pp 1–13 | Cite as

Making the Onset of Semiosis Comprehensible with Use of Quantum Physics

  • Koichiro MatsunoEmail author
Original Research (9, 000)


One common denominator between biosemiotics and quantum physics is the participation of agents detecting their surroundings. In biosemiotics, any biological agents as the internal observers including the molecular and cellular ones are involved in detecting their surroundings. Likewise, the physicist as the external observer is also involved in detecting what should be all about the physical world with use of a wide variety of sophisticated measurement apparatuses. On the other hand, the difference between the two is in the nature of the agents of detection involved there. One obvious difference is that although the physicist can report the results of measurement with use of the symbolic language, the biological beings take the indexical act of measurement to simply be a matter of experiencing. The internal observers are phenomenological in constructing something durable as participating in the construction of the phenomenon. In a similar vein, the external observer is also phenomenological in getting into interpreting the constructed durable class property of an object with use of the symbolic language. In particular, the potential use of phenomenology is not limited only to the phenomenologist as the external observer. A possible integration of both the internal and external observers may be sought within quantum phenomenology allowing for the external observer to descriptively make access to the durable objects the internal observers could eventually have constructed. The internal observers are ubiquitous in the environment that functions as the absorbers of whatever quantum particles available there.


Cohesion Measurement Observer Phenomenology Quantum Semiosis 



  1. Barbieri, M. (2009). A short history of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 2, 221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eden, R. J. (1951). The quantum mechanics of non-holonomic systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 205, 583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fernández, E. (2008). Signs and instruments: The convergence of Aristotelian and Kantian intuitions in biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 1(3), 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grygar, F. (2017). The scopes of Bohr's complementarity framework in biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 10(1), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hoffmeyer, J., & Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On semiotic modeling (pp. 117–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Igamberdiev, A. U. (1993). Quantum mechanical properties of biosystems: A framework for complexity, structural stability, and transformations. BioSystems, 31, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Matsuno, K. (1985). How can quantum mechanics of material evolution be possible? Symmetry and symmetry-breaking in protobiological evolution. BioSystems, 17, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Matsuno, K. (1989). Protobiology: Physical basis of biology. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  9. Matsuno, K. (2012). Chemical evolution as a concrete scheme for naturalizing the relative state of quantum mechanics. BioSystems, 109, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Matsuno, K. (2016). Retrocausality in quantum phenomena and chemical evolution. Information, 7, 62. Scholar
  11. Matsuno, K. (2017). From quantum measurement to biology via retrocausality. Progress in Biophysics & Molecular biology, 131, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Matsuno, K. (2018). Temporality naturalized. Philosophies, 3, 45. Scholar
  13. Matsuno, K. (2019). Retrocausal regulation for the onset of a reaction cycle. BioSystems, 177, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matsuno, K., & Nemoto, A. (2005). Quantum as a heat engine – The physics of intensities unique to the origins of life. Physics of Life Reviews, 2(4), 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Muchowska, K. B., Varma, S. J., & Moran, J. (2019). Synthesis and breakdown of universal metabolic precursors promoted by iron. Nature, 569(7754), 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norton, M. P., & Karczub, D. (2003). Fundamentals of noise and vibration analysis for engineers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pattee, H. H. (2001). The physics of symbols: Bridging the epistemic cut. BioSystems, 60, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Springsteen, G., Yerabolu, J. R., Nelson, J., Rhea, C. J., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2018). Linked cycles of oxidative decarboxylation of glyoxylate as protometabolic analogs of the citric acid cycle. Nature Communications, 9, 91. Scholar
  19. Vester, H., Hammerschmidt, K., Timme, M., & Hallerberg, S. (2016). Quantifying group specificity of animal vocalizations without specific sender information. Physical Review, E93, 022138.Google Scholar
  20. Wheeler, J. A. (1983). Law without law. In J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 182–213). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nagaoka University of TechnologyNagaokaJapan

Personalised recommendations