4 ms·
Prigogine’s original work on dissipative structures seems to have already “proved” this as much as this scientist. They both are hindered by the speculative nat
by baerrie 3y ago
Prigogine’s original work on dissipative structures seems to have already “proved” this as much as this scientist. They both are hindered by the speculative nature of any abiogenetic theory, we cannot go back to the birth of life and prove anything
- bmitc 3y agoI have also not understood why this theory gets solely ascribed to England instead of Prigogine and others. Is England even working on this stuff anymore? He left MIT and is a machine learning scientist at a massive pharmaceutical company now.
- hgsgm 3y agoThe follow-up article traves the history from Prigogine. https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-t... It says that England made more meaningful contributions to the biological aspect.
- hgsgm 3y agoI'm hoping that England did some new math, and didn't just rediscover lost work. That's in the paper, not the article. The rest of the article is physicists making ill-informed statements about biology they don't understand. The conceptual model isn't novel, it's rather standard to students of evolution and entropy. But the specific concrete mathematical-physical model of how light becomes life is incredibly important, but up to the experts to validate and product in experiment.