Greetings Louadj yacine.

Your ideas about nature caught my attention and my mind was fixated on it for an hour or so. Turing theorized that identical biological cells differentiate and change shape through a process called intercellular reaction-diffusion.His insight into how a single cell in nature, differentiate and evolve into a complex organism such as a human being or an animal is impressive. His morphogenesis theory was arrived at that through mathematical modelling. I think, DNA research could further prove the validity of his theory. His theory could perhaps explain how the double helical molecular structure of the DNA replicates and differentiates itself from a single cell to a billion cells. Both animal and plant DNA structures are double helical ... a single cell can only influence other new cells through chemical reaction diffusion. It is the only logical explanation as to how a single cell divide and differentiate. How the genetic code, programs encoded chemically in protein nucleotides in a single cell, in nature ... can evolve into more complex organisms. Turing did not live long enough to witness the advent of genetic engineering and DNA nanotechnology ... but his insights were years ahead of him, much like his computational models for the present day computers ... I think his morphogenesis theory might be proven right after all, it is the only logical explanation of what we see in nature. Morphogenesis in my opinion is deterministic and not randomly probabilistic causality. When I was in undergraduate years, several decades ago, I was simply amazed by how a leaf could grow from a tiny seed DNA, and perform photosynthesis. Each leaf on the planet would do photosynthesis in the exact manner, according to a blue print, chemically programmed and embedded in a single cell. Thank you for causing me to think further, and ask more questions.

Hi Louadj,

These non-scientific distinctions may be useful. When talking about nature there seems to be some confusion about different meanings of it. There are at least three different ways the term is employed:

-Nature intended as what there is, the existing and its structure (probably this is the scientific use of the term).

-Nature as the essence of things and beings, what make them what they are. As an instance, in the case of animals their species.

-Nature as what it is in itself and per se, without human intervention. In this sense it is the opposite of artificial.

The confusion partially derives from the untold and unspecified uses of the term.

Greetings Louadj yacine.

Your ideas about nature caught my attention and my mind was fixated on it for an hour or so. Turing theorized that identical biological cells differentiate and change shape through a process called intercellular reaction-diffusion.His insight into how a single cell in nature, differentiate and evolve into a complex organism such as a human being or an animal is impressive. His morphogenesis theory was arrived at that through mathematical modelling. I think, DNA research could further prove the validity of his theory. His theory could perhaps explain how the double helical molecular structure of the DNA replicates and differentiates itself from a single cell to a billion cells. Both animal and plant DNA structures are double helical ... a single cell can only influence other new cells through chemical reaction diffusion. It is the only logical explanation as to how a single cell divide and differentiate. How the genetic code, programs encoded chemically in protein nucleotides in a single cell, in nature ... can evolve into more complex organisms. Turing did not live long enough to witness the advent of genetic engineering and DNA nanotechnology ... but his insights were years ahead of him, much like his computational models for the present day computers ... I think his morphogenesis theory might be proven right after all, it is the only logical explanation of what we see in nature. Morphogenesis in my opinion is deterministic and not randomly probabilistic causality. When I was in undergraduate years, several decades ago, I was simply amazed by how a leaf could grow from a tiny seed DNA, and perform photosynthesis. Each leaf on the planet would do photosynthesis in the exact manner, according to a blue print, chemically programmed and embedded in a single cell. Thank you for causing me to think further, and ask more questions.

 Greeting Almario, 

i am glad to read that my question had trigger in you a cascade of interesting thoughts and insights. and i have the same feeling of amazement, and respect to Turing when i heard about this article on morphogenesis. and the begining of a new thoery of explaining nature which is Chaos theory which lead later  Lorenz to say in a conference  " does the flap of a butterfly wings in brazil , can cause a hurrican in Texas" made in a conference about meteorology in Texas. 

Hi Mirko , thank you for clarifying the meaning of the word Nature to stard the discussion. by the way , my Name is Louadj. 

Best regards Yacine

The first obstacle to overcome is what is meant by "Nature" as discussed above by Mirko. I am here interpreting "Nature" in a biological context as part of but distinct from the Universe as a whole. So first of all what do we mean by "explaining" Nature? We have many observations of Nature that contribute to a "description" of the "what" (living systems) and the "how " (biochemistry) of Nature but do not "explain" the essential "why" (ontology) of Nature. We must acknowledge, with all due respect, the existing multiple "explanations" of Nature as scripture and faith. That aside can we arrive at Nature using scientific metholodgy and means? I think yes but there is a hitch. We have but rudimentary means to distinguish living matter from non-living matter - if it crawls it's alive! So what is Nature? It is an assemblage of entities to which the term "living" can be applied and with "living" we add "evolving". My point is that to Nature applies the concept of "living" that to date has defied a strictly scientific "description" let alone "explanation".

Almost two years ago I have taken part in the similar thread. There are many good answers and resources there.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_NATURE

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophical_implications_of_Bohr-Einstein_debate_on_the_Nature_of_Reality/

Thank you Pr Jacic for give us the opportunity to read other thread which are related to this question.

I can add some comment about what i think about the subject.

Even my question are more about the way , we explain "nature ", what is fascinating is that , one have to define what is "nature " , because there is no obvious distinction between physical nature which is the object of empirical sciences ( physics, biology, chemistry) and Human nature which is the object of social , psychological .  can the two reality merge in one and may be we can find some prrofound and deep reality?. in this context , what about Art , Religion, spiritual experience???

in terms of explaining the human or physical nature, i think that we have two way to deal with the problem , one way is to use experience ( inductive reasoning or probabilistic). in the other way , we can use (deductive reasoning or determinist ) which deal with mathematical object that describe physical reality like in the case of Einstein general theory of relativity for example. and in the case of the deductive reasoning, how can an equation predict a physical reality which had neven been seen or experienced ?. Like in the case of Paul dirac equation predicting the anti-matter before the physical proof of it.

the debate between Bohr and Einstein sum up this two seemingly opposite approach.  Bohr was a pure empiricist and Einstein was a pure determinist. can we add another approach which transcend experience and mathematic ?.

I hope that this will generate more thought for your dear researcher.

Kind regards Louadj yacine

Dear @Louadj, let me bring another aproach to Nature, the Platonist approach vs non-Platonist approach!

"...Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronics Engineering at The University of Adelaide in Australia, has written a perspective piece to be published in the Proceedings of the IEEE in which he argues that mathematical Platonism is an inaccurate view of reality. Instead, he argues for the opposing viewpoint, the non-Platonist notion that mathematics is a product of the human imagination that we tailor to describe reality.

This argument is not new. In fact, Abbott estimates (through his own experiences, in an admittedly non-scientific survey) that while 80% of mathematicians lean toward a Platonist view, engineers by and large are non-Platonist. Physicists tend to be "closeted non-Platonists," he says, meaning they often appear Platonist in public. But when pressed in private, he says he can "often extract a non-Platonist confession."

So if mathematicians, engineers, and physicists can all manage to perform their work despite differences in opinion on this philosophical subject, why does the true nature of mathematics in its relation to the physical world really matter?

The reason, Abbott says, is that because when you recognize that math is just a mental construct—just an approximation of reality that has its frailties and limitations and that will break down at some point because perfect mathematical forms do not exist in the physical universe—then you can see how ineffective math is.

And that is Abbott's main point (and most controversial one): that mathematics is not exceptionally good at describing reality, and definitely not the "miracle" that some scientists have marveled at. Einstein, a mathematical non-Platonist, was one scientist who marveled at the power of mathematics. He asked, "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"..."

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.html

Thank you Pr Jacic for this new perspective about Platonist Vs Non-Platonist approach of reality.

but here Einstein left us with a dilemma which is how can it be the mathematic objects which are independant of reality ( in term of experience) can describe eloquently physical object that are boyond our human comprehension. example are anti-matter, higgs boson, microwave background what had been predicted long ago before , they had been discovered.

So Math can describe the reality eloquently but not the truth  Reality , because even mathematical formalism are flawed , that's what make science progress toward more and more discovery.

Fascinating discussion

I think that mathematics works because the Universe is ordered (non-random) in a manner in which symmetries are an important component. Group theory becomes a parent organizing body of mathematics and the specific mathematical means of describing the Universe descends from these group concepts. Consider the simple symmetries between addition and subtraction, between multiplication and division, and between integration and diferentiation. No, the Universe knows no mathematics but its structure lends itself to human-based mathematical thought and analysis. After all, we ourselves are part of this Universe and have inherited from it the principles of order and symmetry on which the Universe is based.

An addendum: In mathematics are entities that are critical to mathematical applications in physics but might seem rather foreign to the Universe as it is manifested. There is Euclidean geometry that since antiquity works fine here on spherical earth as long as we are dealing with small distancies. And out of this comes the entity π which appears throughout the body of mathematics and physics in many manifestations but speaking strictly is not recognized by the Universe itself. Simililarly  this is true for e, the base of the natural logarithms, which expedites the description of waves with which the Universe is intimately familiar in a myriad of manifestations. And then there is i the demon child of which assuredly the Universe has no knowledge but where would physics be without it and the notion that i2 = -1? Mathematics is both of our own invention and a product of our observations of the happenings in our Universe.

Take a nice photograph and post. A picture is worth 1000 words!!!