4 ms·

As a biologist who moved into software engineering I love working with actual machines. You can think of a design, build it and have it work as you expect. You

by sjducb 3y ago

As a biologist who moved into software engineering I love working with actual machines. You can think of a design, build it and have it work as you expect. You can’t do that in biology. The reason is that we “understand” how computers work. Our understanding of biology is nowhere near that level. A high percentage of established knowledge is wrong or so incomplete that it’s not useful for designing new systems. This is hard for engineers or even scientists from physics and chemistry to accept.

roughly 3y ago
I think another reason is that biological systems are _fantastically_ complicated - for example, we're finding that the spatial distribution of molecules within the cell affect enzymatic processes in ways that may have implications for alzheimer's and dementia. For another, there's various bacterial communities where, if you want to trace the enzymatic pathway for a particular product, you're jumping between species in the community, and not just once - that particular product is the result of multiple distinct enzymatic pathways in multiple different organisms (and whatever else exists in the environment outside the cell). I've been a software engineer for 20 years now, I don't underestimate the complexity of computer systems or software - I think the number of people in the world who could really accurately describe every part of every system involved in showing you this note to you is maybe ten - but we've got nothing on biological systems.
- sjducb 3y ago
  I agree that biology is fantastically complicated. When I say we “understand” everything that matters about a computer; I don’t mean one person understands. I mean each important part is understood by at least one person. Together humanity understands everything important about a computer.
afhfah834 3y ago
[dead]
pezo1919 3y ago
Wondering if there would be an "easier" way to express something in biology/evolution, then the evolution would (already) compressed it like that. Maybe by definition: current existing things in evolution are not "more compressable" (for us) without losing meaning? (Their meaning could be estimated though through -leaky- abstractions?)

by sjducb 3y ago

roughly 3y ago

I think another reason is that biological systems are _fantastically_ complicated - for example, we're finding that the spatial distribution of molecules within the cell affect enzymatic processes in ways that may have implications for alzheimer's and dementia. For another, there's various bacterial communities where, if you want to trace the enzymatic pathway for a particular product, you're jumping between species in the community, and not just once - that particular product is the result of multiple distinct enzymatic pathways in multiple different organisms (and whatever else exists in the environment outside the cell). I've been a software engineer for 20 years now, I don't underestimate the complexity of computer systems or software - I think the number of people in the world who could really accurately describe every part of every system involved in showing you this note to you is maybe ten - but we've got nothing on biological systems.

sjducb 3y ago
I agree that biology is fantastically complicated. When I say we “understand” everything that matters about a computer; I don’t mean one person understands. I mean each important part is understood by at least one person. Together humanity understands everything important about a computer.

afhfah834 3y ago

[dead]

pezo1919 3y ago

Wondering if there would be an "easier" way to express something in biology/evolution, then the evolution would (already) compressed it like that. Maybe by definition: current existing things in evolution are not "more compressable" (for us) without losing meaning? (Their meaning could be estimated though through -leaky- abstractions?)