NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 88

Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

Original Article

Entropy and Syntropy

From Mechanical to Life Science

Antonella Vannini1
Abstract
This work describes the qualities and implications, in the field of psychology, of
two principles which can be observed in the physical and biological world: the
principle of entropy and the principle of syntropy. The description of the qualities
of entropic and syntropic phenomena can be found in the works of Luigi Fantappiè
(1901-1956), one of the major Italian mathematicians, who, while working on
quantum mechanics and special relativity, discovered that all physical and chemical
phenomena, which are determined by causes placed in the past, are governed by
the principle of entropy, while all those phenomena which are attracted towards
causes which are placed in the future (attractors), are governed by a principle
which is symmetrical to entropy and which Fantappiè named syntropy.

Key Words: Syntropy, entropy, living systems, information, interdisciplinary

approach, causality, thermodynamics, quantum brain

NeuroQuantology 2005; 2: 88-110

Introduction
The concept of time and the correlated concept of causality have always been at the centre
of science: but how did these concepts evolve?
Galileo and Newton can be considered the theoreticians of “mechanical causality”, on the
basis of which all that we observe is determined by causes placed in the past. This concept
has been the basis of the presumption that it is possible to reproduce any phenomenon in a
laboratory. This type of causality is based on the description of a universe that moves from
the past to the future: time follows an arrow in which past can never come back, future does
not yet exist, and only the present moment is real. In this concept of time, the present is
totally determined by past causes. Experimental methodology is based on this concept of
time. This method, which allowed us to discover the laws of physics and chemistry with great
success, is now showing its limits in the study of living systems, since it can only study
cause-effect relations.

Corresponding author:1 Antonella Vannini, Lungotevere degli Artigiani, 32, 00153 Rome, Italy.
E-mail: antonella.vannini@gmail.com
Translated by Ulisse Di Corpo edited by Guy Dauncey

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 89
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

Over the last century, the concept of time has been revised. The starting point was the
famous “Lorentz transformations” which linked time and speed, from which Einstein’s special
relativity was born. Quantum mechanics derives its equations from Einstein’s special relativity,
such as the energy-momentum formula which links time, speed and mass. These equations
always have two solutions: one in which time moves from the past to the future, and the
other in which time moves in the opposite direction, from the future to the past. Using these
equations, Paul Dirac, in 1928, demonstrated the existence of the positron, the anti-particle
of the electron, and Feynman proved that each particle which moves in the usual retarded
way, from the past to the future, has an associated anti-particle which moves in the
anticipated way, from the future to the past (Feynman, 1949). Donald Ross linked the
existence of emitters and absorbers of photons to the interaction of diverging waves, which
propagate from the past to the future, and converging waves which, on the contrary,
propagate from the future to the past.
These discoveries are at the basis of the phenomenon known as “the inversion of the
time arrow”: particles that move not only from the past to the future, but also from the
future to the past. This is counter-intuitive, and difficult to accept on the basis of our daily
experience, but since the 1930’s it has been proved and it is now at the basis of modern
physics.
The duality of time, which started with Dirac’s famous equation of the electron, has
been used by King to describe brain structures (King, 1989). King states that these
structures face continuous bifurcations which derive from the encounter of information
which comes from the past (diverging waves, causes) and information which comes from the
future (converging waves, attractors). In each moment, our brain structures have to choose
which bifurcation to follow. King states that from this constant activity of choice, from this
non-deterministic process, we can understand free will, the learning process, and the
conscious brain. King named this model “supercausality”.
This work is organized in 7 chapters:
1. Chapter One, in which the mechanical concepts of time and causality are analysed.
2. Chapter Two, in which Einstein’s special relativity is introduced, and the supercausality of
quantum mechanics is discussed.
3. Chapter Three, in which the “unified theory of the physical and biological world” is
presented. Starting from the equations of special relativity and quantum mechanics, Luigi
Fantappiè, one of Italy’s major mathematicians, shows that diverging waves are governed
by the principle of entropy, while converging waves are governed by a symmetrical
principle which Fantappiè named Syntropy. Fantappiè shows that the qualities of Syntropy
are linked to living systems. He also shows that the experimental method can only study
cause/effect relations in which time flows from the past to the future, and is unable to
study syntropic relations in which time flows from the future to the past.
4. Chapter Four, in which the limits of the experimental method are discussed, and a new
methodology proposed: the methodology of concomitances, also known as relational
methodology. This was first described by Stuart Mill in 1843, and allows the study of any
type of relation without forcing a temporal direction.
5. Chapter Five, in which attractors are discussed and fractals are used as an example of
syntropic attractors.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 90
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

6. Chapter Six, in which a description of the brain based on quantum mechanics is

introduced.
7. Chapter Seven, in which a new vision of science which could overcome the fracture
between science and religion is presented.

1. Mechanical causality
I.1 The origins of the mechanical model in science: Newton’s universe and the life-machine
model
During the fifteen and sixteen centuries, the scientific revolution radically changed the
concept of the universe which humanity had embraced during the Middle Ages, and opened
the way to the understandings that we now have of the world.
The first signs of the scientific revolution can be traced back to the astronomical
observations of Nicholaus Copernicus (1473-1543), which put the Sun at the centre of the
universe and showed the contradictions of the geocentric system, in which the Earth was
placed at the centre of the universe, and based on the Aristotelian system. The Aristotelian
system was introduced by Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., and perfected by Ptolemy in
the second century A.D.. According to this system, the Earth sits at the centre of the
universe and the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn turn around it in circular
orbits, each using a different sphere. These spheres were contained within a greater sphere
of the fixed stars, behind which was the sphere of God. The new system proposed by
Copernicus, which represented a huge innovation in the astronomical field, was heliocentric,
placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, around which the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth,
Mars, Jupiter and Saturn all orbit, while the Moon orbits the Earth and the stars are
considered to be still.
Copernicus was followed by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who, thanks to astronomical
tables, arrived at the formulation of the three laws of planetary motion, developing the
Copernican heliocentric model into a scientific model.
The real change in scientific approach, however, can be found in the works of Galileo
Galilei (1564-1642) who, thanks to the telescope which had just been invented, was able to
empirically prove the Copernicus’ s hypothesis, and provide the evidence that the
Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology was not true. In this way, Copernicus’s hypothesis became
the proven scientific model. The empirical approach of Galileo’s work, and his use of
mathematics, opened the way to the scientific revolution. The great contribution of Galileo
can be found in the combination of scientific experiment and the use of mathematics. In
order to use mathematics, Galileo studied fundamental properties which could be observed
and measured.
In the same years during which Galileo was working on his ingenious experiments,
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was arriving at the formulation of the inductive method, deriving
general conclusions from the observation of the experimental method. He became one of
the major assertors of experimental methodology, courageously attacking the traditional
schools of thought which were based on Aristotelian deductive logic. The Aristotelian
method, starting from general laws, or postulates, deducts empirical consequences which
have to be proved; Bacon’s inductive method starts from empirical evidence to arrive at
general laws. In order to produce objective knowledge, Galileo’s and Bacon’s scientific

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 91
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

methods separated the observer from the observed.

This approach totally transformed the nature and purpose of science. Whereas
previously the purpose of science had been to understand nature and life, science’s purpose
now involved the controlling and manipulating of nature. As Bacon said: “Objective
knowledge will give command over nature, medicine, mechanical forces, and all other aspects
of the universe”. In this perspective, the aim of science becomes that of enslaving nature, of
using torture to extract its secrets. We are now far away from the concept of “Mother
Earth”, and this concept will be totally lost when the organic concept of nature will be
replaced by the mechanical concept of the world, which can be traced back to the works of
Newton and Descartes.
Descartes (1596-1650) based his work on the idea that the “book of nature” had been
written in mathematical characters. His aim was to reduce all physical phenomena to exact
mathematical equations. He believed that nature could be described using simple motion
equations, in which only space, position, and moment were relevant. “Give me position and
movement”, he said, “and I will build the universe”. Among Descartes’ greatest contributions
was his Analytical Method of Reasoning, according to which any problem can be
decomposed into its parts, and then reordered. This method lies at the foundation of
modern science, and has been of great importance, allowing the development of scientific
theories and complex technological projects. Descartes’ vision is based on the duality
between two reigns, separate and independent: the reign of spirit, or res cogitans, and the
reign of matter, or res extensa. This division between matter and spirit has had profound
consequences on culture, leading to the division of body and mind which still puzzles science.
According to Descartes, matter and spirit are created by God, who is the creator of the
exact order of nature that we see, thanks to the light of reasoning. However, in the following
centuries the reference to God was omitted and reality was divided into the human sciences,
linked to res cogitans and the natural sciences, which were an expression of res extensa.
Descartes’ vision described the material world as a machine which has no intentionality and
no spirituality; nature functions according to mechanical laws, and every aspect of the
material world can be explained on the basis of its position and movement. This mechanical
vision was extended by Descartes to living organisms, in the attempt to organize a complete
natural science. Plants and animals were considered simply as machines, whereas human
beings were “inhabited” by a rational soul (res cogitans) linked to the body (res extensa)
through the pineal gland, at the centre of the brain. The human body, on the other hand, was
similar to the body of an animal-machine. This highly mechanistic vision of nature was
inspired by the high precision that was being achieved at the time by the technology and art
of clock-making. Descartes compared animals to “clocks with mechanisms and springs” and
extended this comparison to the human body, comparing a sick body to a badly build clock,
and on the other hand, a healthy body to a well constructed and perfectly functioning clock.
The scientific revolution reached its maturity in the works of Isaac Newton
(1642-1728), who discovered the mathematical equations which govern mechanical motion,
unifying the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Galileo and Descartes. Kepler derived the
laws of planetary motion from the astronomical tables; Galileo discovered the laws of falling
bodies: Newton combined these results in a general formulation of laws which govern the
solar systems, the planets, and also stones (and apples). He found that each body is attracted

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 92
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

towards the Earth with the same force which attracts the planets to the Sun; he introduced
the concepts of inertia and gravity, arriving at the famous laws which govern motion:
1. The law of inertia (already stated by Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo) which shows that
bodies keep their movement until a force is applied to them,
2. The law of proportionality between force and acceleration, linking the force which is
applied to a body with the mass and acceleration which is impressed, following the
relation: F=ma,
3. The law of action and reaction, which shows that to each action there is a corresponding
similar and opposite reaction.
The importance of these laws is their universality. They were soon found to be valid
throughout the solar system, which was considered to prove the mechanical model which
had been proposed by Descartes. In 1686 Newton presented his complete concept of
nature and the world in the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical
principals of the philosophy of nature). This work is a set of definitions, propositions and
demonstrations that for more than two hundred years have been considered the most
exhaustive description of nature and the world. In the Principia Newton describes the
experimental method which he adopted, which he derived from the combination of the
empirical-inductive method described by Bacon and the rational-deductive method
described by Descartes. Newton says that experimental results have to be resumed into
theories, systematic interpretations, and deductions from theories have to be proved by
experiments: in the absence of one of these two aspects theories can not be considered
scientific. In this way Newton turned experimental methodology into the key element for
the production of scientific theories and knowledge.
Newton’s universe was the tri-dimensional space of the classical geometry of Euclid: an
empty space independent from what takes place in it. Time was considered absolute and not
linked to the material world: time flowed relentlessly from the past to the future, through
the present. In this space and absolute time, material particles, small solid and indivisible
objects, were governed by mechanical laws. Newton considered these particles to be
uniform, and explained the differences between types of matter as more or less thick
aggregations of atoms.
In Newton’s mechanics, all physical phenomena can be reduced to the movements of
elementary particles caused by their reciprocal attraction: the force of gravity. The effect of
gravity on a particle or on any material object is described by Newton’s mathematical
equations of motion, which are at the base of mechanics. In this concept of the universe,
empirical investigation could not extend to the elementary particles and the force of gravity:
gravity and elementary particles were a creation of God, and could not be investigated.
In Opticks, Newton gave a clear description of how he believed God created the
material world:
“I think that God first created matter in the form of solid particles, hard and
compact, indivisible and mobile, made of such dimensions and shapes, and of such
properties, to be the most adaptable to the purpose he had created them for; these
particles are solid, harder than any other body, so hard that they can never be
consumed or broken: no force can divide what God made at the moment of creation”.
In this way, Newton completed the vision of a gigantic cosmic machine, totally governed

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 93
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

by mechanical laws of causality: everything originated from a precise cause, and could be
determined using mathematical laws. Thus it would be possible to determine and calculate
the future states of the universe, if the initial states were known.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this mechanical approach was used to
explain even the smallest variations in the orbits of planets, satellites and comets, tides, and
whatever was linked to gravity. The model was then extended beyond the boundaries of
astronomy, and used to describe the behaviour of solids, liquids, gases, heat and sound.

1.2. Thermodynamics and entropy: heat death

During the nineteenth century, the use of Newtonian mechanics to describe the behaviour
of heat lead to a new discipline: thermodynamics. This discipline, which can be traced back to
the works of Boyle, Boltzmann, Claius and Carnot, studies the behaviour of energy, of which
heat is a form. Gases at the base of thermal machines were studied and the transformation
of energy into work was analyzed; this lead to the discovery of three new laws:
1. The law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or
destroyed, but only transformed.
2. The law of entropy, which states that when transforming energy (for example from heat
to work) part is lost to the environment. Entropy is a measure of the quantity of energy
which is lost to the environment. When energy lost to the environment is distributed in
a uniform way (ie where no differences in heat exist), a state of equilibrium is reached
and it is no longer possible to transform energy into work. Entropy measures how close
a system is to this state of equilibrium.
3. The law of disorder which states that within an isolated system entropy cannot diminish.
When an isolated system reaches the highest level of entropy no further transformation
can take place: the system has reached a state of equilibrium, known as heat death.
The principle of entropy (as expressed in the second law of thermodynamics) is of great
importance, as it introduces into physics the idea of irreversible processes, such as that
energy always moves from a state of high potential to a state of low potential, tending to a
state of equilibrium. Sir Arthur Eddington introduced the expression “the arrow of time”
(Eddington, 1958), showing that entropy forces events to move in one particular direction:
from a situation of high potentials to one of low potentials, from past to future. Our
experience continually informs us about entropy variations, and about the irreversible
process that leads to the dissipation of energy and the heat death: we see our friends
becoming old and die; we see a fire losing intensity and turning into cold ashes; we see the
world increasing in entropy: pollution, depleted energy sources, desertification.
The term irreversibility refers to the fact that in physical processes there is a tendency
to move from order to disorder, and it is impossible to restore the previous level of order
in which all energy was available: mechanical energy dissipates in the form of heat and cannot
be recaptured. If we mix together hot and cold water we get tepid water, but we would
never see the two liquids separate spontaneously.
The third law of thermodynamics, derived from the second law, states that the
dissipation of energy is an irreversible process, since dissipated energy can not be recaptured
and used again, and that the entropy of an isolated system (which cannot receive energy or

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 94
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

information from outside) can only increase until a state of equilibrium is reached (heat
death).
The term “entropy” was first used in the middle of the eighteenth century by Rudolf
Clausius, who was searching for a mathematical equation to describe the increase of entropy.
Entropy is the combination of the Greek words “tropos”, which means transformation or
evolution, and the word “energy”: it is a quantity which is used to measure the level of
evolution of a physical system, but in the meantime it can be used to measure the “disorder”
of a system. Entropy is always associated with an increasing level of disorder. In an isolated
physical system disorder (ie the homogeneous distribution of energy) increases leading to
entropic heat death. Nevertheless, this seems to be contradicted by life: living systems evolve
towards order, towards higher forms of organization, diversification and complexity, and can
keep away from heat death.
Jacques Monod tried to explain life as the result of improbable conditions (Monod,
1974). In this way life could be considered compatible with the laws of entropy, but its
survival was a continual fight against the laws of physics, which made life highly improbable.
Entropy evolves only in one direction: towards death and the elimination of any form of
organization and structure. In order to become compatible with entropy, biology explains life
as the consequence of highly improbable events constituted by the incidental formation of
genetic codes and positive genetic variations. Entropy leads to the concept of a universe in
which life is extraneous, a universe governed by laws which ignore life. Jacques Monod
describes this, saying: “If he accepts this message in its full significance, man must at last wake
out of his millenary dream and discover his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. He must
realise that, like a gypsy, he lives on the boundary of an alien world; a world that is deaf to his
music, and as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his suffering or his crimes.”

2. Supercausality and the symmetry of time

2.1 Einstein: special relativity and time
In two articles dated 1905, Albert Einstein started two revolutionary tendencies: one was
the special theory of relativity; the other was a new way to consider electromagnetic
radiations, which would become the model of a new important theory of modern physics,
the quantum theory of the atomic world.
Before Albert Einstein, time was thought to be absolute, whereas speed was relative.
This description was known as Galileo’s relativity. In order to explain it, Galileo used the
example of a sailor who fires a cannon in the direction in which a ship is moving: an
observer on the sea shore would see the speed of the cannon ball result from the sum of
the speed of the ship plus the speed at which the ball was fired; while the sailor on the ship
would see the ball moving only at the speed at which the ball was fired.
At the end of the eighteenth century Maxwell found in electromagnetism experiments
that the speed of light did not add to the speed of the body which was emitting it, and
Michelson and Morley proved experimentally that the speed of light was a constant: it never
adds to the speed of the body which is emitting it. The profoundly innovative researches of
H.A. Lorentz, on electrodynamics and optics in moving bodies, lead to mathematical
equations in which the speed of light is always constant.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 95
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

Analysing the results obtained by Michelson, Morley and Lorentz, Einstein found himself
forced to invert Galileo’s relativity according to which time is absolute and speed is relative;
in order to describe the fact that the speed of light is constant, it was necessary to accept
that time is relative. As an example, let us imagine, after 500 years, a sailor on a very fast
space ship heading towards the Earth who shoots a laser light ray towards Earth. An
observer on Earth would see the laser light moving at 300,000 km/s, the speed of light, but
the sailor on the space ship would also see the laser ray moving at 300,000 km/s. The
strange thing is that, because the space ship is moving very fast, approaching the speed of
light, the sailor should see the laser ray moving at the speed of light minus the speed of the
space ship, and not at 300,000 km/s. Einstein arrived at a mathematical demonstration that
what varies is not the speed of light, but time. When we move in the direction of light our
time slows, and for us light continues to move at the same speed. This leads to the
conclusion that approaching the speed of light time would slow down and stop, and if we
could move at speeds higher than the speed of light, time would reverse.
In other words, events which happen in the direction in which we are moving become
faster, because time slows down, but events which happen in the direction from which we
are coming become slower, because time becomes faster.
In order to explain this situation, Einstein liked to use the example of lightning which
strikes a railway simultaneously in two different points, A and B, far away from each other
(Einstein, 1967). An observer sitting on a bench half-way would see the lightning strike the
two points simultaneously, but a second observer on a very fast train moving from A to B
(figure 1) passing next to the first observer at the moment in which the lightning strikes the
two points would have already experienced the lightning striking point B, but would have not
experienced the lightning striking point A. Even if the two observers share the same point of
space at the same moment, they cannot agree on the events which are happening in the
direction in which the second observer is moving. Agreeing on the existence of
contemporary events is therefore linked to the speed at which the observers are moving.

Obs.2

Obs.1

Perpendicular
plane
A
Fig 1. Einstein’s example of lightning striking a railway simultaneously in two different points A and B.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 96
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

In other words, events which take place in the direction in which we are moving
become faster, because our time slows down; but events which happen in the direction
opposite to our movement become slower, because our time speeds up. It is important to
note that time flows differently if the event is happening in the direction towards which we
are moving, or in the direction from which we are coming: in the first case they become
slower and in the second case faster.
This example is limited to two observers; but what happens when we compare more
than two observers moving in different directions at high speeds? The first couple (one on
the bench and the other in the train) can reach an agreement only on the contemporary
existence of events which happen on a plane perpendicular to the movement of the train. If
we add a third observer moving in another direction, but sharing the same place and
moment with the other two observers, they would agree only on events placed on a line
which unites the two perpendicular planes; if we add a fourth observer, they would agree
only on a point which unites the three perpendicular planes; if we add a fifth observer, who is
not even sharing the same point in space, no agreement would be possible at all. If we
consider that only what happens in the same moment exists (Newton’s time concept), we
would be forced to conclude that reality does not exist. In order to re-establish an
agreement between the different observers, and in this way the existence of reality, we need
to accept the coexistence of events which could be future or past for us, but contemporary
for another observer. Extending these considerations, we arrive at the necessary
consequence that past, present and future coexist.
Einstein himself found it difficult to accept this consequence of special relativity,
according to which past, present and future coexist; but the unified time model was
perfected by Minkowski, who coined the term “chronotopes” to describe the union of space
and time. Since Einstein presented his theory of relativity, time has become a dimension of
space: space is no longer limited to 3 dimensions. As we can move in space, so we can also
move in time: space now has 4 dimensions, and is therefore named space-time.
Another important consequence of the theory of relativity is that mass is a form of
energy, and even a stationary object has energy in its mass. The relation between mass and
energy is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2, where c is the speed of light, m the mass
and e the energy. The equivalence between mass and energy opened the way to quantum
mechanics, where mass is no longer associated with a material substance, but seen as a type
of energy. Particles are therefore now studied according to relativity, where time and space
are united in a four-dimensional continuum. Atomic particles are now considered dynamically
to be forms of time-space: their space form makes them appear as objects with mass, while
their time form makes them appear as waves with energy. Since the introduction of relativity,
matter and its activity are two aspects which can no longer be separated: they are two forms
of the same space-time unity.
In 1915 Einstein presented the “general relativity” model, in which the force of gravity
was added to special relativity.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 97
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

2.2. Quantum mechanics and supercausality

The concept of anti-matter can be dated to 1928, when Paul Dirac formulated his famous
relativistic equations of the electron. Dirac noted that the energy-momentum equation had
two solutions: the electron with positive energy (or retarded potentials, in which waves
diverge from causes located in the past) and the electron with negative energy (or
anticipated potentials, in which waves converge towards causes located in the future). The
only way to explain the anticipated potentials was to admit the existence of symmetrical
particles: the positrons. These particles are identical to the electron but have an inverted
flow of time: while the electron moves from the past to the future, the positron moves from
the future to the past. The existence of the positron was proved empirically two years later,
when Andersen demonstrated their existence in cosmic rays. Now we know that in nature
each atomic particle has a corresponding anti-particle, symmetrical in time and energy, which
flows from the future to the past. Feynman, in 1949, thanks to his famous diagrams, arrived at
an important generalization which can be summarized by saying that all particles move from
the past to the future, while all anti-particles move from the future to the past.
In Fractals of brain, fractals of mind, it is possible to read Chris King’s article “Fractal
Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos”, in which he presents the model of “supercausality”.
King starts from the energy/moment equation which links energy, matter and movement:
e2 = p2 + m2
in which: e corresponds to energy, p to moment and m to mass.

This equation shows that the value of energy e=± (p2+m2) has two solutions:
• The first one, + (p2+m2), with a positive sign, corresponds to positive energy in which
time flows in the usual way, from past to future;
• The second solution, - (p2+m2), with a negative sign, corresponds to negative energy in
which time is inverted and flows from the future to the past.
It is well known that square-roots always give way to two solutions, one positive and
one negative: this leads to the mathematical possibility of the existence of a symmetrical type
of energy and time. If we put negative energy into the famous equation E=mc2, we get
negative matter. Einsten showed that positive matter can only tend to the speed of light, but
never reach it; on the contrary, negative matter can only move at a speed higher than the
speed of light, flowing, according to special relativity, from the future to the past: this
situation is know as the inversion of the time arrow. In this way, quantum mechanics arrived
at a description of the universe which is symmetrical in respect of time: on one hand there is
matter which moves from the past to the future, on the other hand there is anti-matter
which moves from the future to the past.
This concept of the universe had its first demonstration with the discovery, by Dirac, of
the anti-particle of the electron, the positron. Later Feynman generalized the existence of
anti-particles to all atomic particles, while Donald Ross Hamilton showed that for each light
emitter an absorber must exist, for which time flows in the opposite direction. King outlined
the contribution of Cramer, who showed that the encounter of emitters and absorbers can
be used in quantum mechanics to describe the creation of photons which are the result of
the interaction of past and future, of diverging and converging waves (Cramer, 1986). This
constant interaction between past and future creates a paradox which cannot be solved on

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 98
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

the basis of time determinism. As Penrose has shown, the space-time description which is
now emerging is incompatible with traditional concepts of causality and determinism
(Penrose, 1989). The fact that past and future causes coexist is named by King as
“supercausality”. In this model, King uses the concept of time inversion to describe brain
structures. According to King, brain structures are constantly faced with bifurcations
generated by the encounter of information coming from the past (diverging waves, causes)
and information coming from the future (converging waves, attractors). In each moment,
brain structures have to decide which path to follow, which bifurcation. According to King,
free-will and learning are a result of this constant activity of choice, this constant
indeterminism.

2.3. The role of information: the Boolean observer

Giuseppe and Salvatore Arcidiacono have shown that even the equations of ondulatory
mechanics give way to two solutions: diverging waves, with causes located in the past, and
converging waves, with causes located in the future (Arcidiacono, 1991). It is therefore
possible to state that besides mechanical causation, another type of causation exists which
Giuseppe and Salvatore Arcidiacon named final causation. This consideration leads to a
description of life which is no longer linear but circular, in which both mechanical and final
causation are required. Life becomes the result of the constant interactions between causes
placed in the past (diverging waves) and causes placed in the future (converging waves): the
question as to whether tissues are determined by cells or cells are determined by tissues
can be solved by accepting both alternatives. Life is no longer a machine, but a creative
system which tends towards causes located in the future. According to Davies, science has
been dominated for centuries by Newton’s vision which describes the universe as a machine,
but now we know that the laws of the universe are creative, and that they support evolution
and innovative processes (Davies, 1974).
Similarly to King, Giuseppe and Salvatore Arcidiacono describe living systems as
constantly placed in a state of choice between Boolean alternatives: between information
coming from the past and information coming from the future. This constant choice is at the
base of all learning and growth.
Several authors have emphasized that information reduces entropy. A typical example
is how information optimizes the use of energy: the first computer, ENIAC (Electronic
Numerical Integrator and Calculator), could perform small calculations using the amount of
energy which was needed by a town of 30,000 inhabitants; nowadays, computers perform
calculations which are incredibly complex consuming less energy than is needed to light a
small table lamp. This drastic reduction in entropy has been possible thanks to the increase in
information in modern computers.
Following these considerations, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, father of the general system
theory, considered information to be any element which reduces entropy, showing that
information can take the form of a project, an organization, a structure, or generally a system.
Bertalanffy associated information with a new quality which he named neg-entropy: negative
entropy (Bertalanffy, 1977). Léon Brillouin also associated information with neg-entropy; his
deep knowledge of statistical mechanics and telecommunications gave him the chance to
recognize the importance of information: he equates information and entropy, showing that a

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 99
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

precise relation exists between the energy of a system and the information present in the
system. “Entropy is a measure of the loss of information: the higher the information, the
lower the entropy. Information represents the negative term of entropy, and therefore it is
possible to define information as negative entropy” (Brillouin, 1962). Costa de Beauregard
introduced the concept of information which comes from the future: “In quantum mechanics
it is possible to carry out experiments deciding only after the experiment is started which
aspect of reality we want to observe. If, for example, two particles originate from a common
point, we can decide later if we want to observe them as waves or as particles. Now, in an
astrophysics laboratory, when we decide whether to see waves or particles of photons
coming from distant quasars, we generate a backwards effect to the moment when photons
were emitted, 4 billion years ago. What happened 4 billion years ago is determined by what
we decide to see in our laboratory” (Beauregard, 1957). Fred Hoyle noted that the only way
to introduce concepts of order and organization in physics is to use information which
comes from the future (Hoyle, 1984).
We can conclude by saying that one of the main qualities of the inversion of the time
arrow is the increase in information, and, as a consequence, the reduction of entropy.

2.4. How can we interpret life?

• As we have just seen,
• Newton’s physics describes life as a machine,
• Thermodynamics and entropy consider life impossible or highly improbable,
• Quantum physics describes life as a consequence of negative energy entropy and the
inversion of the time arrow.
Recently, many different proposals have arisen:
• Erwin Schrödinger talks about the concept of negative entropy. He was looking for the
nutrient which is hidden in our food, and which keeps us away from the heat death. Why
do we need to eat biological food; why can we not feed directly on the chemical
elements of matter? Schrödinger answers this question by saying that what we feed on is
not matter but neg-entropy, which we absorb through the metabolic process
(Schrödinger, 1988).
• Ilya Prigogine, winner in 1977 of the Nobel prize for chemistry, introduced in his book
“The New Alliance”, a new type of thermodynamics, the “thermodynamics of dissipative
systems”, typical of living systems. Prigogine stated that this new type of thermodynamics
can not be reduced to dynamics or thermodynamics (Prigogine, 1979).
• Hermann Haken, one of the fathers of the laser, introduced a level that he named
“ordinator”, which he uses to explain the principles of orders typical of the laser light
(Haken, 1983).
• Teilhard de Chardin introduced the concept of radial energy, which brought him to the
formulation of his “law of complexification” that he used to explain why biological
systems evolve towards forms which are always more complex (Teilhard de Chardin,
1955).
In 1941, Luigi Fantappiè developed his well known “unified theory of the physical and
biological worlds”, where he demonstrated the existence of a principle which is symmetrical
to entropy, which he named “syntropy”. The importance of his concept is due to the fact that

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 100
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

it was introduced not in an arbitrary way, but as the consequence of quantum mechanics. For
this reason, the next chapter will be dedicated to the work of Luigi Fantappiè.

3. Syntropy, entropy and living systems

3.1 Fantappiè: a short biography
Luigi Fantappiè was born in Viterbo, Italy, on the 15th of September 1901. He graduated in
high mathematics at the age of 21 on the 4th of July 1922 in the most selective Italian
university, the “Scuola Normale di Pisa”, where he was a room-mate and close friend of
Enrico Fermi. In 1926 he became professor of algebraic mathematics at the University of
Florence, and in 1927 of infinitesimal analysis at the University of Palermo. His important
mathematical researches were recognized with the Mathematical Medal of the Italian Science
Society in 1929, and with the prize in mathematics of the “Accademia dei Lincei” and with
the Volta prize of the “Accedemia d’Italia” in 1931. In 1931-32 he taught in the Universities of
Berlin, Gottinga, Munich, Colonia, Friburgo and Lipsia, and in 1932 he became Director of the
Institute of Mathematics at the University of Bologna. After 6 years in Brazil, where he
founded and directed the Mathematical Institute of San Paolo, he became vice-president of
the National Institute of High Mathematics at the University of Rome (founded and directed
by Francesco Severi) where he taught high mathematics analysis. In 1954 he was nominated
Accademico dei Lincei,and in 1955 he was given the golden medal as Benemerito della
Cultura. He died in Bagnaia on the 28th of July 1956.

3.2 The unified theory of the physical and biological world

At the beginning of 1940, Luigi Fantappiè was working on the equations of relativistic and
quantum physics when he noted that the equation of D'Alembert, which governs the
propagation of waves, had two solutions:
1. The solution of the “retarded potentials”, which describes waves diverging from a
source, from causes located in the past which have produced them;
2. The solution of the “anticipated potentials”, which describes waves converging
towards a source, to a cause located in the future.
Diverging waves (for example heat, sound and radio waves) describe phenomena which
are caused by the past, while waves which converge describe all those phenomena which are
attracted towards causes located in the future. What Fantappiè discovered can be
considered a natural evolution of quantum mechanics:
• In 1905, Einstein had introduced the special theory of relativity, which described the
universe using four dimensions: three dimensions of space and a fourth dimension
relative to time, paving the way for descriptions in which past, present and future
co-exit;
• In 1928, Dirac demonstrated the existence of the positron as an anti-particle of the
electron, starting the first studies on antimatter and the inversion of time.
• At last, quantum mechanic demonstrated that every physical law is symmetrical in
respect of time.
Fantappiè discovered that:
• diverging waves, in which causes are located in the past, describe chemical and
physical phenomena governed by the principal of entropy;

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 101
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

• converging waves, in which causes are located in the future, describe a new type of
phenomenon, governed by a principle symmetrical to entropy which Fantappiè
named syntropy.
• life is governed by the principle of syntropy, expressing finality, differentiation, order
and organization.
These discoveries were presented on the 30th of October 1942 at the Accademia
d'Italia, in the form of volume titled “The Unified Theory of the Physical and Biological
World”.
3.3 Qualities of entropic phenomena
Entropic phenomena are the consequence of waves which diverge from causes located in
the past. Their main characteristics are:
• Causality: diverging waves that exist as a consequence of causes located in the past;
• Entropy: diverging waves that tend towards levelling (and heat death).
The principle of causality implies some very important considerations about the limits of
the experimental method. As we saw in the first chapter, modern science was started by
Galileo using the experimental method, based on the assumption that natural laws can be
reproduced and studied. Using the experimental method, it is only possible to study laws
which can be caused. Therefore, in the last three hundred years, science has studied only one
side of reality, the entropic side, discovering laws which are relative only to one part of the
universe: the mechanical, deterministic and entropic side of reality, which can be manipulated
by the researcher.

3.4 Qualities of syntropic phenomena

The properties of syntropic phenomena, governed by the solutions of anticipated potentials
described by converging waves, were carefully described by Fantappiè:
• Syntropic phenomena cannot be reproduced, since their causes are located in the future.
• Syntropic phenomena can be influenced only indirectly, through specific entropic
phenomena which interact with syntropic phenomena.
• In nature, syntropy and entropy interact constantly.
• Syntropic phenomena concentrate matter and energy: converging waves attract in
smaller places energy and matter (ie this principle is well described by the large
quantities of energy accumulated by living systems of the past and now available in the
form of coal, petrol and gases).
• Syntropic phenomena exchange matter and energy. Because syntropic phenomena lead
to the concentration of matter and energy, and this concentration cannot be indefinite,
entropic processes are needed to compensate syntropic concentration. These processes
take the form of the exchange of matter and energy with the environment.
• In syntropic phenomena, entropy diminishes. Entropic phenomena are governed by the
second law of thermodynamics according to which a system tends towards homogeneity
and disorder. The inversion of the time arrow also inverts the second law of
thermodynamics, such that a reduction in entropy and an increase in differentiation are
observed.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 102
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

• Syntropic phenomena are the consequence of final causes, attractors, which absorb
converging waves. These final causes are the “cause” of syntropic systems; in this way it is
possible to introduce scientific finalism, where finalism means final causes.

3.5 How can syntropic phenomena be studied? Fantappiè’s proposal

Since syntropic phenomena can not be caused or manipulated directly, this presents a major
limitation to the use of the experimental method. Fantappiè tried to overcome this by
suggesting that, as happens in quantum mechanics where laws are symmetrical in respect of
time, syntropic phenomena could be studied as negatives of corresponding entropic
phenomena, similar to a film which is shown backwards. In order to study a syntropic
phenomenon which is symmetrical to an entropic phenomenon, it would be necessary to
imagine time flowing in the opposite direction. One of the examples which Fantappiè used
was that of the chlorophyll process, as the negative of the combustion process: combustion
can always be caused, so it is clearly an entropic phenomenon; observing combustion we see
a very differentiated system, such as a leaf characterized by many different chemical
substances, cells, and structures, which while burning absorbs oxygen and emits carbon
dioxide, water, heat and infrared light . If we invert the arrow of time, obtaining in this way
the negative of the combustion process, we see a body which absorbs carbon dioxide, water,
heat, infrared light (living in this way through green light) and which emits oxygen. We see a
green object in which the chlorophyll process takes place: water and heat are absorbed, and
oxygen released.
Unfortunately this method is still subject to deterministic causation, as it is the
negative of an entropic process, and does not consider the Boolean observer; the fact that a
syntropic phenomenon is always faced with choices between stimuli from the past and
stimuli from the future, and that the outcome of these choices can not be determined, at
least not in pure probabilistic terms.

3.6 Syntropy and vitalism

To overcome the difficulties generated by the principle of entropy, eighteen century
biologists proposed the introduction of vital forces which oppose physical and chemical
forces. These vital forces would have governed living systems in different ways from physical
forces. The hypothesis was based on the fact that it had not been possible to produce living
substances from inorganic matter. But the artificial production of urea, obtained by Woehler
in 1828, through organic synthesis, proved that vitalism was wrong.
Even if syntropy is a typical quality of living organisms, it is profoundly different from
vitalism, as it derives naturally from physical laws.

4. The science of living systems: From the experimental method to relational methodology
4.1 Experimental and relational methodologies: a comparison
Fantappiè showed that living systems are governed by causes, or attractors, located in the
future, and that science has been limited by the experimental method which can only study
systems in which causes are located in the past. In his attempt to enable the scientific study
of syntropic phenomena, Fantappiè tried, with little success, to develop a “negative”
methodology. In this chapter, the relational methodology is presented.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 103
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

John Stuart Mill, in “A System of Logic”, first published in 1843, showed that relations can
be investigated in two ways:
• Using the methodology of differences, which is at the base of the experimental method,
• Using the methodology of concomitances, which is at the base of the relational method.
The distinction can also be found in “The scientific use of factor analysis” (Cattell, 1976).
Cattell divides scientific methodologies into ANOVA (Analysis of Variance, based on the
study of differences) and CORAN (Correlational Analysis), which studies concomitances.
While ANOVA studies cause-effect relations, where the cause is placed in the past, and is
therefore limited to entropic phenomena, CORAN studies relations of any type without
forcing a causal direction, and it is therefore capable of studying any aspect of reality: either
entropic or syntropic. The experimental method has been of great importance in the study
of physical and mechanical laws, but not in the study of the life sciences where, as Cattell
underlines, the CORAN methodology is needed. This distinction between experimental and
relational methods is also underlined by other authors.
The limits of experimental methodology are,
• it can only work with deterministic relations (cause-effect),
• it can only use quantitative information,
• it can only produce analytical information,
• it requires a controlled and artificial environment (a laboratory).
Whereas the qualities of the relational methodology are;
• it allows the study of any kind of relation,
• it provides information on the strength of the relations,
• it is possible to study many relations at the same time, producing global and analytical
information,
• it is possible to study an unlimited number of qualitative and quantitative variables at the
same time,
• it is possible to use "a-posteriori" controls, developing information which can reproduce
the complexity of natural phenomena,
• it can simultaneously study different phenomena, enabling interdisciplinary studies,
• it is possible to work directly on the spot without requiring a controlled environment,
• it can work on any type of groups, not requiring similar or "randomized" groups.
Without need for artificial manipulation, the relational method allows “ecological”
research mainly based on observation (questionnaires, interviews, forms). In this way the
research activity becomes easy and inexpensive, and applicable to any kind of situation and
problem. At present the relational method is used in the form of cross tables, correlations,
factor analysis, and generally in the form of non-parametric statistics.
Fritjof Capra has shown that the discovery of the dual aspect of matter and the key role
of probability destroyed the classical description of solid objects (Capra, 1992). Sub-atomic
particles are no longer objects but correlations, and in quantum mechanics objects have
been replaced with correlations. This shift from objects to correlations has deep
consequences. As Bateson says, each “object” should be defined not by “what it is”, but on
the basis of the relations it has with different “objects”; correlations should be used to define
objects and situations, and this new approach should be taught to children from elementary
school onwards (Bateson, 1979).

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 104
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

5. Interaction between syntropy and entropy: complexity and order

5.1 Science of chaos
In the model of Fatanppiè-Arcidiacono, each expression of reality is described as the
consequence of a particular form of interaction between entropy and syntropy; it is
therefore possible to observe 3 categories:
• Entropic phenomena, in which entropic aspects prevail: their qualities are governed by
the principle of entropy. As a consequence, the evolution from complex to simple and
homogeneous states is observed.
• Syntropic phenomena, in which syntropic aspects prevail: their qualities are governed by
the principle of syntropy. As a consequence, the evolution from simple to complex and
differentiated states is observed.
• Equilibrium phenomena, in which the syntropic and entropic aspects reach an
equilibrium: in these phenomena it is not possible to observe syntropic differentiation
and entropic levelling. These phenomena are placed between determinism (causes placed
in the past) and indeterminism (attractors, causes placed in the future).
Equilibrium phenomena are governed by the following principles:
• The principle of causality-attraction, on the basis of which each phenomenon is the
product of causes driven by attractors. As a consequence it depends not only by the past
(efficient causes), but also by the future (attractors),
• The principle of partial reproducibility, on the basis of which it is possible to manipulate
the entropic side directly, but the syntropic side only indirectly. This means that the
syntropic aspects of the universe are outside the reach of researchers,
• The principle of levelling-differentiation, on the basis of which the entropic component is
subject to levelling while the syntropic component is subject to differentiation. As a
consequence of each constructive process, a levelling process is associated.
Equilibrium phenomena suggest that attractors can be observed even in physical
phenomena. In 1963 the meteorologist Lorenz discovered the existence of chaotic systems
which react, in each point of their states, to small variations. Studying, for example, a simple
mathematical model of meteorological phenomena, Lorenz found that a small perturbation
could generate a chaotic state which would amplify, making weather forecasting impossible
(Lorenz, 1963). Analysing these unforeseeable events, Lorenz found the existence of an
attractor which he named the “chaotic attractor of Lorenz”: this attractor causes
microscopic perturbations to be amplified, and interfere with the macroscopic behaviour of
the system. Lorenz described this situation with the words: “The flap of a butterfly’s wing in
Brazil can set off a Tornado in Texas”.
Lorenz’s discovery started the science of chaos, which is centred on attractors. In this
regards it is interesting to note the contradiction in the way the words “order” and
“disorder” are used. In thermodynamics disorder is a property of mechanical deterministic
systems, governed by entropy with causes in the past, while order is a property of syntropy
and attractors, in which causes are placed in the future. In the science of chaos, on the
contrary, order is associated with deterministic systems (entropic systems), while disorder is
associated with attractors (syntropic systems). The origin of this contradiction can be found
in the fact that in the science of chaos, “ordered” systems are those which can be predicted
(a property which is true only within entropic systems), while “disordered” systems are

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 105
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

those which can not be predicted (a property which is true within syntropic systems). The
science of chaos links order to entropy and disorder to syntropy; but, as we have seen
already, as a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is linked to
disorder and syntropy is linked to order. The fact that syntropic phenomena are attracted by
the future and can not be predicted in a precise and mathematical way is associated at the
micro-level with chaos and disorder.
It is interesting to note that the forms of order which syntropy generates at the
macro-level are accompanied, at the micro-level, with chaotic / non-deterministic processes.

5.2 Chaos and fractals

Fractal geometry, which was started in the 1970’s by Mandelbrot, shows that by inserting
attractors in a geometrical system, complex and ordered figures are generated. In fractal
geometry an attractor is an operation, a function which tends to a limit which will never be
reached (Mandelbrot, 1987). For example, if we repeat the square-root of any positive
number except one, the result will tend to one, but never reach it. The number one is
therefore the attractor of the square-root of positive numbers. In the same way, if we square
a number superior to one the result will tend to infinity, and if we square a number inferior
to one the result will tend to zero. Fractal figures are a result of the interaction of attractors
introduced into a geometrical figure; fractals show, in a visual way, what happens when
syntropy and entropy interact together.
Fractal geometry reproduces some of the most important structures of living
systems, and many researchers are arriving to the conclusion that life processes follow
fractal geometry: the outline of a leaf, the growth of corals, the form of the brain and the
nervous terminations.
An incredible number of fractal structures has been discovered, for example:
1. Blood arteries and coronary veins show ramifications which are fractals. Veins divide into
smaller veins which divide into smaller ones. It seems that these fractal structures have
an important role in the contractions and conduction of electrical stimuli: the spectral
analysis of the heart frequency shows that the normal frequency resembles a chaotic
structure,
2. Neurons show fractal structures: if neurons are examined at low magnifications,
ramifications can be observed from which other ramifications depart, and so on,
3. Lungs follow fractal designs which can easily be replicated with a computer. They form a
tree with multiple ramifications, and with configurations which are similar at both low
and high magnifications.
These observations have lead to the hypothesis that the organization and evolution of
living systems (tissues, nervous system, etc.) can be guided by attractors (causes placed in
the future) in a similar way that which happens in fractal geometry.
Fractal structures of the human body grow in complexity following the evolution of
life. Fractal structures in living organisms probably evolve through limited information which
forms part of a complex algorithm, and guides living organisms in their evolution.
At present, medicine seems to be one of the leading fields in the study and
development of fractal science and the science of chaos. Researchers need to understand in
a deeper way how evolution is guided by attractors, and how apparently chaotic systems are

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 106
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

part of higher forms of order. For instance, brain processes are characterized by the
co-presence of chaos and order: chaos is observed at the micro-level where
non-deterministic processes take place, while order is observed at the macro-level where
attractors lead inevitably to an increase in syntropy.

6. Quantum processes in the brain: chaos dynamics

6.1 The quantum brain
C. King states that “Dual-time supercausality results in pseudo-random behavior consistent
with the probability interpretation, which is non-local not only in space, but also in time. This
could enable a neural net to become internally interconnected through sub-quantum effects
which were non-local in time, and hence enable a form of predictivity unavailable through
classical computation. The mutual exchange of quanta between such units would make them
a contingent transactional set of emitters and absorbers.”
Chris King introduces the possibility of processes which are non-local in time and space.
It is important to remember that the concept of non-locality derives from the inversion of
the time arrow, which is a consequence of the existence of anti-particles which move faster
than the speed of light (as shown in the second chapter). This inversion of the time arrow
opens communication gates between points of the universe which are non-local in time and
space; gates which are described by the expression time/space non-locality.
The existence of non-local processes is one of the main qualities of the inversion of the
time arrow, and could be considered one of the basic qualities of syntropic processes and
attractors. Living systems and brain processes are typical expressions of syntropic properties,
so it is consistent to consider non-locality a quality of living systems, and in particular of
brain processes.
Jeffrey Satinover in a recent book suggests that the human brain shows structures
which seem perfectly designed to capture and amplify quantum effects (Satinover, 2002).
In 1948, while working on the hypothesis of quantum processes in life structures, Luigi
Fantappiè suggested that the brain could act as a quantum gate in which past, present and
future coexist. As an example, Fantappiè suggested that memory, according to quantum
mechanics, could use non-local processes, thereby connecting directly with distant points of
space and time. When we remember past events, the brain would link to this non-local event,
which is placed in the past but is still present, and the information would come directly
through the link and not from “memory storage” inside the brain. After 60 years, this
incredibly suggestive hypothesis is still too courageous, but it could open new frontiers in
the understanding of how the human brain and memory work.
King states that the supercausal model derived from quantum physics shows that free
will is a consequence of the fact that cells are constantly forced to choose between
information which comes from the past (diverging waves, emitters/entropy) and information
which comes from the future (converging waves, absorbers/syntropy). This constant state of
choice gives form to chaotic behaviours on which the conscious brain feeds, a process which
is syntropic and not reproducible in a laboratory, or through computational techniques.
Widening psychology to non-local quantum-mechanics and to the qualities of syntropy,
and introducing the relational method alongside the experimental method would open the
way to scientific investigations which could deal with all those topics, which modern

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 107
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

psychology has currently kept outside its reach, such as parapsychology.

6.2 Chaos dynamics in the brain: the research of Walter Freeman

When we consider the hypothesis that there are chaotic processes in the brain, it is
important to emphasize the works of the neuroscientist Walter Freeman, who worked for
over thirty years studying the chaotic dynamics of the brain.
In one of his recent books, Freeman underlined the enormous complexity of the brain,
and the inability of the linear causal model to describe and explain its complexity.
The brain is a highly dynamic and complex system: it contains approximately 10 billion
neurons, connected in a complex non-continual network consisting of more than 1000
billion synapses. According to Freeman, the functioning of such a network can be understood
only by using models derived from the modern theory of non-linear dynamical systems,
based on the properties of self-organization and emerging phenomena: even simpler systems,
such as the surface of a fluid or a mix of chemical products, which are characterized by a
high number of interacting substances, can generate macroscopic and global properties
under particular circumstances which do not exist at the level of the basic substances, and
which are therefore indicated as “emerging phenomena”.
These properties depend upon patterns which result from non-linear interactions
among elementary substances. From a physical point of view, these non-linear interactions
can be traced back to feedback loops in which the components of a system are connected
circularly in such a way that each element stimulates the following until the last one
stimulates the first. Thanks to this circular organization, the behaviour of each element is
influenced by all the others. This allows the system to self regulate until it reaches a dynamic
equilibrium where the elements which are part of the system are affected by the global state
generated together.
This circular interaction, or ring, allows the system to self-organize spontaneously
without any external agent controlling the organization.
In his studies of brain dynamics, using rabbits which were left free to smell the
environment, Freeman found chaotic processes in the recognition of odours. Using EEG,
Freeman measured neural activity during and after the odour stimuli, and represented them
in space using a computational model. Freeman showed that the forms which were obtained,
which were irregular but structured, represent chaotic attractors (or strange attractors, as
described in the fifth chapter). Each attractor corresponds to the behaviour shown by the
system as a consequence of a particular stimulus, such as a well known odour. The model
interprets a smell act as a dynamic explosion from the chaotic attractor basin to that of
another attractor: in other words, a reaction to external simulation gives place to a global
activity (registered by EEG) which is chaotic, but ordered and structured; if the stimulations
change even slightly, the neurons instantly produce another configuration, which is complex
but still ordered.
According to the author, these chaotic dynamics can also be observed in other forms of
perception.
In conclusion, Freeman says that “The great advantage that chaos can give to the brain is
that chaotic systems can produce continually new types of activities. In our opinion these
activities are essential to the development of groups of neurons different from those already

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 108
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

established. More generally, the ability to create new types of activity may underlie the ability
of the brain to reach at intuitions, and solve problems through trial and error”.

7. Conclusion
7.1 Science and religion: the end of dualism
The scientific revolution that was started by Newton and Galileo divided culture into two
parts: on the one side science, capable of studying the entropic aspects of reality, and on the
other side religion, dedicated to the syntropic aspects of reality, such as the soul and the final
causes. The introduction of syntropy into the scientific model implies a profound change in
the cultural balance between science and religion, which Fantappiè describes as follow: “Let
us conclude by looking at what we can say about life. What makes life different is the
presence of syntropic qualities: finalities, goals, and attractors. Now as we consider causality
the essence of the entropic world, it is natural to consider finality the essence of the
syntropic world. It is therefore possible to say that the essence of life is the final causes, the
attractors. Living means tending to attractors. But how are these attractors experienced in
human life? When a man is attracted by money we say he loves money. The attraction
towards a goal is felt as love. We now see that the fundamental law of life is this: the law of
love. I am not trying to be sentimental; I am just describing results which have been logically
deducted from premises which are sure. It is incredible and touching that, having arrived at
this point, mathematical theorems start speaking to our heart!” (Fantappiè, 1993).
The deep emotional and cultural impact, which this new vision deriving from
quantum mechanics has, is testified to in the works of Fritjof Capra, who describes the
difficulties that Einstein had in accepting the existence of non-local connections, and the
resulting importance of probability: “This was the theme of the famous controversy between
Bohr and Einstein. Einstein expressed his opposition to the Bohr’s quantum interpretation
with the words “God does not play dice with the universe”. At the end of the controversy
Einstein had to recognize that quantum theory, in the Bohr and Heisenberg interpretation
produced a coherent system of thought.”
David Bohm, in his book on quantum theory, makes an interesting analogy between
quantum processes and thought, arriving at the hypothesis that thanks to quantum
mechanics, the universe starts to look more like a big thought than a big machine (Bohm,
1951).
In 1967, Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry and an expert in complex
systems thermodynamics, formulated the concept of dissipative structure which are able to
avoid heat death. Prigogine introduced a new level of thought, different from mechanics or
thermodynamics that is similar to Fantappiè’s syntropy. In his book “The New Alliance” he
presented his thoughts as a new paradigm which could reunite science and religion.
Fantappiè stated that nowadays we see written in the book of nature - which Galileo
said, was in mathematical characters - the same laws of love that we find written in the holy
books of the major religions. “[...] the law of life is not the law of hate, the law of force, or
the law of mechanical causes; this is the law of non-life, the law of death, the law of entropy;
the law which dominates life is the law of finalities, the law of cooperation towards goals
which are always higher, and this is true also for the lowest forms of life. In humans this law
takes the form of love, since for humans living means loving, and it is important to note that

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 109
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

these scientific results can have great consequences at all levels, particular on the social level,
which is now so confused. [...] The law of life is therefore the law of love and differentiation.
It does not move towards levelling and conforming, but towards higher forms of
differentiation. Each living being, whether modest or famous, has its mission, its finalities,
which, in the general economy of the universe, are important, great and beautiful”.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110 110
Vannini, A. Entropy and syntropy: from mechanical to life science

References
Arcidiacono G.S. Entropia, Sintropia e Informazione. Di Renzo Editore, Roma 1991.
Bateson G. Mind and Nature. Dutton, New York 1979.
Bertalanffy L. von. Teoria Generale dei Sistemi. ISEDI, Milano 1977.
Bohm D. Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York 1951.
Brillouin L. Science and information Theory. Accademic Press, New York 1962.
Capra F. Il punto di svolta. Feltrinelli, Milano 1992.
Cattell R.B. The scientific use of factor analysis. Plenum Press, New York 1976.
Costa De Beauregard O. Théorie synthetique de la relatività restrinte et des quanta. Gauthier – Villars, Paris
1957.
Cramer J.G. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys 1986; 58: 647 – 687.
Davies P. The Physics of Time Asymmetry. Surrey Press, 1974.
Eddignton A. The Nature of the Physical world. Ann Arbor Paperbacks, University of Michigan Press 1958.
Einstein A. Relatività: esposizione divulgativa. Universale Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1967.
Fantappiè L. Conferenze Scelte. Di Renzo Editore, Roma 1993.
Fantappiè L. Principi di una teoria unitaria del mondo fisico e biologico. Di Renzo Editore, Roma 1991.
Feynman R.P. Theory of positron. Phys. Rev. 1949; 76: 749.
Freeman W. Come pensa il cervello. Einaudi, Milano 2000.
Haken H. Sinergetica, il segreto del successo della natura. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino 1983.
Hoyle F. L’universo intelligente. Mondatori, Milano 1984.
King C.C. Dual-time supercausality. Phys. Essays 1989; 2: 128 – 151.
Lorenz E. Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 1963; 20: 130-140.
Mac Cormac E.R, M.I.Stamenov. Fractals of Brain, fractals of mind. In advances in counsciousness research, Vol.7,
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam 1996.
Mandelbrot B.B. Gli oggetti frattali. Einaudi, Torino 1987.
Monod J. Il caso e la necessità. Oscar Mondatori, Milano 1974.
Penrose R., Isham C. Quantum Concepts in Space & Time. Oxford University Press 1989.
Prigogine I. La nuova alleanza. Longanesi Editore, Milano 1979.
Prigogine I. Tempo, irreversibilità e strutture in La nuova alleanza. Longanesi Editore, Milano 1979.
Satinover J. Il cervello quantico. Macro Edizioni, Cesena 2002.
Schrödinger E. Che cos’è la vita. Sansoni, Firenze 1988.
Teilhard de Chardin P. Le phénomène humain. Ed. du Seuil 1955.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com