the entity a mechanistic system possessing properties satisfying certain relations for its interactions and
transformations?
4. Do the components constituting the boundaries of the entity act through preferential relations and
interactions between the components?
145
5. Are the components constituting the boundaries of the entity produced by interactions of the components
either by transformation of previously produced components, or by transformations and/or coupling of noncomponent
elements that enter the entity through its boundaries.
6. If all the other components of the entity are produced by the interaction of the components as in 5, the
entity is an autopoietic entity in the space in which it exists [2].
1.2 Non-Autopoietic Entities That Seem To Satisfy Maturana’s Conditions
Automata - Superficially automata [5] seem to obey Maturana’s six points for autopoiesis, especially in terms of
self-reproduction and autonomy; but they are readily disqualified for two salient reasons: Automata are generally
nonphysical and cannot naturally escape or exist outside of the computer system they are programmed in.
Crystals - Crystalline structures conform to many of Maturana’s six key requirements. The symmetry of the unit
cell contains the geometric framework of the whole periodic structure, which is repeated in translations of the unit
cell. So although a crystal has open self-organized boundary conditions, appears to be recursive and can reproduce;
a crystals main failing is that it remains mainly a chemical reaction because its ‘unique constitutive elements’ can
only be reproduced and remain structure preserving under precise conditions of chemical reactivity.
Ribosomes - Although partially comprised of components produced by the ribosome, as entities they are produced
by processes beyond those comprising their operation and their function is not completely self-referential [1].
Ribosomes have high level metabolic properties but they are organelles not unique unities.
Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction - A key aspect of a self-organized autopoietic system is its globally stable
structure over an extended time. These are called dissipative structures because they maintain a continuous
production of entropy, which is then continually dissipated. The best known dissipative structure is the Belousov-
Zhabotinsky Reaction produced by the oxidation of malonic acid by bromate where rotating concentric or spiral
waves create interference patterns oscillating with a periodicity maintaining itself for many hours [2,6]. Although
self-organized with environmental interplay, can this be more than a recursive chemical reaction?
Jantsch and Maturana both state that dissipative chemical reactions like the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction and the
glycolytic cycle qualify as primitive autopoietic systems [1,2]. Should these or any of the entities in section 1.2
above be accepted as living systems? Maturana’s six-point key is not experimental; but a set of logical premises,
and in that sense arbitrary philosophical deduction. Even if these systems are considered autopoietic by the claim of
definition, the thesis developed here is to not accept these types of entities as living-systems but to make a case for
requiring additional physical principles added to Maturana’s key to complete the requirements for properly defining
a unique class of autopoietic systems qualifying as true living-systems. Our conclusion is that Maturana’s
autopoiesis at best only defines the mechanistic components of self-organization.
2 MECHANISM IN BIOLOGY AS A SEMI-CLASSICAL LIMIT
Autopoietic systems as defined by Maturana are a special class of mechanistic system. This is a challenging
philosophical issue. It is generally considered an open question whether all biological process can be described
completely in terms of the ‘mechanisms’ of physics and chemistry. In the philosophy of biology mechanism is
defined as the view that every event described as a biological event is the same as those exemplified in nonbiological
physical chemistry [7,8]. Beckner in a discussion of mechanism states:
“It is plausible to suppose that biology contains terms that could not be defined by reference to physics and chemistry,
particularly if we count psychological phenomena as special cases of the biological, but perhaps even if we do not. Biological
theory takes account of the circumstances of an event’s occurrence in a way that the physical sciences do not. For example, it
is a biological fact that lions hunt zebras. The biological mechanist ought to insist merely that everything that happens in a
given case of zebra hunting is identical with a sequence of physicochemical events, not that the concept of hunting can be
defined in physicochemical terms. It may be the case that hunting can be defined only in intentional language” [8].
This has left the final sense of reduction for the standard model of biology an open question; and until recently this
is where conceptual development had to remain. The philosophy of biological mechanism reviewed here is akin to
philosophical naturalism that states that ‘the natural world represents the whole of reality without requiring any
additional teleological parameters’. This suggests that the current limits of scientific pragmatism provide sufficient
explanation for all universal phenomena. Arguments on mechanism and naturalism have probably not been quite
beaten to death but let it suffice here to postulate that additional scientific laws are yet to be discovered because ‘lion
hunting’ as intentional action is not describable by the laws of physics and chemistry.
One cannot in good conscience label the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction [2,6] as a living system any more than
one can logically allocate consciousness with reasonable definition to the bi-level state of a thermostat as is often
done in Artificial Intelligence (AI) circles. The sophistication of self-organization in autopoietic systems cannot be
146
discounted. While this inherent complex order provides a highly efficient substrate for living systems to be built on,
like a little finger applied to the helm of a megaton ship, mechanism alone provides an insufficient basis for
describing living systems. A teleological principle, inherent in a conscious universe [9,10], acting in concert with
mechanism is required for life; providing components of what cosmologists have recently called the holographic
cosmological principle.
2.1 New Cosmology Leads To Redefinition Of Biology
Until the advent of the Noetic cosmology [9,10,11,12] physical cosmologists generally believed that the universe
could not be ordered enough to have a symmetric spacetime with an inherent periodicity where events are structured
such that the future-past prepares the ‘nows’ evolution into the future [9]. These spacetimes were considered
nonphysical and appeared to violate the causal principles of quantum theory [13]. The semi-classical limit in
physics refers to the boundary between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics where an incomplete
understanding of the dynamics of a system allows only statistical predictions to be made on the behavior of a system
rather than a precise determination [14]. Consciousness is able to violate quantum causality. Quantum mechanics is
known to be both incomplete and not able to describe biological systems; therefore how can biological mechanism
offer a complete framework for living-systems!
Self-organization produces freedom and the degree of autonomy a system achieves in relation to its environment
provides one way to loosely define consciousness. Jantsch says “this autonomy appears as an expression of the
fundamental interdependence of structure and function which is one of the most profound laws of dissipative selforganization”
[2]. Drãgãnescu further adds “If a virus is alive it has a phenomenological subconscious, if not, it
cannot have any form of consciousness, because there is no structural organization with sufficient complexity to
process structural information significantly”[4]. This is similar to Maturana’s idea that the autonomy obtained by
autopoiesis relegates a primitive form of consciousness, even to chemical dissipative structures, which he calls a
cognitive domain in relation to the systems environment [3]. This is where we will draw a line in the sand giving a
definitive description of the term cognitive domain that goes beyond mechanism.
Consciousness, and not necessarily that with self-awareness, requires a sufficient number of degrees of freedom
beyond those of an allopoietic mechanistic automaton. While one might reluctantly concede that the Belousov-
Zhabotinsky reaction [2,6] is autopoietic by Maturana’s original definition [1]; one cannot proscribe a cognitive
domain with the structural-phenomenology of intentional awareness to such an autocatalytic pattern-producing
chemical reaction. How is this ultimately different than programmed automata? We believe that embracing
biological mechanism leads one into the trap of ‘conscious thermostats’. The autocatalytic chemistry of the
Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction has a cyclical self-organization that keeps the cycle in motion recursively by a
chaotic component in the symmetry of the boundary conditions leading generally to a global stabilization of the
reaction until a chance occurrence of an ordered ground state occurs. One could argue the reaction is the result of
the inherent activity in the reactions so-called cognitive domain because it includes a self-referential multilevel
hierarchy that maintains the cycle of the reactions self-production. One could carry this argument further to lend
correspondence with Prigogine’s symmetry breaking factors in the thermodynamics of evolution [15,16]. But the
driving force described by these arguments is not an intrinsic intentional awareness; it is more like the incongruent
geometric symmetries driving the chain of unstable intermediaries in a radioactive decay series– an automatic
unraveling continues as long as a stable ground state with boundary conditions that preserve the unity of the
intermediate atom cannot be reached.
3 LIVING-SYSTEMS AND CONSCIOUSNESS
Recall Jantsch’s claim that the Beluzov-Zhabotinski reaction, as a result of its classification as an autopoietic
system by Maturana’s definition [3], has rudimentary consciousness [2,17]. For decades researchers have believed
that consciousness is merely a computer program, “a special software in the hardware of the brain or just a matter of
information processing” [18]. This does not seem acceptable; and is more a reflection of the current state of bias in
the field of consciousness studies where the dominant cognitive model is aligned with the standard model of biology.
This philosophy of biological mechanism provides only half the story of mind. Our aim is to show that an addition
to and clarification of Maturana’s key allows classification of the prion [19,20] as the fundamental living system.
The cognitive domain [3] of a prion1 does not create and dissipate entropy in its own right as higher life forms do.
The prion is not even at the same level as the virus where this critical factor of far from equilibrium complex
1 The prion propagates through conformational changes in the geometry of its protein structure [19, 20].
147
processing is satisfied by proxy when the virus protein commanders the existing cellular machinery of the host. The
prion, as the zeroth case of a living system, does not ‘live’ at the viral level. The factor that separates the prion from
the non-autopoietic entities listed in section 1.2 (which utilize only the mechanistic half of the complementarity
required for a complex self-organized living system) is the prions utilization of the coherent energy of the élan vital
in its propagation. This is a prediction of the noetic theory we intend to demonstrate empirically [21].
3.1 Quantum Biology
Current thinking in Quantum Theory states that all atomic and subatomic particle interactions can be described by
evolution of the Schrodinger equation pertaining to action of a particle moving on a manifold
( , ) ( ) ( , ).
2
( , ) 2
2
x t V x x t
t m
i x t ψ ψ
ψ
= − ∇ +
∂
∂ h
h (1)
The Schrodinger equation takes myriad forms. The one above is a positional representation of the equation in
Cartesian coordinates where h represents Planck’s constant, the ∂ terms denote the time derivative with respect to
the wave function ψ , m is mass, ∇ denotes the space derivative and V is the potential energy function of (x,t).
In terms of the present status of biological theory explored above it should be noted, as is generally known to
physicists, that the founders of quantum theory emphatically stated that the standard phenomenological model of
quantum theory (The Copenhagen interpretation) designated to describe all atomic and subatomic phenomena is
incapable of describing biological systems.
Neurophysiologists have attempted a number of modifications of the Schrödinger equation, which could be used to
describe trajectories of a neuronal action potential on a brain manifold in the neural bioplasma [22,23,24]. These
extended forms of the Schrödinger equation relate to the ontological interpretations of quantum theory developed
initially by physicists de Broglie and Bohm. The ontological interpretation attempts to overcome the quantum
uncertainty principle by adding an additional term to Schrödinger’s equation called the quantum potential Q.
( ) ( , ) 0
2
( , ) ( )2
( , ) + + =
∇
+
∂
∂ V x Q x t
m
S
t
S x t x t (2)
where the quantum potential
Q =
( , )
( , )
2
2 2
R x t
R x t
m
∇
− h
, (3)
and real functions R and S are the ‘amplitude’ and ‘phase’ respectively [22,23,24]. A reasonable step, but these
incarnations of the ontological formalism do not complete quantum theory, i.e. do not extend far enough to provide
the necessary substrate for intentional action missing from the standard model of quantum theory because they do
not make correspondence to the unitary field which Einstein among others claimed provided the basis for all life.
Activity in the various structures of the neural bioplasma is considered a complex many body problem. When
reduced to the molecular level only the scale has changed and the standard rules of quantum theory still seem to
apply. This is the crux of the problem of biological mechanism. In mechanics, whether classical or quantum,
objective analysis follows coherent lines. But in applying similar rules to biological systems there is a breakdown.
One can find little argument with these applications of quantum theory since obviously quantum fluctuations occur
not only relative to all microscopic actions but also in relation to aspects of neural networks primarily because they
are a quantum chemistry. But all descriptions of this type (particle activity on a manifold – what the Schrödinger
equation was derived for) still represent action at the semiclassical limit. As noted above – such physicochemical
interactions, although under the panoply of the standard model of quantum theory, draw a line in the sand beyond
which the founding fathers of quantum theory maintained that the quantum formalism offered no description of
biological systems because whether linear or nonlinear there is no provision for the additional degrees of freedom
that come with intentional agency – the application of change to the motion.
3.2 Is There More To Biology Than Mechanism?
Returning to the analysis of the fundamental philosophy of biology we summarize Brillouin’s [25] categorization
of the issues of mechanism versus teleology into three general positions:
148
• Knowledge of physics and chemistry is essentially complete and life could be explained without
introduction of any additional life principle.
• Considerable physics and chemistry is known, but not everything. A new law or principle needs to be
discovered to explain life; but this concept will not be outside the laws of physics and chemistry already
known. Whether or not this is considered a life principle or not is irrelevant.
• A life principle is mandatory for an understanding of life because living systems are much different and
more complex than inert matter. The laws of thermodynamics describe only inert and dead matter to which
life is an exception requiring a new principle to explain.
Theories of mind abound with great disparity between them [4,11]. It could be said to be like the early days of
electromagnetism when ‘for every 100 theorists there were 101 theories’. Simply stated, and reducing from the top
down, mind theory can be generally categorized as follows:
Classical Reductionism – Newtonian mechanics deemed sufficient to describe mental activity
• Neural action – Consciousness can be completely explained by brain processes
• Information processing in Neural Networks / Cellular Automata / Physics and Chemistry
Heisenberg Cut – Additional degrees of freedom, possibility of nonlinear & nonlocal interactions
• Quantum computation in brain microstructures like synapses, microtubules or ordered water
• Copenhagen phenomenology – collapse of wave function essential for mental activity
Cartesian Cut – requires additional ‘life’ and/or physical principles beyond mechanistic theory
• Dualism / Interactionism – ontological extension of quantum theory, collapse not required for evolution
• Monism – all is mind, consciousness is ineffable
The first four types above fall under the domain called the philosophy of biological mechanism. Theories in the
Classical and Heisenberg arenas have defined consciousness as a hard problem too difficult to research [22,26].
This provides significant motivation to explore below the Cartesian divide where additional physical laws are
anticipated. What evidence exists to justify such a search?
Continuing with the premise that quantum theory is incomplete, Schrödinger in relating the 2nd law of
thermodynamics and life says:
“We cannot expect that the ‘laws of physics’ derived from it to suffice straightway to explain the behavior of living
matter…We must be prepared to find a new type of physical law prevailing in it. Or are we to term it a non-physical, not to say a
super-physical law [27]?”
But what can this new physical law be?
4 COMPLEX SYSTEMS THEORY: A NEW MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
It appears unanimous that unicellular prokaryotes are considered the most fundamental form of living system with
the inclusion of viruses controversial. By defining awareness as a fundamental physical quantity like the concept of
charge in electrodynamics [10,28,29], it is possible to show how the prion recapitulates, in the sense of its
organization, the propagation of its infective state by maintaining the ‘charged’ form of its conformation by merely
being coupled to the Noetic Field. Prion propagation therefore represents the most fundamental form of biological
mechanism and provides the root of its redefinition. Although slightly more complex, the self-organization pertinent
to viral replication also falls under this new definition of biological mechanism. Something else happens at the level
of bacteria or perhaps any motive unicellular life form. The cognitive domain has sufficient capacity for activity
based on an interactive computational model [30]; the evolution of the content (qualia) is driven by more than the
mere presence of teleology as in the case of the prion or virus, i.e. more degrees of freedom are available.
The continuous state of this new action principle, as already suggested, is a ‘force for coherence’ like the wellknown
radiation pressure in the QED of light propagation. This symmetry enhancing force acts not only on the
topological states of prion conformation by constructive interference as the base state of biological mechanism, but
also by higher order conditions of self-organization (defined in section 1). The structural-phenomenology of the
new noetic action principle [9] is a complementarity of mechanism and the noetic field, together forming a teleology
that is the general driving principle governing all aspects of complex self-organized living systems [21]. Applying
the concept of a unit cell from the nomenclature of crystal structure to this fundamental teleology in the topology of
spacetime, forms the scale-invariant hierarchical basis of living-systems from the microscopic origins of mechanism
to macroscopic intentional systems. The complementarity of mechanism and teleology is a structuralphenomenology
that is the primary cosmological principle of the conscious universe; the fundamental least unit of
which is defined as awareness [10,12].
Defining awareness as a fundamental principle like charge in Electromagnetic Theory [10,17] provides two paths
to formulate a theory of life and consciousness. 1. The currently popular cognitive avenue poses the question ‘what
149
processes in the brain give rise to awareness?’ Unfortunately this creates a hard problem, which at present is
deemed impossible to study empirically [26] - an investigative dead end! Charge has been considered fundamental
physically and indivisible; but this definition appears to hold only to the semi-classical limit. Physicists are finding
out that the so-called unit of elementary charge arises from a deeper wormhole structure in the higher dimensional
topology of spacetime [31]. This is also true in defining the fundamental unit of awareness. Charge, or in this case
awareness, does not arise as a brain process. 2. Only looking beyond the brain leads to a model of awareness
(consciousness) that is both definable and empirically testable. In brief, the fundamental basis for the least unit of
awareness has three complementary components [10,29]:
• Elemental Intelligence – A non-local atemporal HD domain or set of boundary conditions co-eternal with
God that define an individual entity.
• Noetic Ordering Principle – A new action principle synonymous with aspects of the unified field and
mediated by an exchange particle called the noeon that is synonymous with spirit or an élan vital.
• Local Fermi and Bose brain/body States – Classical, semi-classical and quantum modes associated with
neural activity and other aspects of simpler autopoietic or complex self-organized living systems.
Remaining problems center around the fundamental nature of space; suffice it to say that Einstein’s superceding of
Newton’s 3D absolute space with a 3(4)D relativistic space was a significant milestone, but not a final answer. The
triune complementarity above provides a sufficient structural-phenomenology of the 11(12) noetic space to define
the psychosphere of an individuals mind and body.
4.1 Action Of The Unified Noetic Field
Frohlich [32] proposed a new energy that produces coherent long-range order in biological systems. Some authors
have suggested this coherence is a type of Bose condensate. Einstein and Hagelin [33] further postulate this
coherent principle arises from the unified field, which is also proposed here by Noetic Field Theory. The action of
the unified field is the basis for a life principle governing the evolution of complex self-organized living systems.
We will show generally how the continuous transformation of the topology of the 12D superspace of the noetic
least unit introduces by periodic holophote action evanescence of a life force from the HD energy covering of each
moment of the present [9,10,12]. First we illustrate one of a number of possible models of how at the semi-classical
limit from the stochastic background of the vacuum zero-point field, this energy of the élan vital is harmonically
injected into every point and atom in spacetime by a mechanism like a ‘chaotic gun’ [34,35].
Using equations for a chaotic gun developed by Ciubotariu [9,31,34,35] the nonlinear dynamics of the model for a
charged noeon in a spacetime cavity can be described as follows:
P ,
( P P )
P
T
X X / x
x y
x 1 2 2 1 2
1 1
d
d
+ +
=
γ
& = = (4)
[ ( X T ) ]P ,
T
P P c y
x
x cos 1
d
& = d = Ω β − + (5)
[ ( X T ) ]P H ( X T ),
T
P
P c x
y
y = = −Ω βcos − +1 + cos −
d
d & (6)
Equations (4 to 6) illustrate a possible quantum model for entry of the new noetic action principle into the 3D
phase space P P X X Y , , where photons of the Noetic field (noeons) are injected into each point (least unit) in
spacetime and every atom by a periodic ‘gun effect’ of the continuous holophote action of the continuous state
dimensional reduction compactification process inherent in the topology of Noetic Superspace [9,10,11].
Ciubotariu’s equations are a combination of Maxwell’s equations and relativistic equations of motion for the phase
space P P X X Y , , where the Ωterms represent the cyclotron frequency of the chaotic gun effect. Infusion of the
noeon photons mediating the life force field from the spacetime cavities only occurs in certain preferred directions
allowed by the parallel transport conditions of dimensional reduction and compactification [9,10].
This effect appears in the Noetic cosmology because in its energy dependent spacetime metric 4
ˆM
[10] just as a
periodicity of wave and particle moments occur in photon propagation so does charge or energy arise in periodic
moments of the Noetic least unit (see Fig. 1). Because as Wheeler showed in 1962 [36] ‘charge is topology’.
According to Wheeler [36] lines of force in a wormhole can thread through a handle and emerge through each
mouth to give the appearance of charge in an otherwise charge free spacetime.
150
Each mode of the field of a quantum harmonic oscillator is associated with the quantum cavity dynamics of the
spacetime topology as it undergoes its continuous transitions.
)hω
2
E = (n + 1 n (7)
E is the state of energy for n photons. For n = 0 the oscillator is in the ground state, but a finite energy 1/ 2hω of
the ground state, called the zero-point energy, is still present in the region of the cavity. According to equation (7)
of the quantum harmonic oscillator the field energy of the photons undergo periodic annihilation and recreation in
the periodic noetic spacetime [37].
5 MECHANISM OF PROTEIN CONFORMATION IN PRION PROPAGATION
Fatal neurodegenerative disorders known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE’S) have been shown
to spread by a proteinaceous infectious particle or prion [19,20,38,39]. According to Prusiner’s definition these
prion elements propagate conformational variation leading to replication by a mechanism not well understood until
now [20]. Two conversion hypotheses have been proposed:
! The template-assisted conversion model [40] where a putative cellular chaperone called protein X assists
conformational transition by altering the thermodynamic equilibrium of a kinetic barrier in favor of
transition state protein formation.
! The nucleation-polymerization model where highly ordered aggregates of the infectious element form. This
also shifts thermodynamic equilibrium allowing this nucleus to act as a seed for further prion propagation.
Protein folding thus appears in both cases to be the primary autocatalytic mechanism propagating prion
diseases.
According to Prusiner [39]:
ANascent prions are created either spontaneously by mutation of a host protein or by exposure to an exogenous source. Prions
are composed largely, if not entirely, of a modified form of the prion protein (PrP) designated PrPSc. Like other infectious
pathogens, they multiply but prions do not have a nucleic acid genome to direct the synthesis of their progeny. A posttranslational,
conformational change features in the conversion of cellular PrP (PrPC) into PrPSc during which alpha-helices are
transformed into beta-sheets. Since this structural transition in PrP underlies both the replication of prions and the pathogenesis
of the CNS degeneration, much of the effort in the laboratory is devoted to elucidating the molecular events responsible for this
process. Indeed, prion diseases seem to be disorders of protein conformation.@
And further relative to the theory of propagation proposed here:
ADuring prion replication, an as yet to be identified factor that we have provisionally designated protein X binds to PrPC. The
PrPC/protein X complex then binds PrPSc; by an unknown process, PrPC is transformed into a second molecule of PrPSc [39].@
A Postulated 3D X-bundle structure of the PrPC was chosen by Prusiner from four penultimate PrPC models
reduced from ~300,000 possible configurations by both theoretical and experimental constraints. These four choices
correlated best with human prion mutations. A Conceptual model of the orientation of the four helices of the Xbundle
model looks like two X’s nearly superimposed on each other. Since prions have no nucleic acid based
genome to direct their propagation. Noetic theory proposes that prion replication is directed by fundamental
mechanisms of complexity theory and that the action principles driving this complexity are a more fundamental
form of mechanism (stated in 4) than that perceived currently by the philosophical basis of mechanism in biology.
6 PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LEAST UNIT
The Fundamental Cosmological Least Unit is introduced in the context of an advanced form of Einstein’s model
of a static universe, called the Continuous State Conscious Universe (CSCU) [9]. The new cosmology is based on
principles of the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory of radiation [41] extended to the topology of a periodic 12D
spacetime. The fundamental least unit is shown to be a scale invariant complex cosmological system. The
translating boundary conditions of a spin exchange continuous state dimensional reduction compactification process
are inherent in the Dirac polarized vacuum. The topology is derived by coupling superluminal Lorentz boosts with
noncompactified Kaluza-Klein theory [42] in the context of an energy dependent spacetime metric (eq. 12).
6.1 Euclidian / Minkowski Geometry As The Basis For Reality
The Euclidian line is assumed to be the real line [43] because it is what is observed. Logical reasons from
supersymmetry and supergravity suggest there are a number of additional unobserved dimensions [42] leaving the
151
issue of dimensionality as an open question. Euclidian space in classical Newtonian terms is a continuous 3D
absolute space with time an independent parameter often considered irrelevant.
Einstein’s theories of relativity provided a discrete 3(4)D transmutable relational spacetime manifold. The debate
between absolute space or substantivism and relational space still continues. Utilizing the standard definition of a
straight line as the intersection of two rigid planes, measurements could be taken to observe whether the angles of a
triangle add up to180o ; but settling the question definitively would require astronomical scale measurements where
it appears physically impossible to apply the concept of a rigid body or to define a straight line in terms of a light ray
by stellar parallax because of the effects of general relativity. Therefore all physics knows with certainty at the
present time is that observed space is approximately Euclidian as is Minkowski space [42,43].
According to the proof of Schoenflies theorem [44] there can be no topological knots in a plane. Therefore there
can be no topological torsion in a 2D reality; thus the real line must be at least 3D Euclidian where the standard
Pythagorean line element is
2
3
2
2
2
1
ds 2 = dx + dx + dx (8)
This assumption that the Euclidian line is the real line is intuitive. Currently there is no known method of
empirical proof; and since the Euclidian line is what the Human mind apprehends it remains the formal basis for all
empirical scientific fact [43,45]. But this assumption remains profoundly problematical with issues stemming from
both the foundations of mathematics and the nature of physical theory itself concerning the fundamental basis for
sets, discreteness versus continuity, geometry and topology, and the relationship of real numbers to rational numbers
for example [43].
In general, the class of theories unifying gauge and gravitational fields by utilizing extra dimensions is called
Kaluza-Klein theories. In these theories spontaneous symmetry breaking by coordinate transformation in five
dimensions is a product of the standard four-dimensional transformation and a local U(1) gauge group arising in
basic form in a general relativistic framework of five dimensions described according to the Einstein-Hilbert action
A = ∫ d 5 x gR. (9)
Where instead of postulating a five-dimensional Minkowski space M 5 as the ground state, the ground state is taken
to be the product M 4 × S1 where the circle S1 is a U(1) group of rotations [42]. In conventional supersymmetry
models the radius of circle S1 is considered to be microscopically small on the order of the Planck scale
(10−33cm, 10−43 s) , very short and very fast, explaining why these extra dimensions are not observed. This will be
discussed in more detail below where Planck’s constant is recalculated utilizing the Larmor radius of the hydrogen
atom as it relates to non-compactified Kaluza-Klein theory [42] in the 12D Wheeler-Feynman context [9,41].
An SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) gauge symmetry group can be used to describe all known particle interactions.
Following Witten, [43] the minimum number of dimensions of a manifold with this symmetry is seven. In this SU(3)
x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry group gauge fields arise in the gravitational field as components of more than four
dimensions. This yields a dimensionality for our reality of at least four non-compact and seven compact spacetime
dimensions, M 4 × S 7 =11D , which Witten [42] calls a remarkable numerical coincidence since this eleven
dimensional maximum for supergravity is the minimum for SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry which also for
symmetry reasons observed in nature is in practicality the largest group one could obtain from Kaluza-Klein theories
in seven additional dimensions.
This gauge group for gravitational field components is insufficient to describe nature; for a complete theory quarks
and leptons plus a Higgs type mechanism triggering symmetry breaking must be added to the Kaluza-Klein
framework. In attempting to complete the theory, the gauge coupling constants are determined by calculating the
Einstein action over the compact dimensions. This scales at a high power of 1/(M pR) , where M p is the Planck
length and R is the radius of the extra dimensions showing that R must actually be in the 10−33 cm range for these
standard model gauge theories. If one adds the Lagrangian of a cosmological constant Witten finds one can form a
reasonable theory [42].
Noetic Cosmology relies heavily on the 11(12)D symmetry described by Witten with a different view of
compactification because the Einstein gauge is both classical and incomplete. Noetic cosmology like any new
theory must however bear correspondence to the established Einstein gauge. The existing derivation of Planck’s
constant represents classical mathematical limits that are not real physical limits in CSCU cosmology. Since the
Higg’s mechanism also arises from the Einstein gauge it is also called into question and replaced by a different
symmetry breaking mechanism in the noncompactified form of Kaluza-Klein theory is utilized in Noetic Cosmology.
152
6.2 Overview Of The Formalism For Noetic Cosmology
Noetic CSCU Cosmology is cast in a 12D harmonic superspace SN = S0 + S1 + S2 in the context of an extended
Wheeler/Feynman absorber theory [9,41] where standard Minkowski space M4 is a standing wave of the futurepast.
This takes the general form
[ ] 2
4
1
4
0
4 2
1 N N SN
advC
S
retC
S
symM R = R + R
(10)
or simplistically stated the 12D noetic superspace N S represents a complex Minkowski metricM4 + C8 (or ± C4 ).
N S thus combines the standard M4 four real dimensions (D) plus 8 imaginary D representing a retarded and
advanced complex hyperspace topology which adapts the complex ( M4 + C8 ) Minkowski metric from the
standard stationary form to a periodic form. S0 = M4 represents the noetic 3(4)D standing wave Minkowski
‘present’ spacetime; S1 = −C4(ret) represents the past component and S2 = +C4(adv) represents the future for
complex correspondence to the standard 4 real dimensions utilizing 8 imaginary dimensions. The 8 imaginary
dimensions, while not manifest generally (locally) on the visible Euclidean real line, are nevertheless ‘physical’ in
the CSCU and can be represented by complex coordinates
X = ±(x + iξ ),Y = ±( y + iη), Z = ±(z + iζ ) and t = ±(t + iτ ) (11)
designating correspondence to real and retarded/advanced continuous spacetime transformations. For symmetry
reasons the standard Minkowski line element metric i j
ds = gij dx dx 2 is expanded into periodic retarded and
advanced topological elements fundamental to the ‘extension’ of relational space giving Noetic Superspace SN its
continuous state dimensional reduction standing wave periodicity. This is illustrated conceptually in Fig. 1 below.
The Kaluza-Klein model utilized is set in a noncompactified D = 12 harmonic Noetic Superspace N S and is the
foundation of a conscious universe. For symmetry reasons shown in the text this superspace is comprised of an 11D
hypersurface in a 12D universe, giving it theoretical correspondence to 10D superstring theory and 11D supergravity
and providing a context to solve the disparity between them. The appeal of Kaluza-Klein models is that physics
seems simplified in HD, especially integration of the electromagnetic (EM) and gravitational field [46,47].
Periodic Noetic superspace SN entails a continuous state of dimensional reduction that operates under
transformations beyond the Poincaré / Lorentz where spatial dimensions DS through superluminal boosts are
transformed in to temporal dimensions Dt and further in terms of a noncompactified Kaluza-Klein model [42,47]
into energy dimensions DE by DS →Dt →DE . This requires the properties of an energy dependent spacetime
metric first developed by Einstein. Standard Minkowski space M4 becomes instead a topologically invariant
homeomorphic manifold of an energy dependent spacetime metric 4 ˆM
4 4 f :M →Mˆ (12
153
Figure 1. Basic topological premises of Noetic Cosmology shown by three conceptual views representing the least
cosmological unit: a) Baby and old man represent the relational periodic basis of spacetime by applying extended
Wheeler/Feynman absorber theory where the present is a standing wave of the future/past. b) The 12D harmonic superspace
translates in a continuous state dimensional reduction compactification process. c) A 3-torus illustrating a virtual standing wave
‘creation’ of a discrete virtual Euclidian point ( ) E P ; a different view of figure 1a and 1b. This Noetic ‘least unit’ represents a
Wheeler/Feynman future/past periodicity and continuous cycling of classical → quantum stochasticity → fundamental unitary
( RC →RQ →RU ) in the D reduction compactification Ds →Dt →DE transformation process, where →h E P [9].
Figure 2. Two additional conceptual views of Fig. 1. a) Snapshot in time. The central hypersphere represents the atemporal
hidden supra-HD covering of the standing wave present. The larger peripheral spacetime tubes represent open orientation toward
the future; and the narrower coupled tube forming a square represents a phase of recessional compactification →h E P toward
the past, the final phase of which would end up like Fig. 1c – a virtual Planck scale singularity. The figure hints why the Planck
constant needs to be recalculated. Standard measurements are past oriented; the Planck constant apples as usual. In the eternal
now, the Planck constant takes the form of the Larmor atomic radius and is an unbounded component of the unitary field in the
future orientation. Fig. 2. b) conceptualizes the relational nature of Minkowski space emerging from the polarized vacuum.
According to the principle of relativity a spacetime region which is a ‘perfect vacuum’ (no matter and no fields)
must be isotropic and covariant in the Lorentz sense [43]. The deformed region 4 ˆM of SN and the symmetry of SN
itself reduce to the Einstein relativistic metric and are assumed compatible with a polarized Dirac vacuum [48].
6.3 Transformation Of Space Into Time
It is well known that Superluminal Lorentz Transformations (SLT) change real quantities into imaginary ones.
Following Cole [49] and Rauscher [50] we illustrate the transformation of complex spatial dimensions into temporal
dimensions by orthogonal superluminal boosts (SLB). For example an SLB in the x direction with velocity vx ± ∞
the SLT is x′ = ±t, y′ = −iy, z′ = −iz, t′ = x. In complex Minkowski space the coordinates are zu xRue ixIum = +
where z is complex and xRe and xIm are real and index u runs over 0,1,2,3. Using classical notation for simplicity
t = tRe + itIm , x = xRe + ixIm , y = yRe + iyIm , z = zRe + izIm . (13)
To clarify the meaning of imaginary quantities in an SLT it is helpful to represent time as a 3D vector tx , t y , tz ;
therefore time is defined as t = tx xˆ + t y yˆ + tz zˆ where
154
tx = tx Re + itx Im , t y = t y Re + it y Im , tz = tz Re + itz Im (14)
Finally for the SLB for velocity vx ± ∞ along x the transformations are
Re Im Re Im Re Im Im Re Re Im Im Re
Re Im Re Im Re Im Im Re Re Im Im Re
, ,
, ,
x x y y y y z z z z
x x
t it x ix t it t it t it t it
x ix t it y iy y iy z iz z iz
′ + ′ = + ′ + ′ = − ′ + ′ = −
′ + ′ = + ′ + ′ = − ′ + ′ = −
(15)
where the SLT in x of M4 spacetime transforms real components into imaginary and imaginary complex quantities
into real quantities as one major property of the periodic nature of Noetic CSCU spacetime [49,50].
6.4 Energy Dependent Spacetime Metric
Einstein originated the concept of an energy dependent spacetime for explaining temporal rate change in the
presence of a gravitational field by generalizing the special relativistic line element (compare equation 2)
ds 2 = (1+ 2φ / c2 )c2dt 2 − dx2 − dy 2 − dz 2 (16)
with the introduction of time curvature [51,52] where φ is the Newtonian gravitational potential. This utilizes the
deformed Minkowski metric 4 ˆM (introduced above by eq. 5) which is imbedded in the periodic HD Noetic space
chosen axiomatically for CSCU cosmology to take the form of a noncompactified Kaluza-Klein theory [42,47].
Kaluza’s initial demonstration of gravity in 5D, 5 = 0 AB G with AB running 0,1,2,3,4 contained 4D General
Relativity with an EM field G T EM αβ αβ
4 =4 , withα ,β running 0,1,2,3 [47]. The currently less common noncompactified
Kaluza-Klein model is utilized by Noetic Cosmology where also dependence on the extra D is required;
this yields the same result for Einstein’s equations 5 = 0 AB R except that the EM energy momentum tensor T EM αβ
4
is replaced by a general one αβ 4T instead [47]. Sections 6 & 7 demonstrate the feasibility of an energy domain
pervading HD spacetime with properties similar to Wheeler’s Geon [53]. In a generalized deformed spacetime
metric 4 ˆM , spacetime is fixed by the energy and has the metric
η(E) = diag.(a(E), −b(E), −c(E), −d(E)) . (17)
Skipping the mathematics for brevity; in the same manner that space is transformed into time by SLT, complex
time may be boosted again by the noetic transformation into HD an energy covering of each least cosmological unit.
7 DIRAC SPHERICAL ROTATION INHERENT TO THE TRANSFORMATION OF
THE FUNDAMENTAL LEAST UNIT
Typically the Dirac dual (2π ) spinor rotation applies to the observation that an electron undergoes 720o of rotation
(not the usual 360o ) before returning to the initial orientation. Traditional thinking has assumed this to be some
property of matter. But the discovery of the complex structure of spacetime has shown that this is not a property
fundamental to the electron; but rather to the superspace the electron is imbedded in and part of. Dirac spherical
rotation as it is also called, is more fundamentally a primary property of space than of matter. This is revealed in the
complex hierarchical structure of the least unit discussed in the paper.
7.1 The Dirac String Trick
Tie the four corners of a square to another larger square by loose string, (alternatively, tie the initial square to the
four corners of a room). Now rotate the small square by 360 degrees about a vertical axis, that is, in a horizontal
plane. The strings will become somewhat tangled, and it is not possible to untangle them without rotating the square.
If we rotate through another 360 degrees, for a total of 720 degrees; it is now possible to untangle the string
without further rotation of the square by simply allowing enough space for the strings to be looped over the top of
the square! It’s hard to believe unless you try it. Use clips to attach the ribbons to the squares, so it can be undone
easily if it gets too tangled. A similar idea works for a rotation through 720 degrees about any axis [54].
155
Another version of the Dirac string trick is called the Philippine wine dance. A glass of water held in the hand can
be rotated continuously through 720 degrees without spilling any water. These geometrical demonstrations are
related to the physical fact that an electron has spin ½! A particle with spin 1/2 is something like a ball attached to
its surroundings with string. Its amplitude changes under a 360 degrees (2π ) rotation and is restored by rotation of
720 degrees (4π ). The formal description of such complex phenomena typically requires sophisticated mathematics
(algebra, group theory, topology, quaternions...) since they are not part of everyday experience.
8 THE NOETIC SPACETIME TRANSFORMATION
Noetic CSCU cosmology implies that so-called ‘real space’ is a relational standing wave 4D subspace of an
absolute HD space, where a continuous state dimensional reduction compactification process is central to the scale
invariant periodic geometric structure. It is useful to initiate the description by introducing a toy model of the lower
D space and build it up to the actual HD space.
Maintaining the extended Wheeler-Feynman property of the present as a function of the future-past (Figs. 1&2;
equation 4) we begin by describing a discrete Einstein type point in the relational spacetime manifold. Since points
are defined as singularities where dimensionality breaks down, a dimensionless point cannot be ‘covered’. This
property will be shown to be a valuable criteria as a ‘hole’ for oriented orthogonal superluminal boosts in the noetic
transformation. This also contrasts the nature of continuity (Absolute space) with discreteness (relational space);
points are not absolute because the universe as now well known is not a Newtonian continuum.
8.1 The 1D Case
Therefore beginning the construction of dimensionality with the 1D scalar case. Assuming an arbitrary, discrete,
infinitesimal, oriented least unit h = Δx , an entourage of additional HD’s are required to ‘cover’ or confine each
subspace level. Usually the entourage has one more D than its subspace. The least unit h on coordinate x can be
covered by a 2-torus when the orthogonal generating circle A, of radius r is located at distance x R hΔ > from
0 x and not on h, is rotated through dimension y into a plane x, y. Thus a 2D flat torus covers the least unit x hΔ with
an x, y plane. The rotation through y (of growing importance later) may occur in counterpropagating directions.
Finally the 1D case utilizes a ± 2D covering for the h = Δx unit of extension which may wink in and out of
existence since it is a complementarity of 0D and 1D.
8.2 The 2D Case
Covering the least unit of a plane h = Δx,Δy uses a method similar to the 1D case except that two modes of
covering are allowed:
Type 1. Energy –Time. An intermediate covering of region h by a ± 2Dflat torus in the plane x, y as in the 1D
case which leaves room for access of a 3rd energy or time coordinate utilizing either the spin exchange dimensional
reduction process or superluminal boost into HD.
Type 2. Spatial. Region h = Δx,Δy is completely covered by a 3-torus. This occurs by rotating a generating circle
orthogonal to x, y through the z direction. This covering represents the lower limit of standard 4 M space with the
addition of time.
There is no utility in developing the toy model further at present as it sufficiently illustrates pertinent aspects of
the noetic transformation that show how boundary conditions transform the dimensionality of space and time along
Figure 3. The 2-torus appearing as a donut slice acts as a covering of an infinitesimal 1D
topological least unit h = Δx . A point of h = 0 is dimensionless and cannot be covered (or
confined). But h = Δx , acting as a transient 1D unit of extension, may be covered by a 2-
torus. One additional dimension is required to cover the next lower D space.
156
with the energy covering of the unified field by S t e D → D → D . The unified field governing gravitation, and
the quantum potential guides the action of translation along certain allowed pathways. For example if either l, w or
h is removed from a cube the object collapses to a plane. Removing a dimension from the plane causes
compactification to a line and so on. The released space is not initially empty. At the first stage of D reduction
space transforms into time; and at the second stage into the energy that couples with the energy governing it as
compactification is completed for that particular unit.
8.3 The Permutation Of Dimensions In The Noetic Transformation
Only certain pathways for parallel transport by spin exchange dimensional reduction (D down scaling) and
superluminal boosting (D up scaling) are allowed by the Noetic extension of the Wheeler-Feynman symmetry
breaking relations in the continuous maintenance of the CSU cosmology of a standing wave present.
It is useful to clarify the utility of the dual covering modes in terms of parallel transport and the Regge equations
relation to the Bianchi identity of a boundary of a boundary being equal to zero (∂ o ∂ ≡ 0) [54,55,56].
Figure 4. The figure (a) shows the four possible counter-propagating (top & bottom for each case) circular permutations of the
vertices of a cube representing parallel transport about each diagonal. These allowed paths and orientations constrict the
dimensional reduction process of the entourage of associated spaces into symmetry breaking pathways according to strict rules.
Ordering the vertices as shown in (b) induces an orientation on the cubes two dimensional boundary, which consists of six
oriented squares by ∂(012345). For illustration taking the simpler case of a tetrahedron (b) consisting of four oriented
triangles by ∂(0123) = (012) - (013) + (023) - (123). This in turn induces an orientation on the edges of the one dimensional
boundaries ∂(012) = (01) - (02) + (12). Summing the dimensional boundaries cancels them in pairs [(01) - (01) = 0]. This is
the Bianchi identity ∂ o ∂ = 0 described by the Regge equations for parallel transport where the boundary of a boundary is
zero. Or suggesting the cube is edgeless because the 1D boundary of the 2D boundary of the 2D region is zero [54,55].
9 DEVELOPING THE LINE ELEMENT FOR NOETIC SUPERSPACE
The real parameters for the line element in standard Einstein-Minkowski space 4 M (compare 8) M4is
2 2
3
2
2
2
1
2
0 dS = dx + dx + dx − dt (18)
to which noetic superspace must make physical correspondence to be a viable theory. We begin by developing the
associated eight dimensional complex space of the future-past following work initiated by Amoroso [9,10],
Rauscher [50,57], Cole [49] and Hansen and Newman [58] on complex Minkowski space [59].
Figure 5. 2D representation of the three four-dimensional spacetime
packages of the periodic 12D noetic superspace static universe. 4 M M4is
the Euclidian based Minkowski / Riemann standing-wave present with
two higher dimensional complex spacetime packages m C ±Crepresenting
the four retarded and four advanced dimensions respectively that put
certain constraints on the description of the noetic line element.
157
For X j iX j Re Im + with j = 1,4 and X k iX k Re Im + also with k = 1,4 we set up the complex relation
[ ], [ ] Re Im
k
adv
j
ret
Z jk = X j + iX k X + X (19)
again with j, k = 1,4 yielding (1, 1, 1, -1). Then for complex advanced space 4 + C we have the general relation
jk
adv
jk
adv
jk
adv
jk
adv
jk
adv Z X iX X X Re( ) Im( ) Re( ) Im( ) = + , + with j = 1, 4. For complex retarded space 4 − C the relation is
jk
ret
jk
ret
jk
ret
jk
ret
jk
ret Z X iX X X Re( ) Im( ) Re( ) Im( ) = + , + with k = 1, 4. Then the line element is
jk
ret
jk
jk advΔS 2 =η dZ Z
(20)
with the further condition satisfied that jk jk jk η =α + iβ where
( + ) + ( − ) = 0 − + − +
k
p
jp
j k
jk
k jp
k
p
j
jk α dx dx dx dx β dx dx dx dx (21)
Figure 6. Conceptual view of the symmetry of a least unit in Noetic Superspace showing the relationship of its twelve
dimensions here depicted as points. The larger circle in the center represents the Minkowski 4 M present comprised of the
smaller circles at each end representing future/past components that comprise it. The twelve points labeled 4 C symbolize a
conceptualization of the twelve dimensions comprising a fundamental least unit. The dimensionality and asymmetry of the
complex plane is suppressed for simplicity. The twelve HD 4 C points create and annihilate 4 ˆM (the three small circles).
This action directly creates boundary conditions separating the fundamental reversible aspects of microscopic
natural law into the perceptual macroscopia and an additional HD physical realm not perceived by neurophysiology
[9,52,53]. Noetic cosmology proposes that this temporal asymmetry is completely observer related and the ensuing
boundary conditions delete essentially half of the systems information cosmology. Bohr stated from the beginning
that the Copenhagen interpretation did not describe biological systems; therefore a full physical description must
utilize extended de Broglie/Bohm ontological forms of quantum theory without state reduction and therefore loss of
systems information. The big question then is what is the utility of the unobserved parameters of this cosmology.
Here is where the main utility of the Noetic least unit transform enters in. The complementary superluminal
boosting of the ‘standing wave’ eternal present
Ds →Dt →DE : RU →RQ →RC (22)
produces and maintains the perceptual macroscopic amplification of microscopic phenomena. The Noetic boosts
reduce the flux of all physical fields at the boundary by absolute parallelism ∂ o ∂ = 0 where the boundary of a
boundary equals zero facilitating this whole cosmological process. We begin with the description of the electromagnetic
field. Following Kafatos and his collaborators [60] suggesting the importance of R& ≡ C for universal boundary
conditions which are also relevant to the velocity required for the observers mind to escape microphysics and
become coupled to a macroscopia for EM by
158
2 2
2
E B
c E Br r
r r
r
+
×
= (23)
where, according to Wheeler [36], velocity c n tanhα r r = and the numerator is the Poynting flux and the
denominator the energy density. This boost equation describes the reduction of the EM field to mutual parallelism
which according to the Bianchi identity describes how the boundary of a boundary equals zero. Allowing half the
information of the universe to cancel into the resultant standing wave covering. The covering is piloted by the de
Broglie wave-particle energy. Application of the Huygen’s principle of wave addition produces the smooth feel of
reality we observe by surfing as it were on the face of the discrete elements of atemporal microphysics [61,62,63]!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Paper is based on a talk Prepared for the CASYS workshop in Liege, Belgium August 11th – August 16th, 2003.
Many thanks to president Daniel Dubois for years of hard work organizing this series of well organized conferences.
REFERENCES
1. Varela, F.G., Maturana, H.R. & Uribe, R., 1974, Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a
model, BioSystems, 5, 187-196.
2. Jantsch, E., 1984, The Self-Organizing Universe, New York: Pergamon.
3. Maturana, H. R., 1970, Biology of cognition, Report BCL 9.0 Urbana: Biological Computer Laboratory, Univ. of Illinois.
4. Drãgãnescu, M., 1997, On the structural phenomenological theories of consciousness, Noetic Journal, 1:1, 28-33.
5. von Neumann, J., 1966, The theory of self-reproducing automata, in A. Burks (ed.) Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
6. Zhabotinsky, A.M., 1974, Self-oscillating Concentrations, Moscow: Nauka
7. Haldane, J.S., 1923, Mechanism, Life and Personality, New York.
8. Beckner, M.O., 1972, Mechanism in biology, in P. Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 5, pp 250-2, New
York: Collier Macmillan.
9. Amoroso, R.L., 2002, Developing the cosmology of a continuous state universe, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos &
J-P Vigier (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
10. Amoroso R.L., 2003, Awareness: physical cosmology of the fundamental least unit, Noetic Journal 4:1, 1-15; Amoroso R.L.,
2003, What is Consciousness, Introducing the Cosmology of Being, in Romanian N. Bulz et al trans. (in Press); Amoroso
R.L., 2003, in The Complementarity Of Mind And Body: Essay’s Honoring The Centenary Of Nobelist Sir John Eccles, R.
L. Amoroso, B. J. Hiley & K. H. Pribram (eds.) In press.
11. Amoroso, R.L. 2000, The parameters of temporal correspondence in a continuous state conscious universe, in R. Buccheri &
M. Saniga (eds.) Studies in the Structure of Time: From Physics to Psycho(patho)logy, Dordrecht Kluwer Academic.
12. Amoroso, R.L. 2003, The Fundamental Limit and Origin of Biological Systems, Noetic Journal 4:1; 24-32.
13. Goldberg, J.N., 1981, Spacetime, in Encyclopedia of Physics, R.L. Lerner & G.L. Trigg (eds.) Reading: Addison-Wesley.
14. Messiah, A., 1999, Quantum Mechanics, Mineola: Dover.
15. Prigogine, I., 1973, Irreveresability as a symmetry breaking factor, Nature, 248: 67-71.
16. Prigogine, I., Nicolis, G. & Babloyantz, A., 1972, Thermodynamics of evolution, Physics Today, 25: 23-28 & 38-44.
17. Chalmers, D.J., 2002, The puzzle of conscious experience, Scientific American Special, 12:1, 90-100.
18. Searle, J. R., 2002, Consciousness, Review Roumaine de Philosophie, Tome 46:1-2, pp.87-108.
19. Prusiner, S.B. 1982, Science, 216,p. 136-144.
20. Prusiner, S.B. 1998, Proc Nat. Acad. Sci, USA, 95, p. 13363-13383.
21. Amoroso, R.L. 2004, The primary mechanism initiating protein conformation in prion propagation, preprint.
22. Gould, L.I., 1995, Quantum dynamics and neural dynamics: Analogies between the formalisms of Bohm and Pribram, in J.
King & K.H. Pribram, (eds.) Scale in Conscious Experience: Is the Brain Too Important to be Left to Specialists to Study?
339-348, Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum.
23. Pribram, K.H., 1991, Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing, Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum;
Eccles, J.C., 1986, Do mental events cause neural events analogously to the probability fields of quantum mechanics?, Proc.
Royal Soc. London B227, pp. 411-428.
24. Jibu, M. & K. Yasue, 1995, Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25. Brillouin, L., 1949, Life, thermodynamics and cybernetics, American Scientist, 37: 554-568.
26. Chalmers, D. 1996, The Conscious Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Schrodinger, E., 1945, What is Life? London: Cambridge University Press. Bohr, N., 1961, Atomic Theory and the
Description of Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Amoroso, R.L., 2002, The Physical Basis of Consciousness: A Fundamental Formalism, Part 1 Noesis, XXVI, Romanian
Academy; Amoroso, R.L, 2000, Derivation of the fundamental equation of consciousness, Part I, Boundary conditions,
Noetic Journal 3:1, pp. 91-99.
159
29. Amoroso, R.L, Consciousness, a radical definition: Substance dualism solves the hard problem, In Amoroso, R.L., Antunes,
R., Coelho, C., Farias, M., Leite, A., & Soares, P. (eds.) Science and the Primacy of Consciousness, 2000, Orinda: The
Noetic Press; Amoroso, R.L, An introduction to noetic field theory: The quantization of mind, The Noetic Journal 2:1, pp.
28-37 (1999). Amoroso, R.L, 2000, Derivation of the fundamental equation of consciousness, Part I, Boundary conditions,
Noetic Journal 3:1, pp. 91-99.
30. Wegner, P., 1998, Interactive foundations of computing, Theoretical Computer Science, 192, 315-351.
31. Schutz, B. 1999, Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Frohlich, H., 1968, Long-range coherence and energy storage in biological systems, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2:641-649.
33. Hagelin, J.S., 1988, Is consciousness the unified field? A field theorist’s perspective. Preprint.
34. Ciubotariu, C & Ciubotariu, C. , 2002, A chaotic-stochastic model of an atom, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos & JP
Vigier (eds.), Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
35. Argyris, J. & Ciubotariu, C., 1999, A new physical effect modeled by an Ikeda map depending on a monotonically timevarying
parameter, Int. J. Bif. Chaos, 9:1111-1120.
36. Wheeler, J.A. 1977, Gravitational and Electromagnetic wave flux compared and contrasted, Phys. Rev. D, 16:12, 3384-3389.
37. Loudon, R. 1994, The Quantum Theory of Light, Oxford: Clarrendon Press.
38. Pruisiner, S.B., 2002, Research Summary, www.ucsf.edu/neurosc/faculty/neuro-prusiner.html.
39. Huang, Z., Gabriel, J-M, Baldwin, M.A., Fletterick, R.J., Prusiner, S.B., & Cohen, F.E., 1994, Proposed three-dimensional
structure for the cellular prion protein, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci, USA, 91, pp. 7139-7143.
40. Kurschner, C. & Morgan, J.I. 1996, Mol. Brain Res. 37, pp. 249-258.
41. Wheeler, J.A., & Feynman, R., 1945, Rev. Mod. Physics, 17, 157; Chu, S-Y, 1993, Physical Rev. L. , 71, 2847.
42. Witten, E., 1981, Search for a realistic Kaluza-Klein theory, Nuclear Physics B186, 412-428.
43. Sen, R.N., 1999, Why is the Euclidian line the real line?, Found. Physics, 12:4,328-345.
44. Hocking, & Young, 1988, Topology, New York: Dover.
45. Barrow, J.D. & Tipler, F.J., 1988, The Anthropic Principle, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
46. Vigier, J-P & Amoroso, R.L. Can one unify gravity and electromagnetic fields? in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, S.
Jeffers & M. Kafatos, (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, 2002,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
47. Overduin, J.M. & Wesson, P.S., 1997, Kaluza-Klein gravity, Physics Reports, 283, pp. 303-378.
48. Dirac, P.A.M., 1952, Nature (London), 169, 702; Petroni, C. & Vigier, J-P, 1983, Found. Phys. 13, 253; Vigier, J-P, 1980,
Lett. Nuovo Cim. 29, 467.
49. Cole, E.A.B., 1977, Il Nuovo Cimento, 40:2, 171-180.
50. Rauscher, E., 2002, Non-Abelian guage groups for real & complex Maxwell’s equations, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, S.
Jeffers & M. Kafatos, (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
51. Burns, J.E. (1998) Entropy and vacuum radiation, Found. Phys. 28 (7), 1191-1207; Burns, J.E. (2002), Vacuum radiation,
entropy and the arrow of time, in R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, S. Jeffers & M. Kafatos, (eds.), Gravitation & Cosmology:
From the Hubble Radius to the Planck Scale, 2002, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
52. Zeh, H.-D. (1989) The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time, Springer-Verlag, New York; Franck, G. 2000, Time and
presence, in Science and The Primacy of Consciousness, R.L. Amoroso et al, (eds.) Orinda: Noetic Press.
53. Wheeler, J.A. 1955, Geons, Physical Review, 97:2, 511-536.
54. Misner, C.W., Thorne, K. & Wheeler, J.A. 1973, Gravitation, San Francisco: Freeman.
55. Miller, W.A. 1986, Found. Phys. 16:2, 143-169.
56. Gondran, M. 2002, A trajectory model for a particle in the Schrodinger approximation, preprint.
57. Rauscher, E. A. , 1983, Electromagnetic Phenomena in Complex Geometries and Nonlinear Phenomena, Non –Hertzian Waves
and Magnetic Monopoles, Millbrae: Tesla Books.
58. Hansen, R.O. & Newman, E.T., 1975, General Relativity and Gravitation 6:21.
59. Stevens, H.H, 1989, Size of a least unit, in M. Kafatos (ed.) Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the
Universe, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
60. Kafatos, M. Roy, S. & Amoroso, R. 2000, Scaling in Cosmology & the Arrow of Time, in Buccheri, di Gesu & Saniga, (eds.)
Studies on Time, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
61. Ueda, Y. & Akamatsu, N., 1981, Chaotically transitional phenomena in the forced negative-resistance oscillator, IEEE
Transactions on Circuits & Systems, Vol. CAS-28, No. 3, 217-224.
62. Lichtenberg, A.J. & Liebrman, M.A., 1983, Regular And Stochastic Motion, Berlin: Springer.
63. D=Humieres, D., Beasley, M.R., Huberman, B.A. & Libchaber, A., 1982, Chaotic states and routes to chaos in the forced
penduluum, Physical Rev A, 26:6, 3483-34.