This is profoundly misleading. Physicists already have a good handle on how the things biological systems are made of work, but it’s a moot point because trying to explain the details of how living things operate in terms of subatomic particles is a waste of time. Unless you’ve got a thousand tons of computronium tucked away in your back pocket, you’re never going to be able to produce useful results in biology purely by using the results of physics.
Therefore, the actual study of biology is largely separate from physics, except for the very indirect route of quantum physics ⇒ molecular chemistry ⇒ biochemistry ⇒ biology. Most of the research in the field has little to do with those paths, and each step in the indirect chain is another level of abstraction that allows you to ignore more of the details of how the physics itself works.
The ultimate goal of physics is to break things down until we discover the simplest, most basic rules that govern the universe.
The goals of biology do not lead down what you call the “indirect route.” As you state, Biology abstracts away the low-level physics and tries to understand the extremely complicated interactions that take place at a higher level.
Biology attempts to classify and understand all of the species, their systems, their subsystems, their biochemistry, and their interspecies and environmental interactions. The possible sum total of biological knowledge is an essentially limitless dataset, what I might call the “Almanac of Life.”
I’m not sure quite where you think we disagree. I don’t see anything in our two posts that’s contradictory—unless you find the use of the word “Almanac” disparaging to biologists? I hope it’s clear that it wasn’t a literal use—biology clearly isn’t a yearly book of tabular data, so perhaps the simile is inapt.
The way you put it does seem to disparage biologists, yes. The biologists are doing work that is qualitatively different from what physicists do, and that produces results the physicists never will (without the aforementioned thousand tons of computronium, at least). In a very real sense, biologists are exploring an entirely different ideaspace from the one the physicists live in. No amount of investigation into physics in isolation would have given us the theory of evolution, for instance.
And weirdly, I’m not a biologist; I’m an apprentice physicist. I still recognize that they’re doing something I’m not, rather than something that I might get around to by just doing enough physics to make their results obvious.
This is profoundly misleading. Physicists already have a good handle on how the things biological systems are made of work, but it’s a moot point because trying to explain the details of how living things operate in terms of subatomic particles is a waste of time. Unless you’ve got a thousand tons of computronium tucked away in your back pocket, you’re never going to be able to produce useful results in biology purely by using the results of physics.
Therefore, the actual study of biology is largely separate from physics, except for the very indirect route of quantum physics ⇒ molecular chemistry ⇒ biochemistry ⇒ biology. Most of the research in the field has little to do with those paths, and each step in the indirect chain is another level of abstraction that allows you to ignore more of the details of how the physics itself works.
The ultimate goal of physics is to break things down until we discover the simplest, most basic rules that govern the universe.
The goals of biology do not lead down what you call the “indirect route.” As you state, Biology abstracts away the low-level physics and tries to understand the extremely complicated interactions that take place at a higher level.
Biology attempts to classify and understand all of the species, their systems, their subsystems, their biochemistry, and their interspecies and environmental interactions. The possible sum total of biological knowledge is an essentially limitless dataset, what I might call the “Almanac of Life.”
I’m not sure quite where you think we disagree. I don’t see anything in our two posts that’s contradictory—unless you find the use of the word “Almanac” disparaging to biologists? I hope it’s clear that it wasn’t a literal use—biology clearly isn’t a yearly book of tabular data, so perhaps the simile is inapt.
The way you put it does seem to disparage biologists, yes. The biologists are doing work that is qualitatively different from what physicists do, and that produces results the physicists never will (without the aforementioned thousand tons of computronium, at least). In a very real sense, biologists are exploring an entirely different ideaspace from the one the physicists live in. No amount of investigation into physics in isolation would have given us the theory of evolution, for instance.
And weirdly, I’m not a biologist; I’m an apprentice physicist. I still recognize that they’re doing something I’m not, rather than something that I might get around to by just doing enough physics to make their results obvious.