罗伯特罗森

此词条由范星辰翻译。

Robert Rosen
Born	(1934-模板:MONTHNUMBER-27)27, 1934 Brooklyn, New York, US
Died	December 28, 1998(1998-12-28) (aged 64) Rochester, New York, US
Alma mater	University of Chicago
Scientific career
Fields	Mathematical biology, Quantum genetics, Biophysics
Institutions	State University of New York at Buffalo Dalhousie University
Academic advisors	Nicolas Rashevsky
Notes
Dr. Robert Rosen's photo

Robert Rosen (June 27, 1934 – December 28, 1998) was an American theoretical biologist and Professor of Biophysics at Dalhousie University.

Robert Rosen (June 27, 1934 – December 28, 1998) was an American theoretical biologist and Professor of Biophysics at Dalhousie University.

罗伯特罗森(1934年6月27日至1998年12月28日)是美国戴豪斯大学的理论生物学家和生物物理学教授。

Career

Rosen was born on June 27, 1934 in Brownsville (a section of Brooklyn), in New York City. He studied biology, mathematics, physics, philosophy, and history; particularly, the history of science. In 1959 he obtained a PhD in relational biology, a specialization within the broader field of Mathematical Biology, under the guidance of Professor Nicolas Rashevsky at the University of Chicago. He remained at the University of Chicago until 1964, later moving to the University of Buffalo — now part of the State University of New York (SUNY) — at Buffalo on a full associate professorship, while holding a joint appointment at the Center for Theoretical Biology.

Rosen was born on June 27, 1934 in Brownsville (a section of Brooklyn), in New York City. He studied biology, mathematics, physics, philosophy, and history; particularly, the history of science. In 1959 he obtained a PhD in relational biology, a specialization within the broader field of Mathematical Biology, under the guidance of Professor Nicolas Rashevsky at the University of Chicago. He remained at the University of Chicago until 1964,"Autobiographical Reminiscences of Robert Rosen". later moving to the University of Buffalo — now part of the State University of New York (SUNY) — at Buffalo on a full associate professorship, while holding a joint appointment at the Center for Theoretical Biology.

罗森1934年6月27日出生于纽约市的布朗斯维尔(布鲁克林的一部分)。他学习了生物学、数学、物理学、哲学和历史，特别是科学史。1959年，他在芝加哥大学的尼古拉斯 · 拉舍夫斯基教授的指导下，获得了有关生物学的博士学位，这是数学生物学更广泛领域的专业。他在芝加哥大学一直待到1964年，著有《罗伯特 · 罗森的自传体回忆录》。后来，他转到了布法罗大学ーー现在是纽约州立大学的一部分ーー担任全职副教授，同时在理论生物学中心担任联合职务。

His year-long sabbatical in 1970 as a Visiting Fellow at Robert Hutchins' Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California was seminal, leading to the conception and development of what he later called Anticipatory Systems Theory, itself a corollary of his larger theoretical work on relational complexity. In 1975, he left SUNY at Buffalo and accepted a position at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, as a Killam Research Professor in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, where he remained until he took early retirement in 1994. He is survived by his wife, a daughter, Judith Rosen, and two sons.

His year-long sabbatical in 1970 as a Visiting Fellow at Robert Hutchins' Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California was seminal, leading to the conception and development of what he later called Anticipatory Systems Theory, itself a corollary of his larger theoretical work on relational complexity. In 1975, he left SUNY at Buffalo and accepted a position at Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, as a Killam Research Professor in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics, where he remained until he took early retirement in 1994. He is survived by his wife, a daughter, Judith Rosen, and two sons.

1970年，他进行了长达一年的学术休假，在加利福尼亚州圣巴巴拉的罗伯特 · 哈钦斯民主制度研究中心担任客座研究员，这对他后来所谓的“预期系统理论”的构想和发展产生了重大影响，该理论本身就是他关于关系复杂性的更大理论工作的必然结果。1975年，他离开纽约州立大学布法罗分校，在新斯科舍哈利法克斯的戴尔豪斯大学任职，担任生理学和生物物理学系的吉拉姆研究教授，直到1994年提前退休。他身后留下妻子、女儿朱迪斯 · 罗森和两个儿子。

He served as president of the Society for General Systems Research, now known as the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), in 1980-81.

He served as president of the Society for General Systems Research, now known as the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), in 1980-81.

1980年至1981年间，他担任通用系统研究学会的会长，即现在的国际系统科学学会(ISSS)。

Research

Rosen's research was concerned with the most fundamental aspects of biology, specifically the questions "What is life?" and "Why are living organisms alive?". A few of the major themes in his work were:

• developing a specific definition of complexity based on category theoretic models of autonomous living organisms
• developing Complex Systems Biology from the point of view of Relational Biology as well as Quantum Genetics
• developing a rigorous theoretical foundation for living organisms as "anticipatory systems"

Rosen's research was concerned with the most fundamental aspects of biology, specifically the questions "What is life?" and "Why are living organisms alive?". A few of the major themes in his work were:

• developing a specific definition of complexity based on category theoretic models of autonomous living organisms
• developing Complex Systems Biology from the point of view of Relational Biology as well as Quantum Genetics
• developing a rigorous theoretical foundation for living organisms as "anticipatory systems"

罗森的研究涉及生物学最基本的方面，特别是有关“什么是生命?”以及“为什么活的有机体是活的? ”等问题。他工作中的几个主要主题是:

• 基于自主生物体的范畴理论模型发展复杂系统生物学
• 从关系生物学和量子遗传学的角度发展复杂系统生物学
• 为生物体的“预期系统”建立一个严格的理论基础

Rosen believed that the contemporary model of physics - which he showed to be based on a Cartesian and Newtonian formalism suitable for describing a world of mechanisms - was inadequate to explain or describe the behavior of biological systems. Rosen argued that the fundamental question "What is life?" cannot be adequately addressed from within a scientific foundation that is reductionistic. Approaching organisms with reductionistic scientific methods and practices sacrifices the functional organization of living systems in order to study the parts. The whole, according to Rosen, could not be recaptured once the biological organization had been destroyed. By proposing a sound theoretical foundation for studying biological organisation, Rosen held that, rather than biology being a mere subset of the already known physics, it might turn out to provide profound lessons for physics, and also for science in general.

Rosen believed that the contemporary model of physics - which he showed to be based on a Cartesian and Newtonian formalism suitable for describing a world of mechanisms - was inadequate to explain or describe the behavior of biological systems. Rosen argued that the fundamental question "What is life?" cannot be adequately addressed from within a scientific foundation that is reductionistic. Approaching organisms with reductionistic scientific methods and practices sacrifices the functional organization of living systems in order to study the parts. The whole, according to Rosen, could not be recaptured once the biological organization had been destroyed. By proposing a sound theoretical foundation for studying biological organisation, Rosen held that, rather than biology being a mere subset of the already known physics, it might turn out to provide profound lessons for physics, and also for science in general.

罗森认为，当代的物理学模型——他表明它是基于笛卡尔和牛顿的形式主义去适当地描述一个机制的世界——不足以解释或描述生物系统的行为。罗森认为，基本问题“什么是生命?”不能从一个简化论的科学基础中得到充分的解决。为了研究生命系统的各个部分，用还原论的科学方法去研究生物体，将会牺牲生命系统的功能组织。根据罗森的说法，一旦生物组织被摧毁，就不可能重新从整体上认知生命。通过为研究生物组织提出一个健全的理论基础，罗森认为，生物学不仅仅是已知物理学的一个子集，它可能为物理学和一般科学提供深刻的经验教训。

Rosen's work combines sophisticated mathematics with potentially radical new views on the nature of living systems and science. He has been called "the Newton of biology." Drawing on set theory, his work has also been considered controversial, raising concerns that some of the mathematical methods he used could lack adequate proof. Rosen's posthumous work Essays on Life Itself (2000) as well as recent monographs by Rosen's student Aloisius Louie have clarified and explained the mathematical content of Rosen's work.

Rosen's work combines sophisticated mathematics with potentially radical new views on the nature of living systems and science. He has been called "the Newton of biology." Drawing on set theory, his work has also been considered controversial, raising concerns that some of the mathematical methods he used could lack adequate proof. Rosen's posthumous work Essays on Life Itself (2000) as well as recent monographs by Rosen's student Aloisius Louie have clarified and explained the mathematical content of Rosen's work.

罗森的工作结合了复杂数学和有关生命系统与科学本质的潜在的激进新观点。他被称为“生物学中的牛顿”。基于集合论，他的工作也被认为是有争议的，引起了人们对他使用的一些数学方法可能缺乏充分证明的担忧。罗森死后的著作《论生命本身》(2000年)以及罗森的学生阿洛修斯路易最近的专著阐明和解释了罗森作品中的数学内容。

Relational biology

Rosen's work proposed a methodology which needs to be developed in addition to the current reductionistic approaches to science by molecular biologists. He called this methodology Relational Biology. Relational is a term he correctly attributes to his mentor Nicolas Rashevsky, who published several papers on the importance of set-theoretical relations in biology prior to Rosen's first reports on this subject. Rosen's relational approach to Biology is an extension and amplification of Nicolas Rashevsky's treatment of n-ary relations in, and among, organismic sets that he developed over two decades as a representation of both biological and social "organisms".

Rosen's work proposed a methodology which needs to be developed in addition to the current reductionistic approaches to science by molecular biologists. He called this methodology Relational Biology. Relational is a term he correctly attributes to his mentor Nicolas Rashevsky, who published several papers on the importance of set-theoretical relations in biology prior to Rosen's first reports on this subject. Rosen's relational approach to Biology is an extension and amplification of Nicolas Rashevsky's treatment of n-ary relations in, and among, organismic sets that he developed over two decades as a representation of both biological and social "organisms".

关系生物学

罗森的工作提出了一种方法论，目前分子生物学家除了对科学的还原论方法的运用之外，还需要发展这种方法论。他称这种方法为关系生物学。他确切地将关系这个术语归功于他的导师尼古拉斯 · 拉舍夫斯基，在罗森第一次就这个专题发表报告之前，拉舍夫斯基就集合理论关系在生物学中的重要性发表了几篇论文。罗森对生物学的关系方法是尼古拉斯 · 拉舍夫斯基对 n 元关系处理方法的延伸和扩展。拉舍夫斯基在过去20年中发展了一些有机体集合，作为生物和社会“有机体”的代表。

Rosen's relational biology maintains that organisms, and indeed all systems, have a distinct quality called organization which is not part of the language of reductionism, as for example in molecular biology, although it is increasingly employed in systems biology. It has to do with more than purely structural or material aspects. For example, organization includes all relations between material parts, relations between the effects of interactions of the material parts, and relations with time and environment, to name a few. Many people sum up this aspect of complex systems by saying that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Relations between parts and between the effects of interactions must be considered as additional 'relational' parts, in some sense.

Rosen's relational biology maintains that organisms, and indeed all systems, have a distinct quality called organization which is not part of the language of reductionism, as for example in molecular biology, although it is increasingly employed in systems biology. It has to do with more than purely structural or material aspects. For example, organization includes all relations between material parts, relations between the effects of interactions of the material parts, and relations with time and environment, to name a few. Many people sum up this aspect of complex systems by saying that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Relations between parts and between the effects of interactions must be considered as additional 'relational' parts, in some sense.

罗森的关系生物学认为，有机体，实际上所有的系统，都有一个独特的性质，称为组织，这不是还原论语言的一部分，例如在分子生物学中，尽管它越来越多地应用于系统生物学。它涉及的不仅仅是纯粹的结构或物质方面。例如，组织包括物质部分之间的所有关系、物质部分相互作用的效应之间的关系、与时间和环境的关系等等。许多人总结复杂系统的这一方面时说，整体大于部分的总和。部分之间的关系和相互作用之间的影响必须被视为附加的关系部分，在某种意义上。

Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it: /* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it:

罗森说，组织必须独立于看似构成一个生命系统的物质粒子。正如他所说:

Rosen's abstract relational biology approach focuses on a definition of living organisms, and all complex systems, in terms of their internal organization as open systems that cannot be reduced to their interacting components because of the multiple relations between metabolic, replication and repair components that govern the organism's complex biodynamics.

Rosen's abstract relational biology approach focuses on a definition of living organisms, and all complex systems, in terms of their internal organization as open systems that cannot be reduced to their interacting components because of the multiple relations between metabolic, replication and repair components that govern the organism's complex biodynamics.

罗森的抽象关系生物学方法侧重于生物有机体的定义，以及所有复杂的系统，根据他们的内部组织作为开放的系统，不能降低到他们的相互作用的组成部分，因为代谢，复制和修复组件之间的多重关系，控制有机体的复杂的生物动力学。

He deliberately chose the `simplest' graphs and categories for his representations of Metabolism-Repair Systems in small categories of sets endowed only with the discrete "efficient" topology of sets, envisaging this choice as the most general and less restrictive. It turns out however that the efficient entailments of [math]\displaystyle{ (M{,}R) }[/math]systems are "closed to efficient cause", or in simple terms the catalysts ("efficient causes" of metabolism, usually identified as enzymes) are themselves products of metabolism, and thus may not be considered, in a strict mathematical sense, as subcategories of the category of sequential machines or automata: in direct contradiction of the French philosopher Descartes' supposition that all animals are only elaborate machines or mechanisms. Rosen stated: "I argue that the only resolution to such problems [of the subject-object boundary and what constitutes objectivity] is in the recognition that closed loops of causation are 'objective'; i.e. legitimate objects of scientific scrutiny. These are explicitly forbidden in any machine or mechanism." Rosen's demonstration of "efficient closure" was to present this clear paradox in mechanistic science, that on the one hand organisms are defined by such causal closures and on the other hand mechanism forbids them; thus we need to revise our understanding of nature. The mechanistic view prevails even today in most of general biology, and most of science, although some claim no longer in sociology and psychology where reductionist approaches have failed and fallen out of favour since the early 1970s. However those fields have yet to reach consensus on what the new view should be, as is also the case in most other disciplines, which struggle to retain various aspects of "the machine metaphor" for living and complex systems.

He deliberately chose the `simplest' graphs and categories for his representations of Metabolism-Repair Systems in small categories of sets endowed only with the discrete "efficient" topology of sets, envisaging this choice as the most general and less restrictive. It turns out however that the efficient entailments of (M{,}R)systems are "closed to efficient cause",Donald C. Mikulecky Robert Rosen: The well posed question and its answer - Why are organisms different from machines? or in simple terms the catalysts ("efficient causes" of metabolism, usually identified as enzymes) are themselves products of metabolism, and thus may not be considered, in a strict mathematical sense, as subcategories of the category of sequential machines or automata: in direct contradiction of the French philosopher Descartes' supposition that all animals are only elaborate machines or mechanisms. Rosen stated: "I argue that the only resolution to such problems [of the subject-object boundary and what constitutes objectivity] is in the recognition that closed loops of causation are 'objective'; i.e. legitimate objects of scientific scrutiny. These are explicitly forbidden in any machine or mechanism." Rosen's demonstration of "efficient closure" was to present this clear paradox in mechanistic science, that on the one hand organisms are defined by such causal closures and on the other hand mechanism forbids them; thus we need to revise our understanding of nature. The mechanistic view prevails even today in most of general biology, and most of science, although some claim no longer in sociology and psychology where reductionist approaches have failed and fallen out of favour since the early 1970s. However those fields have yet to reach consensus on what the new view should be, as is also the case in most other disciplines, which struggle to retain various aspects of "the machine metaphor" for living and complex systems.

他有意地选择“最简单的”图和类别来表示只赋予离散的集合的“有效”拓扑的小类别集合中的代谢-修复系统，设想这种选择是最一般和限制较少的。然而，事实证明(m { ，} r)系统的有效衍生是“对有效原因闭合的”，Donald c. Mikulecky Robert Rosen: 这个问题及其答案——为什么有机体与机器不同？或者用简单的术语来说，新陈代谢的催化剂(新陈代谢的“有效原因”，通常被认为是酶)本身就是新陈代谢的产物，因此，从严格的数学意义上来说，可能不会被认为是连续机器或自动机范畴的子范畴: 这与法国哲学家笛卡尔的假设直接矛盾，即所有的动物都只是复杂的机器或机制。罗森说: “我认为，这些问题[主客体边界和客观性的构成]的唯一解决办法是承认因果关系的封闭循环是‘客观的’;。合法的科学研究对象。任何机器或机械都明确禁止这些操作。”罗森关于“有效闭合”的论证，是为了在机械论科学中提出这样一个明确的悖论: 一方面，生物体是由这种因果闭合定义的，另一方面，机制又禁止它们; 因此，我们需要修正我们对自然的理解。这种机械论的观点甚至在今天的大多数普通生物学和大多数科学中依然盛行，尽管有些人声称社会学和心理学中的还原论方法已经失败，并且自20世纪70年代初以来已经失宠。然而，这些领域尚未就新观点应该是什么达成共识，大多数其他学科也是如此，这些学科努力保留生活和复杂系统的”机器隐喻”的各个方面。

= = 复杂性和复杂的科学模型: (m，r)系统 =

The clarification of the distinction between simple and complex scientific models became in later years a major goal of Rosen's published reports. Rosen maintained that modeling is at the very essence of science and thought. His book Anticipatory Systems describes, in detail, what he termed the modeling relation. He showed the deep differences between a true modeling relation and a simulation, the latter not based on such a modeling relation.

The clarification of the distinction between simple and complex scientific models became in later years a major goal of Rosen's published reports. Rosen maintained that modeling is at the very essence of science and thought. His book Anticipatory SystemsAnticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations, Robert Rosen, 2nd edition, with contributions by Judith Rosen, John J. Klineman and Mihai Nadin, 2012, lx + 472 pp., Springer, New York describes, in detail, what he termed the modeling relation. He showed the deep differences between a true modeling relation and a simulation, the latter not based on such a modeling relation.

在后来的几年里，罗森发表的报告的主要目标就是澄清简单模型和复杂模型之间的区别。罗森坚持认为，建模是科学和思想的本质。2012，lx + 472 pp. ，Springer，New York. 详细描述了他称之为建模关系的东西。他展示了真实建模关系和模拟之间的深刻差异，后者并不基于这样的建模关系。

In mathematical biology he is known as the originator of a class of relational models of living organisms, called [math]\displaystyle{ (M{,}R) }[/math]systems that he devised to capture the minimal capabilities that a material system would need in order to be one of the simplest functional organisms that are commonly said to be "alive". In this kind of system, [math]\displaystyle{ M }[/math] stands for the metabolic and [math]\displaystyle{ R }[/math] stands for the 'repair' subsystems of a simple organism, for example active 'repair' RNA molecules. Thus, his mode for determining or "defining" life in any given system is a functional, not material, mode; although he did consider in his 1970s published reports specific dynamic realizations of the simplest [math]\displaystyle{ (M{,}R) }[/math]systems in terms of enzymes ([math]\displaystyle{ M }[/math]), RNA ([math]\displaystyle{ R }[/math]), and functional, duplicating DNA (his [math]\displaystyle{ \beta }[/math]-mapping).

In mathematical biology he is known as the originator of a class of relational models of living organisms, called (M{,}R)systems that he devised to capture the minimal capabilities that a material system would need in order to be one of the simplest functional organisms that are commonly said to be "alive". In this kind of system, M stands for the metabolic and R stands for the 'repair' subsystems of a simple organism, for example active 'repair' RNA molecules. Thus, his mode for determining or "defining" life in any given system is a functional, not material, mode; although he did consider in his 1970s published reports specific dynamic realizations of the simplest (M{,}R)systems in terms of enzymes (M), RNA (R), and functional, duplicating DNA (his \beta-mapping).

在数学生物学中，他被认为是一类生物有机体关系模型的创始人，这类关系模型被称为(m { ，} r)系统，他设计这类系统是为了捕捉物质系统成为通常被称为“活的”的最简单的功能有机体所需要的最低能力。在这种系统中，m 代表新陈代谢，r 代表简单有机体的修复子系统，例如活跃的修复 RNA 分子。因此，他在任何给定系统中确定或“定义”生命的模式是功能性的，而不是物质性的; 尽管他在20世纪70年代发表的报告中考虑了最简单(m { ，} r)系统在酶(m)、 RNA (r)和功能性复制 DNA (他的 beta-mapping)方面的具体动态实现。

He went, however, even further in this direction by claiming that when studying a complex system, one "can throw away the matter and study the organization" to learn those things that are essential to defining in general an entire class of systems. This has been, however, taken too literally by a few of his former students who have not completely assimilated Robert Rosen's injunction of the need for a theory of dynamic realizations of such abstract components in specific molecular form in order to close the modeling loop 模板:Clarify for the simplest functional organisms (such as, for example, single-cell algae or microorganisms). He supported this claim (that he actually attributed to Nicolas Rashevsky) based on the fact that living organisms are a class of systems with an extremely wide range of material "ingredients", different structures, different habitats, different modes of living and reproduction, and yet we are somehow able to recognize them all as living, or functional organisms, without being however vitalists.

He went, however, even further in this direction by claiming that when studying a complex system, one "can throw away the matter and study the organization" to learn those things that are essential to defining in general an entire class of systems. This has been, however, taken too literally by a few of his former students who have not completely assimilated Robert Rosen's injunction of the need for a theory of dynamic realizations of such abstract components in specific molecular form in order to close the modeling loop for the simplest functional organisms (such as, for example, single-cell algae or microorganisms).Robert Rosen. 1970. Dynamical Systems Theory in Biology, New York: Wiley Interscience. He supported this claim (that he actually attributed to Nicolas Rashevsky) based on the fact that living organisms are a class of systems with an extremely wide range of material "ingredients", different structures, different habitats, different modes of living and reproduction, and yet we are somehow able to recognize them all as living, or functional organisms, without being however vitalists.

然而，他在这个方向上走得更远，声称在研究一个复杂系统时，人们“可以抛开这个问题，研究组织”，去学习那些对于一般地定义一整类系统至关重要的东西。然而，罗伯特 · 罗森以前的一些学生对此过于字面化，他们没有完全吸收罗伯特 · 罗森的观点，即需要一种动态实现特定分子形式的抽象组分的理论，以便为最简单的功能有机体(例如单细胞藻类或微生物)闭合建模循环。罗伯特 · 罗森。1970.生物学动态系统理论，纽约: Wiley Interscience。他支持这种说法(他实际上将其归因于尼古拉斯 · 拉舍夫斯基) ，因为生命有机体是一类系统，具有极其广泛的物质“成分”、不同的结构、不同的栖息地、不同的生存和繁殖方式，然而我们却能够以某种方式将它们全部识别为活的或功能性的有机体，而不管它们多么有生命力。

His approach, just like Rashevsky's latest theories of organismic sets, emphasizes biological organization over molecular structure in an attempt to bypass the structure-functionality relationships that are important to all experimental biologists, including physiologists. In contrast, a study of the specific material details of any given organism, or even of a type of organisms, will only tell us about how that type of organism "does it". Such a study doesn't approach what is common to all functional organisms, i.e. "life". Relational approaches to theoretical biology would therefore allow us to study organisms in ways that preserve those essential qualities that we are trying to learn about, and that are common only to functional organisms.

His approach, just like Rashevsky's latest theories of organismic sets, emphasizes biological organization over molecular structure in an attempt to bypass the structure-functionality relationships that are important to all experimental biologists, including physiologists. In contrast, a study of the specific material details of any given organism, or even of a type of organisms, will only tell us about how that type of organism "does it". Such a study doesn't approach what is common to all functional organisms, i.e. "life". Relational approaches to theoretical biology would therefore allow us to study organisms in ways that preserve those essential qualities that we are trying to learn about, and that are common only to functional organisms.

他的方法，就像拉舍夫斯基最新的有机组合理论一样，强调生物组织多于分子结构，试图绕过对包括生理学家在内的所有实验生物学家都很重要的结构-功能关系。相比之下，对任何特定有机体，甚至是某种有机体的特定物质细节的研究，只会告诉我们这种有机体是如何“做到这一点的”。这样的研究并没有探讨所有功能性生物体的共同之处。“生活”。因此，理论生物学的相关方法将允许我们以保留那些我们试图学习的基本特性的方式来研究生物体，而这些特性只有功能性生物体才具有。

Robert Rosen's approach belongs conceptually to what is now known as Functional Biology, as well as Complex Systems Biology, albeit in a highly abstract, mathematical form.

Robert Rosen's approach belongs conceptually to what is now known as Functional Biology, as well as Complex Systems Biology, albeit in a highly abstract, mathematical form.

罗伯特 · 罗森的方法在概念上属于现在已知的功能生物学，以及复杂系统生物学，尽管是以一种高度抽象的数学形式。

Quantum Biochemistry and Quantum Genetics

Rosen also questioned what he believed to be many aspects of mainstream interpretations of biochemistry and genetics. He objects to the idea that functional aspects in biological systems can be investigated via a material focus. One example: Rosen disputes that the functional capability of a biologically active protein can be investigated purely using the genetically encoded sequence of amino acids. This is because, he said, a protein must undergo a process of folding to attain its characteristic three-dimensional shape before it can become functionally active in the system. Yet, only the amino acid sequence is genetically coded. The mechanisms by which proteins fold are not completely known. He concluded, based on examples such as this, that phenotype cannot always be directly attributed to genotype and that the chemically active aspect of a biologically active protein relies on more than the sequence of amino acids, from which it was constructed: there must be some other important factors at work, that he did not however attempt to specify or pin down.

Rosen also questioned what he believed to be many aspects of mainstream interpretations of biochemistry and genetics. He objects to the idea that functional aspects in biological systems can be investigated via a material focus. One example: Rosen disputes that the functional capability of a biologically active protein can be investigated purely using the genetically encoded sequence of amino acids. This is because, he said, a protein must undergo a process of folding to attain its characteristic three-dimensional shape before it can become functionally active in the system. Yet, only the amino acid sequence is genetically coded. The mechanisms by which proteins fold are not completely known. He concluded, based on examples such as this, that phenotype cannot always be directly attributed to genotype and that the chemically active aspect of a biologically active protein relies on more than the sequence of amino acids, from which it was constructed: there must be some other important factors at work, that he did not however attempt to specify or pin down.

罗森还质疑他所认为的生物化学和遗传学的主流解释的许多方面。他反对这样一种观点，即生物系统的功能方面可以通过物质焦点来调查。举个例子: 罗森质疑生物活性蛋白质的功能能力可以仅仅通过基因编码的氨基酸序列来研究。他说，这是因为蛋白质必须经过一个折叠过程才能获得其特有的三维形状，然后才能在系统中发挥功能。然而，只有氨基酸序列是基因编码的。蛋白质折叠的机制尚不完全清楚。基于这样的例子，他得出结论，表型不能总是直接归因于基因型，生物活性蛋白质的化学活性方面不仅仅依赖于构成它的氨基酸序列: 一定还有其他一些重要因素在起作用，然而他并没有试图指明或确定。

Certain questions about Rosen's mathematical arguments were raised in a paper authored by Christopher Landauer and Kirstie L. Bellman which claimed that some of the mathematical formulations used by Rosen are problematic from a logical viewpoint. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that such issues were also raised long time ago by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their famous Principia Mathematica in relation to antinomies of set theory. As Rosen's mathematical formulation in his earlier papers was also based on set theory and the category of sets such issues have naturally re-surfaced. However, these issues have now been addressed by Robert Rosen in his recent book Essays on Life Itself, published posthumously in 2000. Furthermore, such basic problems of mathematical formulations of [math]\displaystyle{ (M{,}R) }[/math]--systems had already been resolved by other authors as early as 1973 by utilizing the Yoneda lemma in category theory, and the associated functorial construction in categories with (mathematical) structure. Such general category-theoretic extensions of [math]\displaystyle{ (M{,}R) }[/math]-systems that avoid set theory paradoxes are based on William Lawvere's categorical approach and its extensions to higher-dimensional algebra. The mathematical and logical extension of metabolic-replication systems to generalized [math]\displaystyle{ (M{,}R) }[/math]-systems, or G-MR, also involved a series of acknowledged letters exchanged between Robert Rosen and the latter authors during 1967—1980s, as well as letters exchanged with Nicolas Rashevsky up to 1972.

Certain questions about Rosen's mathematical arguments were raised in a paper authored by Christopher Landauer and Kirstie L. Bellman which claimed that some of the mathematical formulations used by Rosen are problematic from a logical viewpoint. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that such issues were also raised long time ago by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in their famous Principia Mathematica in relation to antinomies of set theory. As Rosen's mathematical formulation in his earlier papers was also based on set theory and the category of sets such issues have naturally re-surfaced. However, these issues have now been addressed by Robert Rosen in his recent book Essays on Life Itself, published posthumously in 2000. Furthermore, such basic problems of mathematical formulations of (M{,}R)--systems had already been resolved by other authors as early as 1973 by utilizing the Yoneda lemma in category theory, and the associated functorial construction in categories with (mathematical) structure.I.C. Baianu: 1973, Some Algebraic Properties of (M{,}R) - Systems. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 35, 213-217.I.C. Baianu and M. Marinescu: 1974, A Functorial Construction of (M{,}R)- Systems. Revue Roumaine de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees 19: 388-391. Such general category-theoretic extensions of (M{,}R)-systems that avoid set theory paradoxes are based on William Lawvere's categorical approach and its extensions to higher-dimensional algebra. The mathematical and logical extension of metabolic-replication systems to generalized (M{,}R)-systems, or G-MR, also involved a series of acknowledged letters exchanged between Robert Rosen and the latter authors during 1967—1980s, as well as letters exchanged with Nicolas Rashevsky up to 1972.

克里斯托弗 · 兰道尔和克里斯蒂 · 贝尔曼在一篇论文中提出了一些关于罗森数学论证的问题，这篇论文声称罗森使用的一些数学公式从逻辑观点来看是有问题的。然而，也许值得注意的是，这些问题很久以前也被伯特兰·罗素和阿尔弗雷德·诺思·怀特黑德在他们著名的关于集合论悖论的数学原理中提出过。正如罗森在他的早期论文中的数学公式也是基于集合论的，这类问题的集合范畴自然重新浮出水面。然而，罗伯特 · 罗森在他2000年去世后出版的新书《论生活本身》中提到了这些问题。此外，(m { ，} r) -- 系统的数学公式的这些基本问题早在1973年就已经被其他作者利用范畴论中的 Yoneda 引理和范畴中的(数学)结构中的相关函子结构解决了。Baianu: 1973，(m { ，} r)-系统的一些代数性质。数学生物物理学通讯35,213-217.I.C。Baianu 和 m. Marinescu: 1974，(m { ，} r)-系统的函子结构。Revue Roumaine de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees 19: 388-391.这种避免集合论悖论的(m { ，} r)-系统的一般范畴论扩张是基于 William Lawvere 的范畴方法及其对高维代数的扩张。新陈代谢复制系统在数学和逻辑上扩展到广义(m { ，} r)系统，或 G-MR，也包括罗伯特 · 罗森和后者作者在1967ー1980年间的一系列公认的书信往来，以及直到1972年与尼古拉斯 · 拉舍夫斯基的书信往来。

Rosen's ideas are becoming increasingly accepted in theoretical biology, and there are several current discussions

Rosen's ideas are becoming increasingly accepted in theoretical biology, and there are several current discussions

罗森的观点越来越被理论生物学所接受，目前有几种讨论

Erwin Schrödinger discussed issues of quantum genetics in his famous book of 1945, What Is Life? These were critically discussed by Rosen in Life Itself and in his subsequent book Essays on Life Itself.

Erwin Schrödinger discussed issues of quantum genetics in his famous book of 1945, What Is Life? These were critically discussed by Rosen in Life Itself and in his subsequent book Essays on Life Itself.Note, by Judith Rosen, who owns the copyrights to her father's books: Some confusion about Rosen's analysis is due to errata in Life Itself. For example, the diagram that refers to (M{,}R)-Systems has more than one error; errors which do not exist in Rosen's manuscript for the book. The book Anticipatory Systems; Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations has the same diagram, correctly represented.

埃尔温·薛定谔在他1945年的著作《生命是什么？罗森在《生命本身》一书和他随后出版的《论生命本身》一书中对这些问题进行了批判性的讨论。注释，作者朱迪思 · 罗森，拥有她父亲的著作的版权: 罗森的分析有些混乱是由于生活本身的错误。例如，引用(m { ，} r)-Systems 的图表有多个错误; 这些错误在 Rosen 的书稿中不存在。《预期系统; 哲学，数学，和方法论基础》一书有相同的图表，正确地表示。

= 与其他生命理论的比较 =

(M,R) systems constitute just one of several current theories of life, including the chemoton of Tibor Gánti, the hypercycle of Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster, autopoiesis (or self-building) of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and the autocatalytic sets of Stuart Kauffman, similar to an earlier proposal by Freeman Dyson. All of these (including (M,R) systems) found their original inspiration in Erwin Schrödinger's book What is Life? but at first they appear to have little in common with one another, largely because the authors did not communicate with one another, and none of them made any reference in their principal publications to any of the other theories. Nonetheless, there are more similarities than may be obvious at first sight, for example between Gánti and Rosen. Until recently there have been almost no attempts to compare the different theories and discuss them together.

(M,R) systems constitute just one of several current theories of life, including the chemoton of Tibor Gánti, the hypercycle of Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster,

autopoiesis (or self-building) of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and the autocatalytic sets of Stuart Kauffman, similar to an earlier proposal by Freeman Dyson. 

All of these (including (M,R) systems) found their original inspiration in Erwin Schrödinger's book What is Life? but at first they appear to have little in common with one another, largely because the authors did not communicate with one another, and none of them made any reference in their principal publications to any of the other theories. Nonetheless, there are more similarities than may be obvious at first sight, for example between Gánti and Rosen. Until recently there have been almost no attempts to compare the different theories and discuss them together.

(m，r)系统只是当前几个生命理论中的一个，包括 Tibor Gánti 的 chemoton，Manfred Eigen 和 Peter Schuster 的超循环，Humberto Maturana 和 Francisco Varela 的自创生(或自我构建) ，以及 Stuart Kauffman 的自催化集，类似于 Dyson 早期的提议。所有这些(包括(m，r)系统)的灵感都来源于埃尔温·薛定谔的《生命是什么？但起初他们之间似乎没有什么共同点，主要是因为作者之间没有交流，他们在主要出版物中也没有提到任何其他理论。尽管如此，两者之间的相似之处比乍看之下可能显而易见的要多，例如 Gánti 和罗森大厦之间的相似之处。直到最近，几乎没有人试图比较不同的理论并一起讨论它们。

= 最后一个通用共同祖先(LUCA) =

Some authors equate models of the origin of life with LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all extant life. This is a serious error resulting from failure to recognize that L refers to the last common ancestor, not to the first ancestor, which is much older: a large amount of evolution occurred before the appearance of LUCA.

Some authors equate models of the origin of life with LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all extant life. This is a serious error resulting from failure to recognize that L refers to the last common ancestor, not to the first ancestor, which is much older: a large amount of evolution occurred before the appearance of LUCA.

一些作者将生命起源的模型与露卡相提并论，露卡是所有现存生命的最后一个共同祖先。这是一个严重的错误，因为没有认识到 l 指的是最后的共同祖先，而不是更古老的第一个祖先: 大量的进化发生在露卡出现之前。

Gill and Forterre expressed the essential point as follows:

LUCA should not be confused with the first cell, but was the product of a long period of evolution. Being the "last" means that LUCA was preceded by a long succession of older "ancestors."

Gill and Forterre expressed the essential point as follows:

LUCA should not be confused with the first cell, but was the product of a long period of evolution. Being the "last" means that LUCA was preceded by a long succession of older "ancestors."

吉尔和福特尔表达的基本观点如下: 露卡不应与第一个细胞混淆，而是长期进化的产物。作为“最后一个”意味着 LUCA 之前有一系列更古老的“祖先”

Publications

Rosen wrote several books and many articles. A selection of his published books is as follows:

• 1970, Dynamical Systems Theory in Biology New York: Wiley Interscience.
• 1970, Optimality Principles, reissued by Springer in 2013
• 1978, Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems, Elsevier Science Ltd,
• 1985, Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical and Methodological Foundations. Pergamon Press.
• 1991, Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, Columbia University Press

Rosen wrote several books and many articles. A selection of his published books is as follows:

• 1970, Dynamical Systems Theory in Biology New York: Wiley Interscience.
• 1970, Optimality Principles, reissued by Springer in 2013
• 1978, Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems, Elsevier Science Ltd,
• 1985, Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical and Methodological Foundations. Pergamon Press.
• 1991, Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life, Columbia University Press

= = 出版物 = = Rosen 写了几本书和许多文章。他出版的书籍精选如下:

• 1970，纽约生物学动态系统理论: Wiley Interscience。1970，optimal Principles，republished in 2013
• 1978，Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems，Elsevier Science Ltd，
• 1985，predictive Systems: Philosophical，Mathematical and methodology Foundations.Pergamon Press.1991，《生命本身: 生命的本质、起源和虚构的全面探究》 ，哥伦比亚大学出版社

Published posthumously:

• 2000, Essays on Life Itself, Columbia University Press.
• 2012, Anticipatory Systems; Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations, 2nd Edition, Springer

Published posthumously:

• 2000, Essays on Life Itself, Columbia University Press.

• 2012, Anticipatory Systems; Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations, 2nd Edition, Springer

2000，Essays on Life Itself，Columbia University Press.

• 2012年，《预期系统》 ; 《哲学、数学与方法论基础》 ，第二版，施普林格

Further reading

• Baianu, I. C. (2006). "Robert Rosen's Work and Complex Systems Biology". Axiomathes. 16 (1–2): 25–34. doi:10.1007/s10516-005-4204-z. S2CID 4673166.
• Baianu, I.C. (1970). "Organismic Supercategories: II. On Multistable Systems" (PDF). Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 32 (4): 539–561. doi:10.1007/bf02476770. PMID 4327361.
• Baianu, I.C. (2006). "Robert Rosen's Work and Complex Systems Biology". Axiomathes. 16 (1–2): 25–34. doi:10.1007/s10516-005-4204-z. S2CID 4673166.
• Elsasser, M.W.: 1981, "A Form of Logic Suited for Biology.", In: Robert, Rosen, ed., Progress in Theoretical Biology, Volume 6, Academic Press, New York and London, pp 23–62.
• Christopher Landauer and Kirstie L. Bellman Theoretical Biology: Organisms and Mechanisms
• Rashevsky, N. (1965). "The Representation of Organisms in Terms of (logical) Predicates". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 27 (4): 477–491. doi:10.1007/bf02476851. PMID 4160663.
• Rashevsky, N. (1969). "Outline of a Unified Approach to Physics, Biology and Sociology". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 31 (1): 159–198. doi:10.1007/bf02478215. PMID 5779774.
• Rosen, R (1960). "A quantum-theoretic approach to genetic problems". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 22 (3): 227–255. doi:10.1007/bf02478347.
• Rosen, R. (1958a). "A Relational Theory of Biological Systems". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 20 (3): 245–260. doi:10.1007/bf02478302.
• Rosen, R. (1958b). "The Representation of Biological Systems from the Standpoint of the Theory of Categories". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 20 (4): 317–341. doi:10.1007/bf02477890.
• "Reminiscences of Nicolas Rashevsky". (Late) 1972. by Robert Rosen.
• Rosen, Robert (2006). "Autobiographical Reminiscences of Robert Rosen". Axiomathes. 16 (1–2): 1–23. doi:10.1007/s10516-006-0001-6. S2CID 122095161.

• Elsasser, M.W.: 1981, "A Form of Logic Suited for Biology.", In: Robert, Rosen, ed., Progress in Theoretical Biology, Volume 6, Academic Press, New York and London, pp 23–62.
• Christopher Landauer and Kirstie L. Bellman Theoretical Biology: Organisms and Mechanisms
• "Reminiscences of Nicolas Rashevsky". (Late) 1972. by Robert Rosen.

= 进一步解读 = =

• 艾萨瑟，m.w。年: 1981年，“一种适合生物学的逻辑形式。《理论生物学的进展》 ，第6卷，学术出版社，纽约和伦敦，第23-62页。
• Christopher Landauer 和 Kirstie l. Bellman 理论生物学: 生物体和机制
• 《 Nicolas Rashevsky 回忆录》。《1972》罗伯特 · 罗森著。

External links

• Panmere website on Rosennean Complexity: "Judith Rosen's website provides free biographical information, discussions of her father's work, and also free reprints of Robert Rosen's work".
• Robert Rosen: The well posed question and its answer: why are organisms different from machines? An essay by Donald C. Mikulecky.
• Robert Rosen: June 27, 1934 — December 30, 1998 by Aloisius Louie.

• Panmere website on Rosennean Complexity: "Judith Rosen's website provides free biographical information, discussions of her father's work, and also free reprints of Robert Rosen's work".
• Robert Rosen: The well posed question and its answer: why are organisms different from machines? An essay by Donald C. Mikulecky.
• Robert Rosen: June 27, 1934 — December 30, 1998 by Aloisius Louie.

= 外部链接 =

• 罗森尼复杂性网站上的 Panmere 网站: “朱迪思 · 罗森的网站提供了免费的个人简历、关于她父亲作品的讨论，以及罗伯特 · 罗森作品的免费再版。”。罗伯特 · 罗森: 这个问题及其答案是: 为什么有机体不同于机器？作者: Donald c. Mikulecky。
• 罗伯特 · 罗森: 1934年6月27日ー1998年12月30日。

Category:Systems biologists Category:1934 births Category:1998 deaths Category:Dalhousie University faculty Category:American systems scientists Category:Theoretical biologists Category:Columbia University alumni

类别: 系统生物学家类别: 1934年出生类别: 1998年死亡类别: 戴尔豪斯大学教员类别: 美国系统科学家类别: 理论生物学家类别: 哥伦比亚大学校友

This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Robert Rosen (biologist). Its edit history can be viewed at 罗伯特罗森/edithistory