Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T08:52:00.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incomputability in Physics and Biology†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2012

GIUSEPPE LONGO
GIUSEPPE LONGO*
Affiliation:
Informatique, CNRS – Ecole Normale Supérieure et CREA, Paris, France Email: Giuseppe.Longo@ens.fr Website: http://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Computability has its origins in Logic within the framework formed along the original path laid down by the founding fathers of the modern foundational analysis for Mathematics (Frege and Hilbert). This theoretical itinerary, which was largely focused on Logic and Arithmetic, departed in principle from the renewed relations between Geometry and Physics occurring at the time. In particular, the key issue of physical measurement, as our only access to ‘reality’, played no part in its theoretical framework. This is in stark contrast to the position in Physics, where the role of measurement has been a core theoretical and epistemological issue since Poincaré, Planck and Einstein. Furthermore, measurement is intimately related to unpredictability, (in-)determinism and the relationship with physical space–time. Computability, despite having exact access to its own discrete data type, provides a unique tool for the investigation of ‘unpredictability’ in both Physics and Biology through its fine-grained analysis of undecidability – note that unpredictability coincides with physical randomness in both classical and quantum frames. Moreover, it now turns out that an understanding of randomness in Physics and Biology is a key component of the intelligibility of Nature. In this paper, we will discuss a few results following along this line of thought.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 22 , Special Issue 5: Computability of the Physical , October 2012 , pp. 880 - 900
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asperti, A. and Longo, G. (1991) Categories, Types and Structures, M.I.T. Press. (Out of print, but available from http://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo.)Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. (1940) La Philosophie du non? Essai d'une philosophie du nouvel esprit scientifique, PUF, Paris.Google Scholar
Bailly, F. and Longo, G. (2007) Randomness and determinism in the interplay between the Continuum and the Discrete. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 17 (2)289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailly, F. and Longo, G. (2011) Mathematics and Natural Sciences. The physical singularity of Life, Imperial College Press. (The original book was in French: Hermann, Paris, 2006; the Introduction and Longo's papers are available from http://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailly, F. and Longo, G. (2008) Extended Critical Situation. Journal of Biological Systems 16 (2)309–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailly, F. and Longo, G. (2009) Biological Organization and Anti-Entropy. Journal of Biological Systems 17 (1)63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. (1998) A Primer in Infinitesimal Analysis, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boi, L. (1995) Le problème mathématique de l'espace, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. and Yampolski, M. (2006) Non-computable Julia sets. Journal of the American Mathematical Society 19 551–578.Google Scholar
Buiatti, M. and Longo, G. (2012) Randomness and Multi-level Interactions in Biology. (In preparation, preliminary version available from http://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo.)Google Scholar
Calude, C. (2002) Information and randomness, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cencini, M. (2010) Chaos From Simple models to complex systems, World Scientific.Google Scholar
Cooper, B. S. and Odifreddi, P. (2003) Incomputability in Nature. In: Cooper, B. S. and Goncharov, S. S. (eds.) Computability and Models – Perspectives East and West, Kluwer Academic/Plenum 137–160.Google Scholar
Costa, J., Lo, B. and Mycka, J. (2009) A foundation for real recursive function theory. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 160 (3)255–288.Google Scholar
da Costa, N. and Doria, F. (1991) Undecidability and incompleteness in classical mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 30 1041–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Physical Review 41 777–780.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884) Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. (English translation: Austin, J. L. (1980) The Foundations of Arithmetic, Basil Blackwell Limited.)Google Scholar
Fox Keller, E. (2000) The Century of the Gene, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gacs, P., Hoyrup, M. and Rojas, C. (2011) Randomness on Computable Probability Spaces – A Dynamical Point of View. In: Albers, S. and Marion, J.-Y. (eds.) Preface: Special Issue on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS). Theory of Computing Systems 48 (3)465–485.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, W. (1988) Poincaré Against the Logicists. In: Aspray, W. and Kitcher, P. (eds.) Essays in the History and Philosophy of Mathematics, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XI 61–81.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1989) Wonderful Life, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1998) Full House, Harmony Books.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1899) Grundlagen der Geometrie. (English translation: Unger, L. and Bernays, P. (1971) Foundations of Geometry, Open Court.)Google Scholar
Kaern, M., Elston, T. C., Blake, W. J. and Collins, J. J. (2005) Stocasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes. Nature Review Genetics 6 451–464.Google Scholar
Krivine, J., Milner, R. and Troina, A. (2008) Stochastic Bigraphs. Proceedings of MFPS XXIV: Mathematical Fondations of Programming Semantics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 218 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1961) The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science. Isis 52 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kupiec, J.-J. (2009) On the lack of specificity of proteins and its consequences for a theory of biological organzation. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 102 (1)45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laskar, J. (1994) Large scale chaos in the Solar System. Astronomy and Astrophysics 287 L9–L12.Google Scholar
Longo, G. (2002) Reflections on Concrete Incompleteness: Invited Lecture. In: Callaghan, P., Luo, Z., McKinna, J. and Pollack, R. (eds.) Types for Proofs and Programs. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2277 160–180. (Revised version in Philosophia Mathematica (2011) 19 (3) 255–280.)Google Scholar
Longo, G. (2008) Critique of Computational Reason in the Natural Sciences. In: Gelenbe, E. and Kahane, J.-P. (eds.) Fundamental Concepts in Computer Science, Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
Longo, G. (2009) From exact sciences to life phenomena: following Schroedinger and Turing on Programs, Life and Causality. Information and Computation 207 (5)543–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longo, G. (2010a) Incomputability in Physics. In: Ferreira, F., Löwe, B., Mayordomo, E. and Mendes Gomes, L. (eds.) Programs, Proofs, Processes: Proceedings 6th Conference on Computability in Europe, CiE 2010. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6158 276–285.Google Scholar
Longo, G. (2010b) Interfaces of Incompleteness. (Available in Italian or French from http://www.di.ens.fr/users/longo.)Google Scholar
Longo, G. and Montévil, M. (2011) From Physics to Biology by Extending Criticality and Symmetry Breakings. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 106 (2)340–347.Google Scholar
Longo, G and Tendero, P.-E. (2007) The differential method and the causal incompleteness of Programming Theory in Molecular Biology. Foundations of Science 12 337–366.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1989) Evolutionary Genetics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Monod, J. (1973) Le Hasard et la Nécessité, Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Moore, C. (1990) Unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems. Physical Review Letters 64 (20)2354–2357.Google Scholar
Mossio, M., Longo, G. and Stewart, J. (2009) Computability of closure to efficient causation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 257 (3)489–498.Google Scholar
Petersen, K. (1983) Ergodic Theory, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pilyugin, S. Y. (1999) Shadowing in dynamical systems. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1706.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1903) Review of Hilbert's Foundations of geometry. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 10 (1)1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1906) Les mathématiques et la logique. Revue de Métaphys. et de morale 14.Google Scholar
Pour-El, M. B. and Richards, J. I. (1989) Computability in analysis and physics. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic 1, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Raj, A. and van Oudenaarden, A. (2008) Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences. Cell 135 216–226.Google Scholar
Riemann, B. (1854) Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen. (English translation: Clifford, W. K. (1873) On the hypothesis which lie at the basis of Geometry. Nature 8 (183)14–17 (184) 36–37.)Google Scholar
Rosen, R. (1991) Life itself: a comprehensive enquiry into the nature, origin and fabrication of life, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sonnenschein, C. and Soto, A. (1999) The Society of Cells: Cancer and Control of Cell Proliferation, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Svozil, K. (1993) Randomness and undecidability in Physics, World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1950) Computing Machines and Intelligence. Mind LIX (236)433–460.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1952) The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B237 37–72.Google Scholar
Young, L. J., Nilsen, R., Waymire, K. G., MacGregor, G. R. and Insel, T. R. (1999) Increased affiliative response to vasopressin in mice expressing the V1a receptor from a monogamous vole Nature 400 766–768.Google Scholar
Weihrauch, K. and Zhong, L. (2002) Is wave propagation computable or can wave computers beat the Turing machine? Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 85.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1918) Das Kontinuum, Veit, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1927) Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft. (English translation: Helmer, O. (1949) Philosophy of Mathematics and of Natural Sciences, Princeton University Press.)Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1985) Axiomatic Versus Constructive Procedures in Mathematics (edited by Tonietti, T.). The Mathematical Intelligencer 7 (4).Google Scholar