[LINK]The Edge’s yearly question
What is your favorite explanation?
http://www.edge.org/responses/what-is-your-favorite-deep-elegant-or-beautiful-explanation
And what’s yours?
EDIT: I mean yours of those at edge.org—and/or yours which you will explain here.
I found that Stuart A Kauffman’s “Demonstration That Cell Types Are Dynamical Attractors” a somewhat intuitive model for how cells could differentiate without needing many simultaneous low-probablity things to happen.
Basically, certain proteins can enhance or inhibit the generation of other proteins, which can do the same thing to the original proteins. This creates a circuit of sorts. I understood this part already.
What his paper explains is basically that large, randomly defined circuits have attractors, or stable loops that they tend to settle into. Large classes of random circuits will go to the same attractors, thus eliminating the requirement for fine-tuning of multiple variables in multicellular (and intracellular) processes.
I’ll start off by saying that I like Linde’s writing style, in particular I like his seamless segue from an easy explanation into a challenge to explore further:
In addition I thought that Myhrvold’s post was pretty fantastic. I also liked Stewart Brand. Iacoboni is good as well. That’s out of the quarter of them I read.
I find it quite moving that every year the lead guitarist from U2 pauses from his musical career to ask a single profound question for the finest contemporary scientific speakers.
He then presumably hangs out with former NBA superstar and Chicago Bull Michael Jordan while the latter discusses Bayesian vs. Frequentist inference.
(Apologies for being obnoxious, but this was totally worth the downvotes :-))
Really?
There is a sizeable term in my utility function for homonyms that evoke wildly implausible narratives.
You forgot the obligatory TV Tropes link!