Philosophy of Genetics

Quantum physics and genetics

When you observe very tiny things, strange things begin to happen.  At a fine grain, beneath what you can see at a microscopic level, even smaller than individual genes and molecules, there lies a world of subatomic particles.  At that level, there is no longer a meaningful distinction between an observer and the thing being observed.

What does that mean?  When you measure something, you are using a probe, which is made of matter.  (Or, when you measure the amount of light reflected from the object you use a light meter.)  But according to quantum physics, at the subatomic level, matter and light both consist of waves which don't fully exist (as particles) until they are measured.  And this works both ways.  The surface of the measurement device (or light meter), and the thing being measured, both consist of discrete waves.  And so neither the surface of the measurement device nor the "observed entity" fully exist until the measurement event occurs.

Yet the word "measurement" is itself misleading.  At the subatomic level, the observed and the observer are both simply wave phenomena, waiting for an interaction to make them "real".  You can't say one party has the privilege of being called the "observer" or "measurer", since they mutually cause the other to exist!

To explain this, I like the analogy of soap bubbles.  Two soap bubbles can interact, but you can't call one the "observer" and the other one the "observed".  They are both changed by the interaction with each other.  At some level, there is no separate observer performing a measurement on something else.  There is no observation, nor any measurement at all.  There is simply "interaction".

Still, I worry about this... Perhaps one entity has more experience encapsulated in its form, and therefore has a more privileged position.  For example, a drug (ligand) binds with protein targets (receptors) in the body.  Once this so-called receptor-ligand complex occurs, the protein undergoes a contortion, or change in shape.  The interaction is what leads to the effect. But it took millions of years for the protein to evolve, therefore it encapsulates more time and experience.  Got to think about this one some more!

Thanks for the memory (again!)

A new study published in the Journal of Neuroscience has identified a “memory molecule” in the brain called “CaMKII”.  It turns out that in the area of the brain known as the hippocampus, you can artificially create and then biochemically erase short-term memories using the CaMKII protein molecule.

Schopenhauer’s free will

I’m generally in agreement with Arthur Schopenhauer’s concept of the Freedom of the Will:

• We can do as we will, but we cannot will as we will
• Character is determined by nature, not by the environment
• Humans can respond to abstract concepts, therefore human action is not merely determined by objects that are immediately present.  But a man [can’t] get up from his chair before being driven by a motive

However, I believe human motivations (while generally consistent through our lives) are more probabilistic on a daily basis.  If you’re a jealous person, but you happen to look the wrong way at the wrong time, you may miss becoming inflamed by a situation that would stoke your jealousy.  Similarly, if you have a low threshold to anger, but live in a peaceful neighborhood, your anger will not flare as often.

Still, all it takes is a single incident – if you’ve got a low threshold to anger – to change your life forever (i.e. getting so angry that you kill someone, and go to jail for the rest of your life).  So in that sense, probabilistic daily motivations may lead to similar outcomes over time.  Often, the interaction between our nature and nurture is one-directional, and the outcomes can't be undone, due to latching effects.

The Necessity of Death

It's often said that great mathematicians do their best work before turning 30 years old.  Even Einstein, the great physicist, said the mind is crippled after 40.  At that time, he gave up his rebellious, bohemian ways, and joined the respectable, settled bourgeoisie.  He defended his earlier theories against competing theories for the rest of his life, even as his creative streak eased with age and fame.  "Glittering reknown is still draped around the calcified shell," he said.

Once people get older, they morph into the authority figures they formerly rebelled against, defending their turf with remarkably little irony.  1600 years earlier, after muttering "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet", St. Augustine finally gave up his mistress in his 30's, and pledged himself to celibacy, then admonished others who followed his own (earlier) path to enlightenment.

The point is, many young people are foolish, rebellious, highly creative, and willing to challenge authority.  That's good for the survival of society and our species.  But when older, we become the authorities, and we don't like to be challenged.  Our brains become more ossified, calcified, and settled in old ways.

So what do you do with 30-something mathematicians?  To keep a steady stream of creativity, Nature long ago introduced the concept of death (by so-called "natural causes"), to power the steady cycle of natural selection. To allow society to evolve and remain well adapted to changing times, it was considered easier (by Mother Nature) to kill the recidivist individual (or, rather, skimp on proper bodily maintenance) instead of re-plasticizing him to take on a new form.  You only get one puberty and early adulthood.

You might say immortality would be pointless for someone like Einstein, because many people would continue to defer to his status and fame, even as his creativity declined.  Therefore nothing new would ever be invented, and society would decline.  But death is bad, right?  Especially by holocausts brought on by perverted governments, but also death by natural causes.  Most people passively accept this fate.  But I certainly don't want to die.

Can't we figure out a way to re-plastize our brains (like a second puberty), so the draconian death concept can be retired?  I don't want to be a "calcified shell" spouting the same ideas 30 years hence.