Search
  • Brad McFall

Quantum Homotyposis

There is no one who pretends to think that Pearson’s evolutionary biology is true. There is however no clear resolution of the difference of opinion between Bateson and Pearson around Pearson’s notion and how it might be studied. New interest in how quantum mechanics affects biological change however remands a reinvestigation of the received opinion since statistical methods are principally of concern in the new conversation and the view of Bateson on Pearson’s idea may provide a means to assess how quantum effects are statistically transmitted across generations.


William Provine penned the standard judgment of Pearson’s evolutionary biology. He concludes confidently that Pearson’s notion was flawed in way that Mendel’s understanding of inheritance exposed and he went so far as to think that Bateson could have done a lot more than merely ripost Pearson’s notion. He based his analysis on a decision of what counts as a biological fact or not. The possibility however that quantum mechanics might interchange the information coming from parental lines of descent as Haldane suggested reveals the defect in this synthesis of the debate between Pearson and Bateson and suggests the wedge through which the dynamical chaos the failure to come to some agreement might be dissected through as we proceed to reevaluate the opinions all have contemplated then and now.


The disputable matter is literally the matter in dispute. Pearson introduced two kinds of (cross generational )biological correlation - organic and homotypic. Bateson suggested that symmetry is inherent is this statistical partition and recommended how to categorize data that Pearson’s idea would prove true if it was true. Quantum mechanics is inherently symmetrical and statistical - so there is no question - that if quantum biologists wish to convince evolutionary theorists that the problems in the evolution of life depend to a significant extent on effects of quantum processes then it is incumbent on quantum biologists to say how quantum statistics contribute to statistics that may or may not couple or decouple organic and homotypic correlations passed across the generations. That is what in fact needs to be recognized if the cause of biological change with quantum mechanics is to be understood beyond the ad hoc nature it is at present (2018) recognized in (McFadden and Al-Kahlili). It also, in the understanding provides a way to mitigate what has historically been presented as an irreconcilable difference in the opinions of Bateson and Pearson.


Curiously it is the word “difference” on which hangs all of the drama and development. Bateson recommended that Pearson adopt a neologism he names as ‘differentiat difference’ in order to separate the evolutionary effects of homotyposis and any other correlation that might evolve. Pearson was not amused and was unable to comprehend why and how to apply Bateson’s positive criticism and from there we end up in the current state of received or not judgments all around. So let’s dip our toe in this H20 and find out how wet we have become and how we might be able to dry off or not.


We start then with clear ideas of the terms being used by these characters and develop the logical relations amongst them. This will enable us to design the statistics that may be involved and then allow us to envelope quantum mechanical statistics in the symmetry that spans the relations thus and therefore logically serialize the sequences of changes the forms format symmetrically in any sense. At this point it will be clear that the history of the difference of biometry and mendelian population genetics was plagued by an infection of defections from the type of conversation we need to have in our current discussion of the past and present remarks as indeed any degree of correlation may be associated with any degree of variability.


Homotyposis is simply a kind of correlation. The kinds of variation with which it might be associated are however manifold. A statistical regression is not tied absolutely to heredity and thus because a correlation may be between different organic identities the challenge for quantum biologists is to show how quantum correlations outside of evolution whether supported by organic part identifications or not (abiotic vs biotic factors) are tied to evolutionary correlations. Symmetry provides one way to introduce and identify the ties that may or may not exist. Differntiant difference within geneotypic variation is one way in which these symmetries may be broken by evolution as phylogenies transit clade separations of the same space. The place of chemical bonds exist outside the evolutionary involution of this generational transmission that topologically unites the correlations when the organic correlations are decoupled from the homotypic ones. This is a new science of quantum homotyposis. It’s possibility is simply where the debate should have gone. There are may reasons why we never got here and I leave that to historians and philosophers to explain better than I have hinted at so far.


Quantum homotyposis thus is ( at least in part) the science of evolutionary symmetry breaking of chemical bond formats. And thus while It has been taught in biology classrooms roundly that Mendelian inheritance has been materially confirmed in the structure of DNA we will find new evidence that material confirmation is not enough when quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics classifies the defections from the infections caused in the process of breaking the symmetry that evolving lines of descent generationally reproduce. Yamasishi has discovered quadruplet symmetry in a large diversity of samples of DNA sequences. This empirical finding concerning Chargraff's second parity rule can be explained by quantum homotyposis under an enviroment of symmetry aspects in chemical bond sustenance, in which resonance attractions are equal to resonance repulsions. New studies in genomic undifferentiation await.


We are thus able to find genomic identifications of Batesonian organonic "differentiant" diversity and "discontinuous variation" how far such applications of sequencing DNAs goes towards resolving the social impacts of racism remains to be seen. First we must understand that populational difference is not all in our genes. . We will be able to recover this because quantum statistics supports chance cause different than evolutionary theory currently reports. Population genetics is not just about fixation of gene frequencies but about fixation regulation as well. Transseries compositions of distributions are the maths needed to expand evolutionary theory so as to account for quantum homotyposis. Exosomes may materially contain transserial organic correlations that have not been decoupled by selection. Segment duplication and copy number variation format genotypic homotyposis of both quantum and non-quantum causation and can be used to create algebraic models of quantum homotyposis like Pearson did for Nigella 1899 ( r = 1.17-9p) so as to better relate variation and undifferentiation within an ontogeny.


Haldane - Quantum Mechanics as a Basis for Philosophy

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/286307?journalCode=phos


McFadden and Al-Kahlili - The origins of quantum biology

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2018.0674


Provine - The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Origins_of_Theoretical_Population_Ge.html?id=6ohTRubTgokC


Yamagishi Mathematical Grammar of BIology

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-62689-5



4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All