Assembly Theory

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
This peer reviewed article was released by Nature Magazine last week. The implications of this hypothesis are mind boggling. This is probably one of the most important scientific papers published in a while.

For any of you are interested in how the gap between reductionist physics and biology can be bridged you need to read this article. This is profound stuff.

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open- ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3–5. 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. We introduce a measure called assembly (A), capturing the degree of causation required to produce a given ensemble of objects. This approach enables us to incorporate novelty generation and selection into the physics of complex objects. It explains how these objects can be characterized through a forward dynamical process considering their assembly. By reimagining the concept of matter within assembly spaces, AT provides a powerful interface between physics and biology. It discloses a new aspect of physics emerging at the chemical scale, whereby history and causal contingency influence what exists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9.pdf
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
This peer reviewed article was released by Nature Magazine last week. The implications of this hypothesis are mind boggling. This is probably one of the most important scientific papers published in a while.

For any of you are interested in how the gap between reductionist physics and biology can be bridged you need to read this article. This is profound stuff.

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open- ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3–5. 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. We introduce a measure called assembly (A), capturing the degree of causation required to produce a given ensemble of objects. This approach enables us to incorporate novelty generation and selection into the physics of complex objects. It explains how these objects can be characterized through a forward dynamical process considering their assembly. By reimagining the concept of matter within assembly spaces, AT provides a powerful interface between physics and biology. It discloses a new aspect of physics emerging at the chemical scale, whereby history and causal contingency influence what exists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting. Very interesting. I downloaded the article and read the first two pages. I'll get to the rest later. The one thing that bothers me though that this comes out during the AI push. I'll leave that there until after I've read the whole thing but you're right, this is thought provoking.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This peer reviewed article was released by Nature Magazine last week. The implications of this hypothesis are mind boggling. This is probably one of the most important scientific papers published in a while.

For any of you are interested in how the gap between reductionist physics and biology can be bridged you need to read this article. This is profound stuff.

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open- ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3–5. 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. We introduce a measure called assembly (A), capturing the degree of causation required to produce a given ensemble of objects. This approach enables us to incorporate novelty generation and selection into the physics of complex objects. It explains how these objects can be characterized through a forward dynamical process considering their assembly. By reimagining the concept of matter within assembly spaces, AT provides a powerful interface between physics and biology. It discloses a new aspect of physics emerging at the chemical scale, whereby history and causal contingency influence what exists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9.pdf
Click to expand...

I wonder why they admit there needs to be a stage of assembly, but deny the need for an assembler......is there any evidence of assembly without an assembler anywhere else in our experience?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I wonder why they admit there needs to be a stage of assembly, but deny the need for an assembler......is there any evidence of assembly without an assembler anywhere else in our experience?......
Click to expand...

Absolutely there is. Self assembly, at the molecular level occurs all the time. For example when lipids form membranes, such as phospholipids forming membranes that become the plasma membrane of eukaryotic cells or the double helical formation of DNA via hydrogen bonding or the self assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures. Cellular structures such as membranes, and organelles like ribosomes, mitochondria, Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, saltatory neural transmission are all products of self assembly from biological macromolecules and at the cellular level cellular differentiation, mitosis and meiosis are examples of biological self assembly.

Self assembly is a very common occurrence in biological systems.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Absolutely there is. Self assembly, at the molecular level occurs all the time. For example when lipids form membranes, such as phospholipids forming membranes that become the plasma membrane of eukaryotic cells or the double helical formation of DNA via hydrogen bonding or the self assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures. Cellular structures such as membranes, and organelles like ribosomes, mitochondria, Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, saltatory neural transmission are all products of self assembly from biological macromolecules and at the cellular level cellular differentiation, mitosis and meiosis are examples of biological self assembly.

Self assembly is a very common occurrence in biological systems.
Click to expand...
I watched a program on NASA about Assembly, and the use of mass spectrometry.

Thanks for the article, I’ll see what I can understand :)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This peer reviewed article was released by Nature Magazine last week. The implications of this hypothesis are mind boggling. This is probably one of the most important scientific papers published in a while.

For any of you are interested in how the gap between reductionist physics and biology can be bridged you need to read this article. This is profound stuff.

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open- ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3–5. 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. We introduce a measure called assembly (A), capturing the degree of causation required to produce a given ensemble of objects. This approach enables us to incorporate novelty generation and selection into the physics of complex objects. It explains how these objects can be characterized through a forward dynamical process considering their assembly. By reimagining the concept of matter within assembly spaces, AT provides a powerful interface between physics and biology. It discloses a new aspect of physics emerging at the chemical scale, whereby history and causal contingency influence what exists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9.pdf
Click to expand...

Above my pay grade so I sent it to my husband who maybe can explain it with smaller words. lol Thanks, Mott.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Absolutely there is. Self assembly, at the molecular level occurs all the time. For example when lipids form membranes, such as phospholipids forming membranes that become the plasma membrane of eukaryotic cells or the double helical formation of DNA via hydrogen bonding or the self assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures. Cellular structures such as membranes, and organelles like ribosomes, mitochondria, Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum, saltatory neural transmission are all products of self assembly from biological macromolecules and at the cellular level cellular differentiation, mitosis and meiosis are examples of biological self assembly.

Self assembly is a very common occurrence in biological systems.
Click to expand...

organic chemical reactions......nothing to get excited about there.......
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Above my pay grade so I sent it to my husband who maybe can explain it with smaller words. lol Thanks, Mott.
Click to expand...

The biochemistry is beyond my pay grade too. I think the basic gist is the attempt to bridge the gap between physics and complex biological organisms. It's hard for us to imagine or explain how the complexity of life could emerge from the reductionist laws of physics. This theory seems to be a novel approach to bridge that chasm of ignorance between inert matter and life.
 
Cypress said:
The biochemistry is beyond my pay grade too. I think the basic gist is attempt to bridge the gap between physics and complex biological organisms. It's hard for us to imagine or explain how the complexity of life could emerge from the reductionist laws of physics. This theory seems to be a novel approach to bridge that chasm of ignorance between inert matter and life
Click to expand...

Matter is not inert. That is the error.
 
Phantasmal said:
I watched a program on NASA about Assembly, and the use of mass spectrometry.

Thanks for the article, I’ll see what I can understand :)
Click to expand...

I’ve played with mass spectrometers in the past. It’s a widely used analytical instrument in my field. It’s mostly used in conjunction with an Inductively Charged Plasma (ICP)/mass spectrometer for identifying inorganics, in particular trace metals analysis. The other is Gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry. That’s used for identifying trace organics like VOC’s, Pesticides, solvents, etc,.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I’ve played with mass spectrometers in the past. It’s a widely used analytical instrument in my field. It’s mostly used in conjunction with an Inductively Charged Plasma (ICP)/mass spectrometer for identifying inorganics, in particular trace metals analysis. The other is Gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry. That’s used for identifying trace organics like VOC’s, Pesticides, solvents, etc,.
Click to expand...

I recall as a kid my dad, who ran a lab at Monsanto, being excited about the new gizmo they had just gotten -- this one. One of the things he was proud of was their partnership with arson investigators. They could use it to identify possible accelerants.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
This peer reviewed article was released by Nature Magazine last week. The implications of this hypothesis are mind boggling. This is probably one of the most important scientific papers published in a while.

For any of you are interested in how the gap between reductionist physics and biology can be bridged you need to read this article. This is profound stuff.

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open- ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3–5. 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. We introduce a measure called assembly (A), capturing the degree of causation required to produce a given ensemble of objects. This approach enables us to incorporate novelty generation and selection into the physics of complex objects. It explains how these objects can be characterized through a forward dynamical process considering their assembly. By reimagining the concept of matter within assembly spaces, AT provides a powerful interface between physics and biology. It discloses a new aspect of physics emerging at the chemical scale, whereby history and causal contingency influence what exists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9.pdf
Click to expand...

backward looking troglodytic nonsense, trying to shit on god.
 
OK, I read the whole thing. I thought this was an AI/Soul thing but it isn't.

Basically, nature does complicated shit the easiest way possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top