5 ms·

This is the same kind of fundamental misunderstanding of physics that leads to arguments like "evolution can't exist because of the second law of thermodynamics

This is the same kind of fundamental misunderstanding of physics that leads to arguments like "evolution can't exist because of the second law of thermodynamics". Living things are not closed systems, the inevitable increase in the sum total entropy in the universe has no bearing on their ability to repair themselves.

GrayTShirt 10y ago
I came here, to basically say the same thing. It seems folks do not realize the assumptions they are making. Fundamentals people fundamentals.
theophrastus 10y ago
Yes indeed, and during the drunken biochemists' ball the suggested definition of life: "an entropy catalyst" wasn't the worst one (by far)
- gertef 10y ago
  > drunken biochemists' ball what's this? > an entropy catalyst" should be "anti-entropy catalyst", yes?
  - theophrastus 10y ago
    y'know how every university department has a yearly "retreat"? The parent poster made an incisive reference to: "living things are not closed systems, the inevitable increase in the sum total entropy in the universe.."; and so it is. A living process maintains its own internal order at the cost of the entropy and energy of its surroundings. Life increases the entropy of its surroundings at a higher rate than in its absence. (of course so does fire, and that's why this is only not the worst definition)
arikrak 10y ago
I think the author's point is since aging is related to physics, you're facing exponentially increasing problems[1]. This will make it much harder to make progress against than the battle infectious diseases. (There were some similar articles a while back that focused on cancer specifically.) [1] As opposed to there being some biological effect that you could try to 'turn off'.
tagrun 10y ago
It was also what I thought when I saw the title, but if you go through the write up, you'll see that that's not the argument here and what he's saying makes sense. He's essentially talking about the imperfect cell division which leads to increasing amount of "errors" in average cellular structure over time, and that if this is the most important cause of aging, future studies should be focused at molecular level (which is typically the domain of physics). Here's an excerpt from the conclusion: > That doesn’t mean there is nothing we can do. More research into specific molecular changes in aging is needed.
- DougMerritt 10y ago
  It's still handwaving from a twenty-thousand foot view, whereas the devil is in the details. I don't see how his thesis addresses the very large difference in lifespans for different species, first and foremost. Secondarily, although he addresses the body's repair mechanisms, I don't see how he puts a new limit on their capacity, unless I overlooked it, or unless he thought things like the Hayflick limit etc. perfectly address that (which it does not completely do).

GrayTShirt 10y ago

I came here, to basically say the same thing. It seems folks do not realize the assumptions they are making. Fundamentals people fundamentals.

theophrastus 10y ago

Yes indeed, and during the drunken biochemists' ball the suggested definition of life: "an entropy catalyst" wasn't the worst one (by far)

gertef 10y ago
> drunken biochemists' ball what's this? > an entropy catalyst" should be "anti-entropy catalyst", yes?
- theophrastus 10y ago
  y'know how every university department has a yearly "retreat"? The parent poster made an incisive reference to: "living things are not closed systems, the inevitable increase in the sum total entropy in the universe.."; and so it is. A living process maintains its own internal order at the cost of the entropy and energy of its surroundings. Life increases the entropy of its surroundings at a higher rate than in its absence. (of course so does fire, and that's why this is only not the worst definition)

arikrak 10y ago

I think the author's point is since aging is related to physics, you're facing exponentially increasing problems[1]. This will make it much harder to make progress against than the battle infectious diseases. (There were some similar articles a while back that focused on cancer specifically.) [1] As opposed to there being some biological effect that you could try to 'turn off'.

tagrun 10y ago

It was also what I thought when I saw the title, but if you go through the write up, you'll see that that's not the argument here and what he's saying makes sense. He's essentially talking about the imperfect cell division which leads to increasing amount of "errors" in average cellular structure over time, and that if this is the most important cause of aging, future studies should be focused at molecular level (which is typically the domain of physics). Here's an excerpt from the conclusion: > That doesn’t mean there is nothing we can do. More research into specific molecular changes in aging is needed.

DougMerritt 10y ago
It's still handwaving from a twenty-thousand foot view, whereas the devil is in the details. I don't see how his thesis addresses the very large difference in lifespans for different species, first and foremost. Secondarily, although he addresses the body's repair mechanisms, I don't see how he puts a new limit on their capacity, unless I overlooked it, or unless he thought things like the Hayflick limit etc. perfectly address that (which it does not completely do).