Constraints due to integration of mechanisms in interactions
exist, which is, in other words, subject of the integrative
In fact, we have to describe the working of the system from
its sub-systems in interaction (functional), for example,
vascular and respiratory systems, constituted themselves by
other sub-systems and so on, in a set of mechanisms identified
by experience (Russian doll's interlock). Anymore, these mechanisms
might be from absolutely different nature - mechanical, chemical,
- but they depend on physical laws..
These constraints impose a theoretical frame
in which coupled mechanisms might be analysed :
1) according concepts peculiar
to biology ;
2) depending on levels of organizatio;
3) according to physical laws.
As a theoretical frame is constituted by
a representation and a mathematical formalism, the choice
of this representation and the deduction of the formalism
for the treatment of symbols in that representation have to
integrate, can we do differently than mathematize biology
You should have already read my definition
in precedent pages. As I see it, it can only be mathematical.
And so, the integration of biological mechanisms in interaction
goes necessarily through a mathematization of biology. This
opinion is less the result of a personal faith than the one
of the necessity implied by the nature of biological systems,
to wit that they are physical systems equipped with complementary
properties, connected with the existence of functional interactions.
In fact :
- physical laws are localized in time and space
- functional process which result from the mechanism depend
continually on time and space;
- mechanisms layed on hierarchical anatomical structures
- the evolution in time of a system depending on other one
continually regarding time (synchronization) and spac..
Let's repeat it: the approach I do makes
above all biology, life sciences, a science of functional
process. Biological nature is double: it is at one and the
same time physical and biological. Within living, associated
units exist because their functional process associated to
other one are stabler than what they would have been if they
were not functionally connected. This phenomenon specific
to the living world doesn't exist in the material world of
physic, because the association of two physical systems makes
it generally unstable (except conditions to respect). The
deep reason of that difference lies in the type of causality,
evenemential regarding to the living being, non-evenemential
regarding to physical systems. We can add that the biological
functional non- locality is a fundamental concept (as non
symmetry) because it implies a topographical specialization
(geometrical) of the functions which is the characteristic
of each living being. Physiology is non localized.
The living is different from physical systems by its hierarchical
construction for structural as much as functional, and consequently,
by the existence of structural discontinuities. The result
of that is an essential characteristic of functional interactions
between structural units: it's the notion of non local field
associated to evenementialcausality.
Functional interaction, structural unit, source, well, non-locality,
non-symmetry, structural hierarchical organization, structural
discontinuities: all these concepts are at the roof of my
theory. It will permit to integrate biological phenomenon.