Biological Relativity Requires Circular Causality but Not Symmetry of Causation: So, Where, What and When Are the Boundaries?

Abstract

Since the Principle of Biological Relativity was formulated and developed there have been many implementations in a wide range of biological fields. The purpose of this article is to assess the status of the applications of the principle and to clarify some misunderstandings. The principle requires circular causality between levels of organization. But the forms of causality are also necessarily different. They contribute in asymmetric ways. Upward causation can be represented by the differential or similar equations describing the mechanics of lower level processes. Downward causation is then best represented as determining initial and boundary conditions. The questions tackled in this article are: (1) where and when do these boundaries exist? and (2) how do they convey the influences between levels? We show that not all boundary conditions arise from higher-level organization. It is important to distinguish those that do from those that don’t. Both forms play functional roles in organisms, particularly in their responses to novel challenges. The forms of causation also change according to the levels concerned. These principles are illustrated with specific examples.

The Essentiality of Dynamic Interfaces in Human-Environment Interactions

“…It is also pertinent that we place our thesis in context of the important work of others that reject homeostasis in favor of homeodynamics [17], that extend relativistic concepts from physics to biology [4], [5], that accept the ever-changing nature of our biology and argue for the existence of critical windows of susceptibility [18], and those that study human biology as a network of systems [19]. Many of these scientific theories and methods rely on the existence of levels, scales and states defined by their properties, and compartments defined by their structures and/or functions.…”

“…Many of these scientific theories and methods rely on the existence of levels, scales and states defined by their properties, and compartments defined by their structures and/or functions. Because of this, the direction of interaction across levels has been, and rightly so, the focus of much scientific debate [4], [5]. These levels, scales and compartments are necessary, but let us not forget that equally necessary is what exists between them.…”

“…More recently, with the realization that the relationship between the environment and human physiology is bi-directional, the arrows visualized in Figure 1A can now also point from humans to the environment, as shown in Figure 1B. The scenario depicted in Figure 1B represents a shift from a simple one-directional perturbation to circular feedback causation within and across levels [4], [5]. A simple example of this is the relationship between human industrial activity and air-pollution; our industrial processes increases air-pollution and the increased environmental air-pollution in turn impacts human health [6].…”

The Causal Closure of Physics in Real World Contexts

“…However there is an interesting different view: that human beings are essentially social beings, so that in fact it is a mistake to view them as being capable of living on their own, as is implied by that categorisation, Thus Berger and Luckmann [10] wrote about the Social Construction of Reality: our worldview-an inescapable part of our nature shaping our actions-is crucially shaped by the society in which we live. Merlin Donald's book A Mind so Rare [33] essentially agrees, as does Andy Clark's book Supersizing the Mind [26] and [108]. In short, top-down effects from society so crucially shape our being that they are not just perturbations of independent existence: they are essential, and that characterisation is wrong.…”

Elemental ‘particle physics‐iology’; the Big Bang behind being human

“…The need to explore complementary ideas that can be woven into the integrative framework of physiology is eminently justified, because there is general agreement that traditional coarse‐grained classical (physics) and overly reductionist systems (biology) approaches have consistently failed to account adequately for a multitude of life's complex processes, including our understanding and treatment of human disease (Joyner & Pedersen, ; Marais et al., ; Noble, Tasaki, Noble, & Noble, ). To what extent QM could help to tackle some of the more intractable questions posed by traditional physiology, including (for example) those related to the origin of life and evolution, systems biology, cell signalling, stem cell and regenerative medicine, gene regulation, ageing, disease pathophysiology and benefits of physical activity, cellular bioenergetics, cognition and consciousness (Bennett, ; Dev, ; Gabriel & Zierath, ; Hunter, ; Melkikh & Khrennikov, ; Paterson, ), remain to be established given that this is an emerging discipline, barely a decade old, complicated by unique philosophical, conceptual and technical challenges (Figure 2b; Koch & Hepp, ).…”