миниатюра

Imperfection and incompleteness of main concepts in natural sciences

Professor Savchenko and Koveshnikov, Scientists about my discoveries

In 2010, a paper by V.N Savchenko and E.V Koveshnikov “Imperfection and incompleteness of main concepts in natural sciences” was published in the scientific journal “Herald of the PACIFIC STATE ECONOMIC UNIVERSITY” (No 3. 2010). In this paper, the authors discuss the theory by Vasily Yanchilin.

Download the article in Russian:

nepolnota-i-neopredelennost-osnovnyh-ponyatiy-v-estestvennyh-naukah

About the authors of the paper:

Link: http://uss.dvfu.ru/struct/pedagogic_school/progr_managers.php

Valery Savchenko: Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor at the branch of the Far Eastern Federal University in Ussuriysk. Evgeny Koveshnikov: at the time of writing, he was a graduate student at Savchenko, he was writing his thesis on philosophy of physics.

About the journal:

http://hr-performance.ru/item/vestnik-tihookeanskogo-gosudarstvennogo-ekesticheskogo-universiteta.html

Herald of the PACIFIC STATE ECONOMIC UNIVERSITY is a scientific journal. It has been issuing since 1996, 4 issues per year. Herald of the PACIFIC STATE ECONOMIC UNIVERSITY was recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia for publication of main scientific results of dissertations for the academic degrees of a candidate and a doctor of sciences. The journal is intended for scientific and practical workers, teachers of higher education, post-graduate students, students. The information from Herald of the PACIFIC STATE ECONOMIC UNIVERSITY is abstracted and placed in the corresponding series of Abstract Journals and VINITI databases. The journal takes part in the RINC project.

Pages that discuss Vasily Yanchilin’s theory:

Page 100:

Herald of the PACIFIC STATE ECONOMIC UNIVERSITY (No. 3. 2010)

 Imperfection and incompleteness of main concepts in natural sciences.

 Е.V. KOVESHNIKOV, V.N. SAVCHENKO

The problem of incompleteness and uncertainty of biological and chemical scientific knowledge is considered. The general review of theories of occurrence of life is given, three newest theories domestic naturally-school of thought are observed. Phenomena nano bacteria and «sense of substance», and also a problem of incompleteness of Periodic system of chemical elements of D.I. Mendeleyev are analyzed.

Key Terms: incompleteness and uncertainty of basic concepts of sciences; life definition; live and lifeless substance; the minimum size of the live; nano bacteria; Periodic system of chemical elements.

100

Page 103:

In 2004, a small book “Logic of the quantum world and the origin of life on Earth” was published by another Russian researcher V.L. Yanchilin. The physicist Yanchilin is known for having built a new interpretation of quantum mechanics in the early 2000s. Now using it he put forward his theory of the origin of life. The central idea of the theory is that living matter exists objectively. Here is how Yanchilin comments: “I am sure that the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up a living organism differ strongly  from protons, neutrons and electrons that make up, for example, a stone or a super-power modern computer. It is very important that this difference is physical. Electrons in a human body differ physically from electrons in a super-powerful computer. Because of this difference, computers will never learn to think the way a person thinks. Because of this difference, we will never be able to collect a copy of a person or even a copy of some simpler living being in a laboratory.

How do the electrons in a living organism physically differ from ordinary electrons?

The answer is very simple. Electrons in a living organism differ from ordinary electrons by their quantum state [11, p. 118].

 

103

Page 104:

It makes no sense to retell all the theses of the theory in detail, but here are some of them:

1) There is Biomass. It is “living matter”. All its constituent parts are in a single quantum state. “Physically, this means that each elementary particle is not localized in any one place, but belongs to the entire Biomass” [ibid, p. 125];

2) Biomass can evolve and complicate its structure;

3) All living beings on the planet are connected with each other. This is not a classical connection between organisms through food chains, but a much more fundamental one: “There is a non-local physical connection at the quantum level between all living beings” [ibid, p. 132]. There is no distance limit for this connection because it is based on the concept of virtual clouds of an elementary particle distributed hypothetically throughout the entire Universe;

4) Every living being depends on Biomass. If the entire Biomass is suddenly physically destroyed on Earth, then the living being, no matter how far away it is from the Earth, also perishes instantaneously. This will be the result of a superluminal transfer of the action (signal).

5) A living being objectively has a soul, but this is a much more complex formation than religion teaches us. “The soul is a non-local cloud consisting of an unimaginably huge number of wave packets that are inside a body. These wave packets are created by an uncountable number of particles that move discretely within the entire Biomass, that is, they are part of other living beings. This cloud controls the movement of the body and thanks to this cloud the body is a single whole. In addition, trillions of duplicated information about the entire history of the evolution of the mass is stored in the complex quantum state of the cloud” [ibid, p. 141]. Aristotle states this as follows: “…a man is a living one because the soul is that part of the person in which … life is” [1, V, 17].

These are the basic postulates of Yanchilin’s theory. In some ways it is fantastic and, even worse, not all of its statements can be tested experimentally, but from the position of this theory some phenomena are very well explained. For example, why close people often feel each other at a distance and twins do not just feel each other, but even are like one whole, and their lives are very similar. Or why a colony of microorganisms divided in half continues to maintain a mutual connections (one half reacts to what the experimenters are doing on the other half) even at a distance. The theory can explain even extrasensory abilities and intuition.

Thus, the quantum biology of Yanchilin explains easily and simply an unsolved phenomenon from the point of view of classical biology.

104

Page 105:

In this respect, his contribution to overcoming the incompleteness and uncertainty of biological knowledge is very weighty, although the theory needs further elaboration and further discussion and popularization.

It is noteworthy that Yanchilin often compares the development and evolution of Biomass with the growth of the crystal, which undoubtedly brings his views closer to the views of Bernal and Kostetskiy. Perhaps the synthesis of these two independent theories, with their mutual self-correction relative to each other, will help in the future completely resolve the issue of the phenomenon of life and the phenomenon of mind, thereby eliminating the incompleteness of biological scientific knowledge.

It should be noted that this theory of the origin of life on Earth has not only scientific, but also moral value. Perhaps, for the first time, fundamental moral principles turned out to be deduced from a purely physical theory. These principles are simple: destroying the living including his own kind by poisoning the planet a person inevitably reduces Biomass and its evolutionary potential, thereby endangering his existence. In the quantum theory of life, the possibility of escape with a cosmic ship from a poisoned and dying planet in search of a better life is reduced to zero.

Yanchilin expresses a very interesting idea: “We can say that man is so clever that the work of his brain is controlled by the supercomplex quantum state of the entire Biomass” [11, p. 138]. The idea to consider the human brain not so much as a computing biocomputer, but as a receiver (a terminal for something much more powerful in terms of computing and storing information) is not new, but here it is derived from the new interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, such an idea brings down the philosophical discipline of epistemology: it turns out that cognition as a kind of mental activity is the property of the whole Biomass, and not of a separate brain and human consciousness. In this case the subject and the object of cognition either do not exist at all, either the subject and the object are all Biomass, and a researcher is only the terminal that displays the cognitive work of Biomass, its task is to send the task and get the result.

Recently, in April 2010, a large review and at the same time an original paper “XXI century: what is life from the point of view of physics” by the major Russian biophysics of Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, G.R. Ivanitsky was published in the journal Uspekhi Phizics [2]. The author having studied a lot of domestic and foreign primary sources and based on his ideas and experimental results deduced another hypothesis of the emergence of life from inanimate matter. This theory, built on the junction of physics, chemistry and mathematics, differs somewhat from the chemical theory of Kostetskii and the physical theory by Yanchilin, but does not contradict them.

105

Page 107:

Talking about life Ivanitsky also writes about its end – death. According to the new theory, every living organism dies after the balance between chaos and determinism is broken in it, that is, life processes become either extremely chaotic and unpredictable or too deterministic as if in a clock mechanism (The heart, for example, is not a sentry mechanism. It is an aperiodic mechanism, and it will die immediately, when it becomes a sentry one). The theory cannot specify the cause of the imbalance. Perhaps this cause (or causes) should be sought in events taking place in the microcosm if we will  try to relate Ivanitsky’s theory to the theory by Yanchilin.

So far, Ivanitsky’s theory cannot be complete, it has its shortcomings and gaps. For example, it is too mechanistic: every living organism is only a self-replicating biomachine, endowed with memory, which it uses only to increase its chances of survival. The theory considers life from the position of biomechanics, but does not explain, for example, how DNA could have originated (see Kostetskii’s theory), and cannot explain the phenomenon of the soul in any way (see Yanchilin’s theory).

107

Page 113:

References

  1. Yanchilin V.L. Logic of the quantum world and the emergence of life on

Earth. – Moscow: New Center, 2004. – 288 p. (in Russian)

113

Leave a Reply