To SEE or not to SEE makes a diference?

NB the below is really a draft by me, a professor “at deep water”, be careful while reading …

To SEE (vision) but not to SEE (understand) may not be a problem: We may find out options in spite of not understanding?

First; we used to say that Newton physics is ok in normal life – except e.g. GPS use, where Einstein´s physics is needed. Can the same be said about Einstein´s vs Quanta physics? Unfortunately, Einstein could not accept Quant physics “in real” (Bohr–Einstein debates

My answer (so far) to the above question is yes and no, in a “classic Quant Physics way”. What I do mean is discussed below, but in short: As assumed so far, Quant Physics are always “there/here” whether we know it or not, at least, when it concerns Living Systems (a concept which refers to James Grier Miller´s Living Systems Theory (1978), where systems are maintained by flows of information, energy and matter), General Systems Theory (von Bertalanfyy, 1968), or Biological Systems Theory (Pattee, 1978),  (

But “why then is Quanta Behaviors play an importance role if we anyway can find out effective solutions on e.g. health promotion and prevent aging”? My answer is that if we can extrapolate that a particular approach is Quanta Behavior grounded, e.g. assumed to increase substantially ongoing Inflammaging slowing down the speed in enzymes in the Kreps Cycle, we can be knowledge motivated to increase the efficacy of strategies which we have reason to assume can increase the effectivity in those enzymes behaviors. Hmmm, am I writing in an clear way? We I am at is that we have e.g. in Qui Kung ( thousands of years of development of strategies which may be more important than we until now realized. Probably, we have more here to find out in eastern medicine than in nowadays more pharmacological artificial interventions possible preventing effective quantum behaviors while far from evolution of living systems. Maybe, we do have already strategies to rediscover and perhaps increase in individual efficacy when we can presume Quanta Behaviors are platforming the particular strategy, we tailor from a neuropsychophysiological tool.

Many have been “on the way” based on (very advanced and creative) actual knowledge level (which also concerns e.g. of course Aristoteles), when now Quanta Biology can begin to explain basics we could not think (but dream) of some 10-20-30 years ago. That is way, Quanta Biology can motivate us to reinterpret much of old knowledge in a new light – quanta light, which may ahead spread even more enlightenment enabling understand the extreme complexity of living systems.

Now to my consideration (in a field influencing my own field, I begin to realize and thereby try to learning – life long as I long ago realized as our way according to Thales thinking some years ago (

As ”quanta behaviors” are probably mostly “behind”/underlying (at least) any kind of living organisms’ behaviors we can reevaluate wisdoms not only in eastern medicine but also early western medicine before the penicillin (and similar relevant discoveries) revolution which then got a general effect in terms of  “pills does the job” – even when it concerns life style related diseases/dysfunctions/problems.

Now, when the Quantum Biology (and similar general and specific focuses) now focuses on the functioning of “enzymes health” as well as “mitochondria- and immune .. telomere health” we can look at behavioral exercises/strategies in e.g. Qui Kung and similar approaches. In some way to much knowledge (needed for knowledge development) may interfere with practical use while we “do not see the forest for all trees” or reversed.

In eastern medicine we have great sources of behavioral experienced evaluate in assumed consequences at mostly subjective levels while we in western medicine have more detailed (much absolute!) knowledge enabling some evaluation in a more methodological way.

If we can use integration of eastern practice and western knowledge using in a neuropsychophysiological paradigm (not including at present a quanta perspective) we could extrapolate and thereby perhaps approach a more complete systems biopsychosocial model.

To approach the above we need really to manage integration of many multidisciplinary fields and try to “share creatively how we from different disciplines can work with different pieces in the assumed somewhat consensus puzzle”.

When we can do a priori predictions at piece levels reasonable fitting into the assumed puzzle, we may be on the first step towards understanding quite much of e.g. aging, health promotion as well as life style related interventions (which probably share much with health promotion).

To achieve the (or similar in some way to the) above, we need political and financial interests while some scientist/clinicians/laymen may need some money …

SEE also
To SEE or not to SEE makes a diference | Skills before pills
To SEE (vision) but not to SEE (understand) may not be a impossible problem sometimes: We may find out options in spite of not understanding? | Biopsychosocial Medicine
To SEE or not to SEE makes a diference? | Quantum Medicine

… more