In this position paper, we argue that the conventional understanding of ‘information’ (as generally conceived in science, in a digital fashion) is overly simplistic and not consistently applicable to living systems, which are open systems that cannot be reduced to any kind of ‘portion’ (building block) ascribed to the category of quantity. Instead, it is a matter of relationships and qualities in an indivisible analogical (and ontological) relationship between any presumed ‘software’ and ‘hardware’ (information/matter, psyche/soma). Furthermore, in biological systems, contrary to Shannon’s definition, which is well-suited to telecommunications and informatics, any kind of ‘information’ is the opposite of internal entropy, as it depends directly on order: it is associated with distinction and differentiation, rather than flattening and homogenisation. Moreover, the high degree of structural compartmentalisation of living matter prevents its energetics from being thermodynamically described by using a macroscopic, bulk state function. This requires the Second Principle of Thermodynamics to be redefined in order to make it applicable to living systems. For these reasons, any static, bit-related concept of ‘information’ is inadequate, as it fails to consider the system’s evolution, it being, in essence, the organized coupling to its own environment. From the perspective of quantum field theory (QFT), where many vacuum levels, symmetry breaking, dissipation, coherence and phase transitions can be described, a consistent picture emerges that portrays any living system as a relational process that exists as a flux of context-dependent meanings. This epistemological shift is also associated with a transition away from the ‘particle view’ (first quantisation) characteristic of quantum mechanics (QM) towards the ‘field view’ possible only in QFT (second quantisation). This crucial transition must take place in life sciences, particularly regarding the methodological approaches. Foremost because biological systems cannot be conceived as ‘objects’, but rather as non-confinable processes and relationships.
Renati et al. (Tue,) studied this question.