[HN Gopher] Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection an...
___________________________________________________________________
Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution
Author : netfortius
Score : 58 points
Date : 2023-10-05 13:22 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| teach wrote:
| 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?
| derbOac wrote:
| 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."
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
|
| The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory
|
| https://hectorzenil.medium.com/test-8f0be54817c4
| mellosouls wrote:
| Previously discussed, the Quanta overview:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35827189
| functoid wrote:
| Erwin Schroedinger explained this in 1944 with a quantity called
| "negative entropy" instead of "assembly".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
| fohfauXoo3erieb wrote:
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ectropy
| riversflow wrote:
| I personally like to think of life as "eddies in the current of
| entropy"
| netfortius wrote:
| KISS https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_1008527_en.html
| dadjoker wrote:
| "We present assembly theory (AT) as a framework that does not
| alter the laws of physics, but redefines the concept of an
| 'object' on which these laws act. AT conceptualizes objects not
| as point particles, but as entities defined by their possible
| formation histories. This allows objects to show evidence of
| selection, within well-defined boundaries of individuals or
| selected units."
|
| In other words, tweaking definitions to fit a pre-defined
| narrative.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-05 23:01 UTC)