Kai, your opinion on this...

[Telarus]

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26059/?ref=rss

[Kai]

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26059/?ref=rss

The same sort of super reductionism that physicists have been toting for years. Sure, it sounds awesome in print, but ask a physicist to explain how a cell works, and they don't have a fucking clue.

It's a mixture of Dunning-Kruger effect and pure arrogance. I'm not saying that everything in the universe isn't reducible to amplitudes in configuration, but that the pure complexity of configurations in biology is far above and beyond the simple problems physicists like to handle. Comparing cell theory to superconductivity is like comparing a human nervous system to that of a rotifer. There are simply not enough molecules in the universe to populate a computer that could describe the possible interactions.

Let them solve protein folding with their models, and then we'll talk. Oh wait, not going to happen.

Also, way way too much (and poor) use of the word "emergence". That's a holy word, and therefore should be used sparingly, and in proper time.

[Phox]

 

[Kai]

The other part of the arrogance is that biologists have been working on the homeostatic equilbrium or "anentropy" problem for YEARS, that they've already been using mathematics and chemistry and yes, physics, to describe it.

It's like that XKCD comic, which I can't find.

[Telarus]

 

Exactly why I asked the question. Thanks Kai. I'll re-read the article with that in mind.

[Cainad (dec.)]

The other part of the arrogance is that biologists have been working on the homeostatic equilbrium or "anentropy" problem for YEARS, that they've already been using mathematics and chemistry and yes, physics, to describe it.

It's like that XKCD comic, which I can't find.

[Kai]

Yep, that's the one.