[Fis] Fwd: Re: Cancer Cure? (Plamen S.)

Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Thu Jun 2 13:20:05 CEST 2016


-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto: 	Re: [Fis] Cancer Cure?
Fecha: 	Tue, 31 May 2016 19:54:05 +0200
De: 	Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com>
Para: 	Robert Ulanowicz <ulan at umces.edu>
CC: 	Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>



Dear Bob and All,

it is a compliment for me to read your notes on the subject. You don't 
need to excuse. It is indeed a complex world of relations. And tt is 
good that you rmentioned all this again from your perspective. We do not 
know how many have entered the discussion later. Reiterations and 
questions are always good and welcome. Well, I was expecting a vigorous 
discussion on this subject which approaches its end now. But it is still 
better to have one feedback rather than writing all this on paper of my 
own without knowing what the reviewer or the reader would say at the 
end. I still hope to hear a few more voices on that. We could take on 
some of the other two major groups of diseases mentioned in the opening 
session. Bob, I am glad that you mentioned quantum logic. Do you think 
we can try using it to express the emergent state of a disease (in 
combination or not with heterogeneity afine SOC) We are not limited to 
cancer only. In fact I am also interested to know your opinion on such 
aspects as self-similarity or symmetry/asymetry during the development 
of a disease throughout all transition phases. These issues have been 
often discussed in a different context at FIS. How about the 
biosemiotics aspect which I mentioned earlier? Tell me what do you think 
could be a promising approach to tackle a tough health problem.

Is there anybody out there? :-)

All the best,

Plamen




On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz <ulan at umces.edu 
<mailto:ulan at umces.edu>> wrote:

    > Dear Bob,
     >
     > thank you for your response. What you said in the core -
    heterogeneity -
     > resonated with the first suggested example I began this session
    with: the
     > puzzle of registering the heterogeneity of cancer, both in the
     > molecular-biological and histological level, both in space and
    time. It
     > appears that exactly this elusive property of matter, liveness,
    from the
     > single cell to entire eco-systems, which implies intelligence
    throughout
     > all scales (as Brian Ford states) is what we still cannot in
    system(s)
     > biology put on the feet of statistical mechanics and classical
     > physics.Aren't tumors such intelligent clusters of heterogeneous cell
     > computers interacting within internaly secured invasive networks that
     > escape our medical enigma code breakers placed in our synthetic
    drugs and
     > radiation devices? Also such undesired life is not easy to kill. 
    And yet
     > cancer cannot win the battle unless our own internal systems
    surrender and
     > become allies of the invador.

    Dear Plamen,

    To begin, please allow me to apologize for joining the conversation
    midway
    without having read your earlier postings.

    It's obvious that you also expressed the sense of what I was saying.
    There
    are about 6 fundamental laws of physics, which allows for several
    hundred
    combinations among the laws. Meanwhile, most living systems consist
    of at
    least 40 identifiable constituents, which can interact on some 10^47
    possible ways. It should be no surprise that (many?) more than one
    combination can satisfy any specification of the laws. So the laws
    are not
    broken; they simply lose their power to *determine* a unique outcome.

    As you say, sufficiently heterogeneous living system can usually find a
    way around most obstacles in their way.

     > And yet, healthy systems have some sort of regularity, layered
    structure
     > and hierarchies as those we observe in a skin biopsy sample.Genetic
     > mutations do not remain local at the damaged spot; they are
    signaled to
     > other "mentally weak" cells which are turned into traitors,also
    perhaps
     > even via non-local induction. Are wandering "bad" cells and
    accelerated
     > replication the only sources of growing agressive cancers? Here
    is perhaps
     > where biosemiotics and phenomenology could help along with
    creating new*
     > heterogeneous* SOC models, as you mentioned. You are right, the
    call for
    > devising a mathematics that can  handle heterogeneous sets,
     > vectors,matrices, categories and other sorts of organisation in
    biology
     > simultateously was already spread by Bob Root-Bernstein in his
    opening
     > article to our 2012 edition of integral biomathics (see last link
    in my
     > signature). We do not have such an underpinning mathematics and its
     > related
     > computation yet. Therefore we remain still stuck in the old system
     > biological models rooted in physics at best.

    I should have mentioned that SOC can also possibly apply to
    heterogeneous
    systems. For example, we have plotted the countervailing properties of
    networks -- their efficient performance vs. their reliability, and
    we have
    found that ecosystems from various habitats all achieve about the same
    balance between these two traits. (See Fig. 7 on p1890 in
    <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Dual.pdf>.) These metrics do have
    heterogeneity built into them. (They are calculated on n-dimensional
    networks -- each node representing a distinct constituent.) Some have
    suggested that the balance point is very near a critical point.
    Ergo, SOC
    can apply to heterogeneous systems.

     > Many of us hope that the right answers to all this will be given
    once we
     > understand quantum gravitation and master quantum computation.
    But I have
     > my doubts in such hopes too.

    I have severe doubts about quantum gravity -- at least quantum in the
    sense of Planck. (Quantum logic is another matter, and may apply to
    gravity.) The Planck constant and the gravitational constant are
    separated
    by some 43 orders of magntude. The engineering rule of thumb is that
    phenomena characterized by dimensionless parameters greater than 10^5 or
    less than 10^(-5) are dynamically independent.

    Quantum computing, on the other hand, might prove quite helpful in
    addressing the combinatorics of heterogeneous systems. Let us hope.

     > The questions I ask are those of an ex product planner colecting
    customer
     > feedback to devise a new product. Perhaps we can succeed in doing
    that
     > together. Thank you for this.

    So then you are quite aware of the combinatorics and surprises connected
    with dialogs! It's a complicated world!

    Thank you for your contributions to FIS, and I apologize again for not
    having read your earlier postings.

     > All the best,
     >
     > Plamen

    Peace!
    Bob



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160602/595b7198/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list