The new physics needed to probe the origins of life

The new physics needed to probe the origins of life

Stuart Kauffman’s provocative take on emergence and evolution energizes Sara Imari Walker.

I agree with Kauffman that life cannot be explained by our current laws of physics, but dispute his argument that the explanation is ‘beyond’ physics. The distinction might be semantic, but it is important.

Physics has already grown far beyond simply describing aspects of reality, such as the very big (astronomy, cosmology), the very small (quantum systems, particle physics) or the human-sized (mechanics, as studied by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton). Interesting work is emerging from the study of complexity in areas such as economics, electronics, climate physics, the science of societies and non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Such cross-disciplinary advances suggest that physics itself should not be defined merely by systems it has described in the past. It is a way to view the world, one that values the most abstract, fundamental and unifying descriptions of reality, from atoms to the Universe.
Within that span is biological and technological complexity in phenomena from humans to cities. So far, this has been the hardest area in which to gain traction from first-principles approaches, because of the density of interactions across components and scales. The question of whether there is a physics of life demands that we consider that all examples of life might at their core be part of the same fundamental phenomenon; otherwise, ‘life’ is not an objective property, but a collection of special cases. This unified view seems to be in line with what Kauffman is after. But it suggests that an explanation might demand new physics.

It seems a bit odd to me that such things as economics and society should be introduced into the topic of physics. How about adding art and literature too? Methinks there's an overreaching, a view that science will conquer all. It seems unrealistic to me.

Perhaps the aim is to achieve something new. I'm just not convinced it should be labelled 'physics'.

Yes. Even if science can conquer all, why should what's being discussed in that article be described as physics, rather than physical chemistry or theoretical biology?

I'd have thought physicists had enough on their hands with the fundamental laws of physics, without trying to take over the whole of science. (We all know mathematics is supreme anyway. )