Subject: General Invariance Principle
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 11:39:57 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <>
To: Mark Azbel <>

Dear Professor Azbel',

I'm reading your "General Invariance Principle in Biology Yields Different Physical Laws", q-bio.QM/0403008 v1 [Ref. 1], with great interest.

I wonder if you have considered applying GIP to brain's cognitive structures in the context of GR, since it is obvious that the brain state relevant to our knowledge about an object is Diff(M)-invariant.

Since our knowledge is an 'observable', I'm curious whether your can suggest some macroscopic canonic quantities [Ref. 2, p. 439] pertaining to the human brain, in different population groups of brains, which would remain invariant under all transformations in GR, hence could qualify as an 'observable'.

BTW do you know the pioneering research by N. Kobozev, "Izsledvania v oblasti termodinaki prozessov mishlenia i informazii" (MGU, 1971)? It is completely unknown in the West, I'm afraid. He showed that the invariance of our knowledge -- if understood in the context of Shannon theory -- leads to the requirement that the temperature of the cognitive brain structures should be absolute zero. Nice argument against Marx-Lenin's garbage, by 'reductio ad absurdum'.

Best regards,

Dimi Chakalov
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.  The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe,

Pritie amzanig huh?


[Ref. 1] Mark Ya. Azbel', General invariance principle in biology yields different physical laws, q-bio.QM/0403008 v1,

"So, any biological law must be invariant to very general (except for low dimensional subspace) transformations (possibly even from humans to single cell organisms). This may be denoted as "general invariance principle" (GIP). Biological law, which is invariant to evolutionary time, is a biological conservation law."

[Ref. 2] Mark Ya. Azbel', Conservation laws of metabolism and mortality, Physica A 329 (2003) 436-450.

Note: N. Kobozev used a very simple example for invariant cognitive structures: the rules of Boolean logic. The are invariant in all brains and, once stored in our memory, do not change. It is irrelevant whether or not we can spell them in math; they work either way.

Fine, but what is the memory substrate which could keep them intact during our lifetime? If we accept the Marxist-Leninist dogma that we are some "information-gathering and utilizing systems", IGUSes, then we're faced with explaining the invariant knowledge and its stability with the thermodynamics of information, and are destined to a dead-end. Simple calculations performed by N. Kobozev show that we have to keep our memory at zero temperature, otherwise thermal fluctuations would inevitably tweak and alter the "encoded information". Therefore, the initial Marxist-Leninist assumption about the nature of our cognition is wrong, as stressed many years ago by Plato.

At this point, people usually reply in a very interesting fashion: but if it isn't information, then what else? Read Leibnitz and Pauli & Jung, there is a very old, and widely known, solution here. No need to invent the wheel. There is, of course, information stored in our brains, which is processed by the brain as some 'barcode', but what we call 'cognition' is the final product of the binding process which sets the context and involves the whole brain. All of it, including the areas which are instructed to temporary 'keep quiet and stay tuned'.

How fast is the preliminary binding process? How does the brain select one possible binding in the case of kiss-and-run neurotransmitter release, 6 ms down to 250 µs? We're heading toward another dead-end, aren't we? Not at all. The brain simply reads the time in a very different manner, as explained by Ulric Neisser. The time read by an inanimate physical clock is just a very limited case of what we call 'time', as we can see by examining the reading of an inanimate physical clock in non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics.

Then the story becomes really interesting! And really deep. Very deep indeed.

Richard Feynman has said that not everything is Quantum Mechanics. Love, for example, isn't (I guess he knew quite a lot on both issues). Try to elaborate, however, and will see what will be the reaction of the established theoretical physics community. Since they like experiments, here's one, after Allan Paivio: two digital clocks read [11:05] and [13:25]. Convert the readings into analog format, and "calculate" which angle is bigger.

There exist "something" (called 'human self') which looks at the mental images of the angles, and answers the question. This "something" does not change in 'the time read by your clock'. It is spanned over a timeless extended now, in the sense that the evaluation/monitoring of the human activity by the human self is a parallel process which runs "at the same time" [Ref. 1] of the activity being evaluated (calculating the angle; see above), and this additional form of "time" (called 'global mode of time'), of "being aware at the same time of doing so" [ibid.], looks "timeless" in comparison to 'the time read by a clock' of the unmonitored human activity of some robots or IGUSes.

And because we don't want to allow the mind and consciousness to act directly on the physical world, we need to explain their physical basis (which is the scope of the efforts posted at this web site). There should exist something (called here 'potential reality') that is obviously connected to the space occupied by the brain, and which disappears (much like phonons) when we drop off our deteriorated jackets.

D. Chakalov

March 5, 2004
Last update: February 14, 2008
[Ref. 1] Elio Conte, Orlando Todarello, Antonio Federici, and Joseph P. Zbilut, Mind States Follow Quantum Mechanics During Perception and
Cognition of Ambiguous Figures: A Final Experimental Confirmation, arXiv:0802.1835v1 [physics.gen-ph]

"Consciousness is a system which observes itself. It evaluates itself being aware at the same time of doing so."


Note 2: Here's an old joke:

An Eskimo goes to Paris and visits the zoo, and upon his return in the village he shares his amusements from the zoo, and says that he saw a lion. 'What is a lion?' - asks another Eskimo. 'Do you know a white bear? Well, it's like a white bear, only looks like a big cat and is brown'. Then he explains that he saw a giraffe. 'What is a giraffe?' - asks another Eskimo. 'Do you know a white bear? Well, it's like a white bear, only looks like a tall horse and is brown'. Finally, he says that he saw a rhinoceros. Same question, and he replies: 'Do you know a white bear? Well, it's just the opposite to a white bear!'

To avoid such "explanations" of the global mode of spacetime, I seriously recommend the clock experiment above. More here and here.

If you prefer math, here's a very nice challenge from V. Mashkevich. See also a very interesting article by H.R. Brown and O. Pooley.

D. Chakalov
Mach 16, 2004
Last update: March 18, 2004