Biology May Not Be So Complex After All, Physicist Finds

Science Daily

Quote from source:

Centuries ago, scientists began reducing the physics of the universe into a few, key laws described by a handful of parameters. Such simple descriptions have remained elusive for complex biological systems -- until now.

Emory biophysicist Ilya Nemenman has identified parameters for several biochemical networks that distill the entire behavior of these systems into simple equivalent dynamics. The discovery may hold the potential to streamline the development of drugs and diagnostic tools, by simplifying the research models.

The resulting paper, now available online, will be published in the March issue of Physical Biology.
"It appears that the details of the complexity of these biological systems don't matter, as long as some aggregate property, which we've calculated, remains the same," says Nemenman, associate professor of physics and biology. He conducted the analysis with Golan Bel and Brian Munsky of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The simplicity of the discovery makes it "a beautiful result," Nemenman says. "We hope that this theoretical finding will also have practical applications."

He cites the air molecules moving about his office: "All of the crazy interactions of these molecules hitting each other boils down to a simple behavior: An ideal gas law. You could take the painstaking route of studying the dynamics of every molecule, or you could simply measure the temperature, volume and pressure of the air in the room. The second method is clearly easier, and it gives you just as much information."

I had to share this because I found it really interesting. Anything that takes the complexity out of biology is a good thing.

I cannot wait to see what future implications this has and how it will benefit us.

Look forward to further information on this topic.

Any thoughts?

Pred...
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20/3/2010 by ArMaP]

It always boils down to simplicity doesn't it? Great find, S&F.... good find

reply to post by predator0187

Over-Simplification is still bad for our health

reply to post by masonicon


Simplification is good thing and can help us understand ideas better. How could that be a bad thing?

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


Looks like he just developed a logarithmic mean -- he says it's the straight line averaged out -- but it's not the secret of biology -- i.e. the secret of what makes life alive!

This physicist talking on biology is pretty interesting -- I like Nobel physicist Josephson

sms.cam.ac.uk...

He says biology is MORE complex than physics.

Actually it's called "simplexity" now -- how complexity can arise from simple equations. But that doesn't mean that individual behavior is predictable.

Are we just "averaged out" as physical quantities -- that's actually been the argument since Plato who stated that every citizen is the music ratio 9/8 which, as the major 2nd interval, must be COMPROMISED FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE -- so that 9/8 cubed is the tritone music interval as the square root of two. The tritone being the Devil's Interval.

So the original logarithmic measurement was already a model for eugenics.

reply to post by predator0187

Simplification is good, but if this taken to extreme this can be bad

reply to post by drew hempel


Yeah I understand that it is a logarithmic mean, still to me it is a good finding.

I think biology is complex, but to say it is more complex than physics is crazy. Physics is just scratching the surface and encompasses biology. It is everything and anything. It goes down to such a small level that the majority of the population cannot even understand how small it is.

Really, when you break down biology it is just physics too. I say that to everyone, everything is physics. Everything.

I like when sciences mix. I think that is when you get the most interesting results. Science is one in the same and should all be learned. The more wide your base it the bigger the object that can be built on it.

Pred...

reply to post by masonicon


Ok I sort of agree with you, kinda

But give me and example of what you mean. They say if you can't explain something to a child then you really do not understand it at all.

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187

Do you hear Scientific McDonaldization where Current Mainstream Science takes characteristics of Fast Food Restaurants like McDonald's

Originally posted by masonicon
reply to post by predator0187

 

Simplification is good, but if this taken to extreme this can be bad

Did you read his paper? Do you have a specific reason why this is bad? Can you tell me a little more about his research since you know so much about it?

Originally posted by garritynet

Originally posted by masonicon
reply to post by predator0187

 

Simplification is good, but if this taken to extreme this can be bad

Did you read his paper? Do you have a specific reason why this is bad? Can you tell me a little more about his research since you know so much about it?

How About Scientific McDonaldization?

reply to post by predator0187


O.K. here is a quantum biologist who writes about the logarithmic mean as the universal law of biology:

www.i-sis.org.uk...

But at the same time Dr. Mae Wan Ho describes in "Why Are Organisms So Complex?":

www.i-sis.org.uk...

Minimum dissipation means in one sense that energy (as well as material) going into the system is used many times over before it is exported to the outside. Intuitively, one can see that the more complex the dynamical structure, the more cycles there are, the longer the energy remains in the system, and the least amount is dissipated. In other words, increase in space-time differentiation leads to increase in the energy that can be stored in the system.

and in her "Quantum Jazz"

www.i-sis.org.uk...

Let me highlight the hallmarks of the quantum coherent organism that contrasts with the conventional view of organisms as machines (From Molecular Machines to Coherent Organism, ISIS scientific publication) [12]. The organism is an incredible hive of activities from the very fast to the very slow, the local to global, all perfectly coupled together, so perfect that each activity appears to be operating as freely and spontaneously as the whole. To be quantum coherent above all, is to be most spontaneous and free. The wave function that describes the system is also a superposition of all possibilities. It implies that the future is entirely open, and the potentials infinite [2, 12].

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by garritynet

Originally posted by masonicon
reply to post by predator0187

 

Simplification is good, but if this taken to extreme this can be bad

Did you read his paper? Do you have a specific reason why this is bad? Can you tell me a little more about his research since you know so much about it?

How About Scientific McDonaldization?

How about a real answer?

reply to post by garritynet


I hate people that just hate science and try to disprove it. I agree science needs to be put into it's place but it is the ONLY thing advancing us. Nothing that people are dedicating their lives to are at this point, like religion. If we got rid of religion and they all became scientists then we would advance more quickly.

I do not think it is long at all until science prevails everything and it looked upon as truth to everyone.

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


Who's "us" -- the 2 billion people living in slums? Science has always been tied to Western imperialism -- sure it works but not without a lot of colonial "primitive accumulation" of resources based on the war enabled by the science! There's no pure science -- chariots were based on the Pythagorean Theorem (professor Abraham Seidenberg) -- catapults were based on Archytas' doubling of the cube.

Descartes was funded because he claimed he could reduce labor costs for the aristocracy. So right from the get go -- science is about elite control of technological power for imperialism.

reply to post by drew hempel


Okay I am not here to say what your saying is wrong, but, what your talking about is more of a political issue than a scientific one. Well political and corporations. Science is not advancing 2 billion peoples lives because of money, not science. Your real issue is greed not anything to do with science.

And I will also admit science is associated with bad things, ie the manhattan project, as splitting the atom and making some of the most destructive bombs available to man, that same advancement in science has led to so much more than just a bomb. The advancements made with science can be used for both good and bad things but at this moment in time greed rules everything.

Scientists are not the bad people, they are learning and advancing our knowledge, it's the greedy bast@rds that are the ones using it to harm people. Of course science needs money to advance but not all science breakthroughs are for the benefit of the elite.

So all I am saying is your anger about this is right but just focused on the wrong side here. Don't just treat a symptom of the problem deal with the problem.

Pred...

Originally posted by masonicon
reply to post by predator0187

 

Over-Simplification is still bad for our health

But good for our overused brains

reply to post by predator0187


You mention politics and science -- for example the "the politics of pure science" by Daniel Greenberg might be a relevant book showing that pure science is indeed politic, despite your claims to the contrary.

My point is deeper still -- mathematics is not pure! The irrational magnitude as the inverse square law is a lie!! Math is based on physical technology -- be it a hypotenuse as a line or mass as a stretched string -- 4 times stretched through weight equals twice the frequency.

Consider the time-frequency uncertainty principle of quantum physics -- it over rules commutative Western MATERIALIST math -- or consider this paper:

"Did the Greeks Discover the Irrational?" by Professors Hugly and Sayward (phillosophy journal, spring 1999).... the answer is NO!!

the Pythagorean Theorem is a logical lie -- even Bertrand Russell states that the Pythagorean Theorem is a "convenient fiction" -- so logical lie as the foundation of logarithmic based measurements means that science is INHERENTLY IMMORAL -- and that's why it's destroying the world!!

Ecology is being destroyed -- what do "we" get in return -- the machines are in control -- even human labor is being replaced by automation. Science is a religion of mass sacrifice -- genocide, ecocide and globalcide.

The math is in control -- it's structural -- even quantum chaos math professor Steve Strogatz admits this.

reply to post by drew hempel


Can you tell me why Pythagorean Theorem is a logical lie? Seriously, Im curious about it.

reply to post by garritynet




www.jstor.org...

Philosophy (1999), 74:2:169-176 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1999


Did the Greeks Discover the Irrationals?
Philip Hugly and Charles Sayward


Abstract

A popular view is that the great discovery of Pythagoras was that there are irrational numbers, e.g., the positive square root of two. Against this it is argued that mathematics and geometry, together with their applications, do not show that there are irrational numbers or compel assent to that proposition.