Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems | Hacker News Reader

Harvard chemist talks about the problem of solving problems

technologyreview.com

40 pointsjcarden19 comments

Q: "What problems are being neglected?"

Whitesides: "I don't have strong feelings about that. There are so many problems in the world"

I've was recently at a conference with a bunch of Nobel Prize winners in Physics and Chemistry. I was asking them a similar question, and some version of Whitesides reply was what I almost always got.

  it's very easy in academic science to end up working on projects that are just
  little extensions of previously known stuff, and that's sort of a waste of time.

I get page not found error for the op's submission. But I assume this is the page which was submitted, http://www.technologyreview.in/biomedicine/41024/

I believe your link is for the MIT Technology Review India version of the article.

Technology Review: What's the problem you have most wanted to solve and haven't been able to?

Whitesides: There's an intellectual problem, which is the origin of life. The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, which I just don't understand. I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactions that are getting more complicated spontaneously. I just don't understand how that works. So that's a scientific problem.

--This is a rare, intellectually honest view of Evolution. Notice, there is reasonable doubt. However so constrained.

No, it's an intellectually honest view of abiogenesis, which is not the same thing as evolution at all.

To logically [bracket] this counter-argument is rather simple. But (1) this is trivial; and (2) re-read the sub-heading: the problem of solving problems. What makes this interesting and intellectually honest is the lack of reference to theory when defining the problem. Viz:

I just don't understand how that works. So that's a scientific problem.

There is no doubt. No-one is debating if he is a scientist. He doesn't [bracket] the problem [for science]. In other words, "It's an intellectually honest view of Science". Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all know that just because something is falsifiable, does not mean it is false.

Edits: Tone

Evolution is an independent process from the origin of life. The origin of life could be Jesus or aliens and that would not affect the validity of evolution.

This is an interesting thesis, but not self evidently true.

This is your logic:

A is independent of B.

B could be anything.

A is independent of B.

_______

But...

B could be a Set such that A is a subset of B.

A and B could also be terms in a Set Z, which includes A & B

"... The origin of life has the characteristic that there's something in there as a chemist, I don't understand how you go from a system that's random chemicals to something that becomes, in a sense, a Darwinian set of reactions that are getting more complicated spontaneously. ..."

Interesting. Turing had a go at this in his last paper, "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis," [0] ~ http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/turing..... attempted to answer the theoretical explanation of the biological process that defines the shape of an embryonic organism from creation. This process is called "Morphogenesis" This is an important problem because complex organisms appear to be created by some "random" process that organises what appear to be self similar cells. (previously written at ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077817

There is a recent keynote[1] by Christos H. Papadimitriou about Turing and Darwin, and Turing's paper that you mentioned. The talk also ends with a very emotional account of the speaker's connection with Turing.

[1]: http://videolectures.net/aaai2012_papadimitriou_computable_n...

What's interesting about "Morphogenesis" is that a sub-set of matter transitions from existing [qua existing] to existing under a purposeful[1] structure [ie, existing for a purpose]. This is a notable change. It's even more interesting, in the context of evolution, because these structures are not just propogating, but doing so in a very unique way (ie, one that has an informational feedback loop). If the purpose of the structure is merely to propogate, why a feedback loop? why not perfect replication? Why does one need variation for replication? Why does something need to propogate in a better way than simple replication? Etc. And thus the interplay between the origins of and the evolution of such structures is framed as a relevant problem for Science.[2]

[1] Or, 'Functional' as an alternative formulation. [2] As in, problem to solve. Not a counterargument against.

Rare? I can't think of a single prominent speaker / writer about evolution that hasn't made this point. Of course, they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution - evolution talks about what happens once you have that first reproducing cell.

Of interest, there is on-going research into just how good reproduction has to be before evolution can bootstrap. If you have a process that successfully reproduces 50% of the characteristics of the original "cell", is that enough to allow evolution to work? 75%? 95%? We know that the number is less than 100%, indeed it needs to be to allow evolution to adapt, and obviously if the copy can be a very bad copy, that reduces the constraints on what the very first cell needs to do, increasing the solution space.

they also note that this is outside the scope of evolution

--What's rare, is that he is not making this point.

And chemists rarely go out of their way to explain that their papers are outside the scope of biology. So?

Nonsensical formulation. Tell me again how chemistry and biology are non-intersecting? DNA? Wait, what? You need to drop [bracket] sub-segments of science, they are boring and arbitrarty. Just use [science]. You'd tell the interviewee he not a [scientist]? Are you arguing he needs to go outside of scinence to answer his question? That would be a pretty anti-science perspective.

You sound like one of those fellows who exhibits a lot of healthy skepticism 6 days a week, while leaving it at home on the 7th. Why don't you drop the facade and argue your actual point?

001Sky is a Riddle, shrouded in mystery, wrapped inside an Enigma. Thank you very much.

That is a lovely compliment. Trying to understand the rest of what you've written though? Is nearly impossible.

It's like you've run out of logic (fail). Now you're only left with Ad hominem in-articulare?

The actual point was made in the original post.

It's a little more complected than that as there are a lot of known naturally occurring chemicals that will self replicate in the right environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com