the organic principle

[jtwyler]

I've just read a new theory"the organic principle". Although I am not exactly sure what it is, a theory, an idea, it is definitely a different approach to understanding things, at least it's a very novel approach to seeing life. Would anyone care to check it out? I'd like to hear other views, especially on what it really is or if it's useful. It is not commercial, it is not googleable, it's not referred to one specific science, it looks like a simple way to compare fields. A bit strange to tell the truth.

The only online reference I have is topthy.org

JT

[jtwyler]

Addendum: the organic theory as described on www topthy org reminds of Hawking's statement that if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. This looks like an attempt to achieve exactly that. Unfortunately it is not referenced anywhere (because it's brandnew?) and since it does by its own definition not belong into a single category there could also be a peer-review problem. The theory is at least at first sight obviously true and at the same time too obvious to be possibly true. Or is it? Definitely needs a second opinion. At worst an interesting read.

[Phil1907]

I think the reason you're not quite sure what the principle is - is that it's not much.

Looks like the vague, disjointed musings of a high school sophomore.

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by Phil1907

I think the reason you're not quite sure what the principle is - is that it's not much.

Looks like the vague, disjointed musings of a high school sophomore.

That is what I wonder about. Because if you read it like a blog that is exactly what it reads like. Would I give it more respect if it was more complicated? Probably yes. Do we automatically dismiss theories if they are not complicated enough? Is it too obvious to be interesting? The Higgs boson draws a lot of attention and billions of dollars. I believe it does so because the standard model is complicated and ugly. We might like it simply because it keeps us mentally busy, gives us something to do. But admit it, half the physicists believe in private that it is a waste of time. Maybe we like the Higgs boson because it escapes detection. But does it even exist? Who cares as long as it is the perfect excuse to play around with extremely expensive physicists' toys. We can only be glad that those who fund it do not understand it. Look at the standard model. I find it highly questionable that it swallows everybody's attention while it goes at the same time against everything that the really great physicists have said about elegance and simplicity. Take unified field theory. It must by definition be simple. Would we understand it if we saw it? And why do physicists think that they are the proper and only people to judge? Ivory tower syndrome I say.

I think you may be a bit premature in your opinion. Truth be told I myself do not know better. I find its simplicity baffling. Too simple? Do you prefer the standard model? This piece of selfcongratulating cul-de-sac physics? Intuition telling us that it is wrong and yet it is the mental kamasutra of modern physicists. Have we intellectually selfmutilated to this point? At least it got me wondering if I am still capable of simple reasoning.

In my opinion the standard model keeps everybody busy exactly because it can not be understood. It keeps the little world of physicists busy and in the money.

I can not agree with your opinion not because I think you are wrong but because you seem so eagerly dismissive. It makes a change from the usual highhorsed ramblings. You see the reason why I find is interesting is that I read it twice yesterday and to an extent I agree with your vague-sophomore opinion but I did not find anything wrong with it. I am not saying it is right but I do not see anything wrong. Can you say as much about the standard model?

[jtwyler]

To be honest I posted this here because I hoped that biologists might not be as ivory-towered as theoretical physicists. Maybe we stand too close to the trees? Maybe there is no forest? But as I said elsewhere I dare not think what it would be if it was what it could be if it was true. I am looking for a serious second opinion but I would not see a problem if the moderator locked the thread.

[inscara]

Hi,

I just can give my personal opinion about the "organic theory". I would prefer to call it the "organic model", because theories usually require more formalism. But models, are just that... models. Our limited intelligence doesn't permit us to understand how the nature works. We just know a bit about it. So, we need models to explain how we think that the things work. And models are just approximations to the reality and can be totally ficticious but they can tell us something and make us to feel comfortable about some explanation. For instance, the atomic model of Böhr is still useful for teaching kids about the nature of an atom. Nowadays, we know that it's not a real picture but it would be less wise trying to teach the principles of quantum mechanics to a child.
Beyond the validity and applicability that this "organic model" could have, the valuable thing is that somebody is trying to see the things from a different point of view. We have to remember that for many years the planet was flat and supported by elephants.
I think that the relevance of this discussion for molecular biology is that in my personal opinion, it is needed a new change in the paradigm. Just think on the cellular pathways. At the begining, a picture with a few number of boxes with protein or gene names and arrows describing a pathway in the cell was ok. But nowadays, we know that the picture is rather much more complicated and the problem to describe a signalling pathway is becoming intractable. Then, we have to think about what is the usufulness to have a chart full of boxes and arrows connecting one each other without any parameter describing the relationship? How we can predict the behavior of a system described like a web? So, I think it is time to think in something else...

Regards.-

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by inscara

Hi,

I just can give my personal opinion about the "organic theory". I would prefer to call it the "organic model", because theories usually require more formalism. But models, are just that... models.
...

Regards.-

Fully agree. Do you mind if I pass this on quoting your handle as it appears in this forum?

[jtwyler]

Originally Posted by jtwyler

Fully agree. Do you mind if I pass this on quoting your handle as it appears in this forum?

from [Only registered users see links. ]

charles says:

Inscara, If you have a minute you may want to check out

[Only registered users see links. ]

which is an essay to formalize the principle.

[inscara]

Originally Posted by jtwyler

Fully agree. Do you mind if I pass this on quoting your handle as it appears in this forum?

Yes, go ahead. And sorry for the delay in the answer but I was not checking the forum for a while.

[inscara]

Originally Posted by jtwyler

from [Only registered users see links. ]

charles says:

Inscara, If you have a minute you may want to check out

[Only registered users see links. ]

which is an essay to formalize the principle.

Hi, I took some time to read that PDF file. Trying to convince scientists that simplicity is more difficult to achieve than complexity is a daunting task. For many scientists, complexity produces that kind of feeling of robustness and trust in the same way that a high-price product produces that kind of high-quality feeling in a housewife. In many cases it is a resource used to create an intellectual ghetto or convince funding institutions to invest more money in a project. Whatever the case is, and whatever this organic principle will be, I could identify a niche where it could be succesfully applied even when it has been reinveted many times. I've found in that PDF file a sentence that could be significant for the success of the principle if it reach maturity someday: "...And the very first thing they will overlook is the inherent advantage of such a plain, simple, informal theory, that it easily translates into other sciences or that other sicences easily translate into theirs. So the problem here is simplicity of form rather than absence of formality." The niche that I'm seeing there is in the frontier of disciplines that need interaction. For example, Bioinformatics, Biocomputing and Computational Biology. The dilema nowadays is that Computer Science and Molecular Biology are so huge fields by itself that for one person to be specialist in both is almost impossible. Then, arise the question if a Bioinformatician or a Computational Biologist should be a person with a degree in Computer Science and a post-graduate specialization in Molecular Biology or vice-versa. It would be very helpful to have a theoretical framework to translate concepts from one field to another in such a way that whatever the background of a person is, that person can specialize in another discipline and work in the frontier. There are already succesful examples of this kind of transferable way-of-thinking from one discipline to another in order to simplify the domain of study. For example, object oriented programming was a mathematical concept that once implemented as an standard in the software industry became a revolution. Systems Biology is another promising field where its success depends on the translation and application of concepts from other disciplines such as electronic engineering to explain biological systems. By the way, probably you would like to check out the following webpage about the KISS concept: [Only registered users see links. ]. Probably you already know about it, but it's possible other people is unaware of it.

Regards,
inscara