4 ms·

The nature article is a bit over my head and the press release seems a little hand-wavy, so forgive my ignorance but.... It sounds like "all" they've done is d

by teach 3y ago

The nature article is a bit over my head and the press release seems a little hand-wavy, so forgive my ignorance but.... It sounds like "all" they've done is develop a formalism that is (1) mathematically precise, (2) testable and (3) useful for describing evolutionary processes. That is, they haven't actually showed how selection can overcome the constraints of physics and randomness; they've just developed a useful framework so that hopefully a future breakthrough can be found more easily. Do I have that right?

AlotOfReading 3y ago
I've listened to Sara talk about this a couple times. It's basically about approaching chemistry and biology from the perspective of a physicist/computer scientist where everything is about information. The idea is that the possibility-space of molecules is combinatorially vast, even for nature itself. If you can identify a sort of kolmolgorov complexity for molecules (assembly index), the ones with high complexity are indicative of intentional, non-random processes like life. One of the key differences here from prior approaches is that the definitions they've chosen are computable and universal, though I haven't gotten the same impression of universality and utility from their papers.
goodmachine 3y ago
Yes. But it seems perhaps they haven't even done those things correctly. The project seems to have a slight case of Wolframesque overreach https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.00901 https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.00901 The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory https://hectorzenil.medium.com/test-8f0be54817c4 https://hectorzenil.medium.com/test-8f0be54817c4
- derbOac 3y ago
  I think I found those more insightful in some ways than the linked paper.
derbOac 3y ago
I think they mischaracterize evolutionary theory and overstate the gap, if any, with physics. But I think there's some kernels of useful insight, like this: "The more complex a given object, the less likely an identical copy can exist without selection of some information-driven mechanism that generates that object."

by teach 3y ago

AlotOfReading 3y ago

I've listened to Sara talk about this a couple times. It's basically about approaching chemistry and biology from the perspective of a physicist/computer scientist where everything is about information. The idea is that the possibility-space of molecules is combinatorially vast, even for nature itself. If you can identify a sort of kolmolgorov complexity for molecules (assembly index), the ones with high complexity are indicative of intentional, non-random processes like life. One of the key differences here from prior approaches is that the definitions they've chosen are computable and universal, though I haven't gotten the same impression of universality and utility from their papers.

goodmachine 3y ago

Yes. But it seems perhaps they haven't even done those things correctly. The project seems to have a slight case of Wolframesque overreach https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.00901 https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.00901 The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory https://hectorzenil.medium.com/test-8f0be54817c4 https://hectorzenil.medium.com/test-8f0be54817c4

derbOac 3y ago
I think I found those more insightful in some ways than the linked paper.

derbOac 3y ago

I think they mischaracterize evolutionary theory and overstate the gap, if any, with physics. But I think there's some kernels of useful insight, like this: "The more complex a given object, the less likely an identical copy can exist without selection of some information-driven mechanism that generates that object."