Robert Rosen’s Relational Biology Theory and His Emphasis on Non-Algorithmic Approaches to Living Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".