I don’t know which electrons are going to go through a particular logic gate either, but I’m still pretty sure that 1 XOR 0 is still 1. I’m a bit rusty, but I’m

I don’t know which electrons are going to go through a particular logic gate either, but I’m still pretty sure that 1 XOR 0 is still 1. I’m a bit rusty, but I’m pretty sure quantum theory suggests that I never will be able to know. If you spend enough time with biology, the messy parts are all abstracted away and what you’re left with are observations of things we can measure. How much of protein X, migration of cell Y, etc. You don’t need to know what a specific molecule is doing, only what the population of those molecules is doing. It’s not so much a statistical problem as it is an observability problem. And while not exactly for the same quantum reason as Heisenberg, you quickly hit the the same problem — you can’t observe the location of an exact molecule without affecting the system. The real point being — these are all abstractions on top of abstractions. And while you can measure things at one level, the level underneath may be a complete mess. But to discount a computer compared to biology because we “understand” it all is silly to me. We also “understand” a lot about biology. Especially that complex behaviors can result from very simple inputs/instructions. At the core, we are very complex biological systems. But systems with rules and patterns nonetheless.