| Popis: |
This paper examines the use of algorithms and non-algorithmic models in mathematics and science, especially in biology, during the past century by summarizing the gradual development of a conceptual rationale for non-algorithmic models in biology. First, beginning a century ago, mathematicians found it impossible to constrain mathematics in an algorithmic straitjacket via öö’s Incompleteness Theorems, so how would it be possible in biology? By the 1930s, biology was resolutely imitating classical physics, with biologists enforcing a reductionist agenda to expunge function, purpose, teleology, and vitalism from biology. Interestingly, physicists and mathematicians often understood better than biologists that mathematical representations of living systems required different approaches than those of dead matter. Nicolas Rashevsky, the Father of Mathematical Biology, and Robert Rosen, his student, pointed out that the complex systems of life cannot be reduced to machines or mechanisms as per the Newtonian paradigm. Robert Rosen concluded that living systems are not amenable to algorithmic models that are primarily syntactical. Life requires semantics for its description. Rashevsky and Rosen pioneered Relational Biology, initially using Graph Theory to model living systems. Later, Rosen created a metabolic–repair model (M, R)-system using Category Theory to encode the basic entailments of life itself. Although reductionism still dominates in current biology, several subsequent authors have built upon the Rashevsky–Rosen intellectual foundation and have explained, extended, and explored its ramifications. Algorithmic formulations have become increasingly inadequate for investigating and modeling living systems. Biology is shifting from a science of simple systems to complex ones. This transition will only be successful once mathematics fully depicts what it means to be alive. This paper is a call to mathematicians from biologists asking for help in doing this. |
