I totally agree! It seems to me that the current scientific paradigm is still way to reductionistically or mechanically oriented. While cybernetics or the theo

I totally agree! It seems to me that the current scientific paradigm is still way to reductionistically or mechanically oriented. While cybernetics or the theories of emergence in systems-theory is a step in the right direction, i think the reality of how "something", "works" is way weirder than we expect. It's much less about how different components superficially "interact" with each other and much more about mind-numbingly complex emergent properties that somehow "happens" between objects, emerge through complex space-time interactions probably with even weirder quantum factors or "fields" that are not apparent by n-dimensional modelling. When you really begin to dig deep into these problems it becomes an increasingly weird mixture of philosophy, physics and mathematics, revealing endless paradoxes as we increase the resolution. Basically it becomes like a chicken and egg problem: is the complexity and life-force of a cell or its components in any way able to be "deworlded" or is the cell or other complex organisations simply not able to be understood without the context in which they exists, in other words, the entire universe. We won't be able to "understand" by looking at the "thing" because no thing is actually at the center, it's not "doing" anything and doesn't even exists outside of our own simple taxonomical concepts. The genome can't be sequenced because it's simply a way to label, divide or reduce a "thing". Feeding a neural net with enough extremely high resolution data from a space large enough and i could imagine extremely strange patterns emerge. How we would be able to capture such data from reality is the big problem because we simply don't know how many factors are at play. Protein folding is already an incredibly demanding calculation and it's very simple compared to even the tiniest mechanisms of a cell.