Replies

Your problem is you're stuck in a false antithesis. The universe is not divided two-fold into things that can be described by the interactions of simple, elementary components, and things that are complex and 'interesting'. Complex and interesting phenomena can arise from systems that can be strictly and rigorously desribed by the motions of simple components. That's just a fact.

I don't dispute that "complex and interesting phenomena can arise from systems that can be strictly and rigorously desribed by the motions of simple components." And yet it appears that the action of the chemical laws is fairly well restricted to "near neighbor" relations. For simple systems, this is sufficient, and "interesting" as well.

Not to mention they may constitute the subcomponents of more complex systems.

But for highly complex systems such as the human body, it is difficult to conceive of the global organization required to coordinate all the various parts and systems -- that must all work dynamically and synergistically together, virtually instantaneously in real time, in order to maintain the system in a living state -- as proceeding on the basis of "near neighbor" relations exclusively. It appears that action-at-a-distance is involved, at the very minimum, to satisfy the global organization requirement. If this is so, we need to move beyond chemistry, and start looking at fields as the matrix in which such non-local actions can take place. And now we have entered the "magic kingdom" of physics and mathematics.

I don't wish to "divide the universe." To me, it is one unified system, operating under unified law. Some have suggested (starting with Plato) it is even "alive" in some sense.

My 2-cents, RWP, FWIW. Thank you so much for your reply.

But for highly complex systems such as the human body, it is difficult to conceive of the global organization required to coordinate all the various parts and systems -- that must all work dynamically and synergistically together, virtually instantaneously in real time, in order to maintain the system in a living state -- as proceeding on the basis of "near neighbor" relations exclusively.

The argument from incredulity is not particularly compelling.

Can you imagine how difficult it would have been for someone in the 18th century to follow the logic of quantum theory? Or someone in the 19th century to understand genetic engineering.

Science is cumulative. The train of reasoning that leads to modern biology left the station 150 years ago.

You agree that chemical laws can emerge as complex phenomena from simple physics. Why then, can't biochemistry emerge from simpler chemistry, and physiology from biochemistry? We understand those next levels of organization a little less well, but the principle seems reasonable.

But for highly complex systems such as the human body, it is difficult to conceive of the global organization required to coordinate all the various parts and systems -- that must all work dynamically and synergistically together, virtually instantaneously in real time, in order to maintain the system in a living state -- as proceeding on the basis of "near neighbor" relations exclusively. It appears that action-at-a-distance is involved, at the very minimum, to satisfy the global organization requirement. If this is so, we need to move beyond chemistry, and start looking at fields as the matrix in which such non-local actions can take place. And now we have entered the "magic kingdom" of physics and mathematics.

First of all, the brain doesn't work in real time. A modern computer requires synchronous operation on a time scale of nanoseconds. Humans can get by with synchrony a hundred million times slower.

Second, it's not all nearest-neighbor interactions. Neural conductivity is electrostatic and through space. And we understand - have understood for 50 years - how brains communicate with feet on a time scale of hundreds of milliseconds.

Electrostatics and chemistry are inextricably linked in the body. What creates the electric field is the motion of chemical species. The field is short range, precisely because we're a big bag of ions that respond to the fields and therefore shield them over long distances.