> My benchmark of "this thing is well understood" is that it's possible to build that thing, or a replacement for it, again.Something I've been thinking a lot about lately: Implicit in statements like this is the idea of a system. That some complex-seeming artifact is actually composed of a relatively smaller number of essential things and all of the observed complexity is just emergent properties of the simpler underlying system. Find the handful of hidden rules and you can build back up to the whole thing from first principles.
For example, if you were to learn chess purely by watching people play, it would be a huge struggle at first. Does how they hold the pieces matter? What role does timing play? Why does one player rest their head on their cheek while staring at the board? Eventually you start to figure out which actions are essential and which aren't. It doesn't matter where inside a square a piece is placed. All pawns are behaviorally equivalent, etc.
We really really like systems. So much so that we tend to assume everything is one. But I see no evidence to assume that biology and evolution work that. Evolution is a semi-random walk over the phenotype space and fitter organisms are discovered (mutated) entirely randomly. It may be that a kidney mostly filters blood, but also does a little of this other thing, and the fact that it pushes your small intestine out of the way is important, and also and also and also...
We can increase our understanding by learning more, but there may simply be no "first principles" for what makes an organism tick and almost all of its complexity may be irreducible. There may be absolutely no separation between "fundamental property" and "implementation detail". It may be that no terms in the grand equation of life cancel out.