Abhi happens to be a physicist (Associate prof) from Duke university and his interests include Theoretical nuclear physics, Theoretical particle physics and string theory and Theoretical condensed matter physics.
Sudarshan
Dear Sudha,
The following analogy from physics might help clarify what
I am referring to. In the late 1600's when Newton discovered
patterns in planetary motion and proposed his laws, everyone
thought we had discovered how the universe functions. In fact
by the mid 1800's, armed with many physicists had assumed
we understood almost everything about the laws governing
nature. But they were all shocked in the late 1800's and early
1900's that they had not appreciated a completely new approach
to physics described by quantum mechanics where classical
mechanics was merely an "effective" approach. Ofcourse
quantum effects are rather subtle and Newton's ideas are still
valid almost in all daily experiences. So Newton certainly
deserves a lot of credit.
In the same way, I feel the theory of evolution of Darwin,
could be a very useful first step in our understanding of life.
But there may be many surprises on the way! And as scientists
we should be ready for it. In my opinion there are already many
questions that evolutionary theorists should be asking. Hopefully,
they are building more realistic models and testing the theory
of evolution rigorously. Trying to poke holes into the theory.
I would be surprised if they are not!
For example, some of the subtler questions could be related to
the quantum mechanical effects that govern the probabilities in
the evolutionary mechanism. I have heard that the physics of
protien folding is an open problem in biochemistry and I some
people believe quantum mechanics is playing an important role
there.
Finally, I am sure you will agree that human emotions and feelings
are "observed facts". At some point of time we should address them.
How do they arise? We cannot just say "these arise from "complex"
connections in the human brain"! You can almost explain anything
away through the use of word "complexity" these days and you
are not allowed to ask any more questions! Why? "Because it is
complex"! Sounds very much like religion to me!
Why did evolution create a human brain that is capable of "sacrifice" for the sake of others that by very nature goes against preserving the "gene"? Why did evolution create many human brains that thinks that "sacrifice" for others is an admirable trait in a human being and respect those people rather than "kill" them at first site! These are some questions I wonder about. I hope scientists just dont use "complexity" to explain away these observed facts and shut me up!
Abhi
The following analogy from physics might help clarify what
I am referring to. In the late 1600's when Newton discovered
patterns in planetary motion and proposed his laws, everyone
thought we had discovered how the universe functions. In fact
by the mid 1800's, armed with many physicists had assumed
we understood almost everything about the laws governing
nature. But they were all shocked in the late 1800's and early
1900's that they had not appreciated a completely new approach
to physics described by quantum mechanics where classical
mechanics was merely an "effective" approach. Ofcourse
quantum effects are rather subtle and Newton's ideas are still
valid almost in all daily experiences. So Newton certainly
deserves a lot of credit.
In the same way, I feel the theory of evolution of Darwin,
could be a very useful first step in our understanding of life.
But there may be many surprises on the way! And as scientists
we should be ready for it. In my opinion there are already many
questions that evolutionary theorists should be asking. Hopefully,
they are building more realistic models and testing the theory
of evolution rigorously. Trying to poke holes into the theory.
I would be surprised if they are not!
For example, some of the subtler questions could be related to
the quantum mechanical effects that govern the probabilities in
the evolutionary mechanism. I have heard that the physics of
protien folding is an open problem in biochemistry and I some
people believe quantum mechanics is playing an important role
there.
Finally, I am sure you will agree that human emotions and feelings
are "observed facts". At some point of time we should address them.
How do they arise? We cannot just say "these arise from "complex"
connections in the human brain"! You can almost explain anything
away through the use of word "complexity" these days and you
are not allowed to ask any more questions! Why? "Because it is
complex"! Sounds very much like religion to me!
Why did evolution create a human brain that is capable of "sacrifice" for the sake of others that by very nature goes against preserving the "gene"? Why did evolution create many human brains that thinks that "sacrifice" for others is an admirable trait in a human being and respect those people rather than "kill" them at first site! These are some questions I wonder about. I hope scientists just dont use "complexity" to explain away these observed facts and shut me up!
The bottom line is that some people become happy with an explanation about the observed phenomena. Others do not. People who accept an explanation easily are always happy. The question always is where do you draw the line? We scientists have developed some bit of arrogance as compared to non-scientists. We think we understand something better. That may be! Unfortunately, we too have to draw the line somewhere else and say, I am happy with the current explanation since I cannot go beyond this. It is too complex!
Abhi
comment via email from Saraswathi ramachandran, a post doc from sweden. She is a phd from the molecular biophysics unit of IISc 2009.
ReplyDeleteHi
I could not find the link to comment, so I am mailing to you. Maybe you could help and paste it...
I think your brother-in-law's views are somewhat similar to mine right now.
I guess that sometimes one goes by religion and sometimes by direct perception that cannot be explained in words and sometimes by analysis or scientific interpretation.
None have to be considered rigidly as the 'source of truths'.
We need not believe and put our faith in what is currently considered acceptable...once upon a time people believed the earth was flat...
Our perceptions change with time and probably with our own 'evolution'!;) (pun intended)
Its useful to have an open mind and not be absolutist about things...it does give comfort to feel like we 'know' something;) But that may be a false sense of security...like believing in Santa Claus...it may help us feel happy but it need not be real...
Anyhow there are certainly things beyond what the reasoning mind can understand and no less marvelous...maybe like love!:)
Its nice to use all our abilities of perception and not believe in anything 100% and be courageous enough to admit that we do not always know everything...
Its actually such a relief...we can just enjoy what we think we know and perceive it without the pressure of having to be 'right' or worry about being 'wrong'...
My cents:)
Saraswathi
Comment via email from Suresh, a post doc student of IISc Computer Science department:
ReplyDeleteI don't want to comment on "why evolution created..."
reg evolution and beyond is like Newtonian and QM:
The very essence of evolutionary thinking is abt adaptability, being
open to new possibilities.
If there are any alternative scientific hypotheses that explain life,
then no one ought to have problems
with appreciating. harking back to popper, any scientific theory
should be falsifiable if it is must be deemed scientific. i guess
evolution waits for those tests.
Newtonian mechanics was found wanting (thanks to new experiments with
exacting measurement standards) and hence came QM. as we know now, NM
is a special case of QM, however useful it is in describing most of
physics. [Newton and others were (due to the limitations of their
time) didn't appreciate statistical nature of measurements (and nature
itself) and thought things could be predicted exactly was one reason
people were wont to believe that they have understood the fundamental
governing principles of the universe] Similarly [I guess so], a new
theory that upstages evolution might still have evolution as a useful
special case.
abt complex hence no questions: don't know who those ppl are. but i
don't wont to comment anything beyond this: unscientific use of
complexity to push things under rug.
reg qm in biochemistry and protein folding: no ideas other than that
complexity wise it may only be slightly less difficult (give or take
10 or even 100 in the exponent) than understanding the human brain and
hence society.
Comment via email from Suresh, a post doc student of IISc Computer Science department:
ReplyDeleteI don't want to comment on "why evolution created..."
reg evolution and beyond is like Newtonian and QM:
The very essence of evolutionary thinking is abt adaptability, being
open to new possibilities.
If there are any alternative scientific hypotheses that explain life,
then no one ought to have problems
with appreciating. harking back to popper, any scientific theory
should be falsifiable if it is must be deemed scientific. i guess
evolution waits for those tests.
Newtonian mechanics was found wanting (thanks to new experiments with
exacting measurement standards) and hence came QM. as we know now, NM
is a special case of QM, however useful it is in describing most of
physics. [Newton and others were (due to the limitations of their
time) didn't appreciate statistical nature of measurements (and nature
itself) and thought things could be predicted exactly was one reason
people were wont to believe that they have understood the fundamental
governing principles of the universe] Similarly [I guess so], a new
theory that upstages evolution might still have evolution as a useful
special case.
abt complex hence no questions: don't know who those ppl are. but i
don't wont to comment anything beyond this: unscientific use of
complexity to push things under rug.
reg qm in biochemistry and protein folding: no ideas other than that
complexity wise it may only be slightly less difficult (give or take
10 or even 100 in the exponent) than understanding the human brain and
hence society.
The following is a comment by Dr. Suvasini, who recently completed her phd at the Microbiology(MCBL) department of IISc and is heading to Salk institute of biological studies for a post doctoral position.
ReplyDeleteThe comment is too big to fit as a "blogspot comment", so am giving a link for it soon.