Why Biology Is Not Physics | Massimo Pigliucci

Massimo Pigliucci argues that biology depends on history, contingency, and empirical regularities rather than universal laws. Should biology aspire to the kind of theories found in physics, or does it require a fundamentally different approach?

The real question is: Why physics is not biology?

"Why Biology Is Not Pnysics" For obvious reasons as follows : 1) Physicist can not explain how unconscious dead rocks turned alive after being blown away by Bigbang to eternity.. 2) Evolution after Bigbang can not explain how Consciousness MUTATES into free entity free to choose to believe in Spirits or God driving Dawkins crazy...

through a thought experiment, he thinks physch is not important. He lacks on this issue integraty and honest mind on this issue . He has a closed mind.

The higher age perspective was fourteen versions of the human in over universal cycle with the universe being the human prototype. In religious language made in the image of God, as in the higher age and an understanding of Consciousness or God described as Existence; Consciousness; Bliss. Humans in our embodies states in place of bliss have cognition and sense perception to navigate life in a dual system as we were, and are not in unity. This has been described in scripture as the result of first, the Light named Lucifer that fell from Heaven and out of unity and secondly Adam and Eve; the dual forces who also “disobeyed” fell out of unity and a manifest universe came into existence. It is seen that we have to evolve our way back. We are currently making inroads into Heaven with the discoveries of finder forces: two electricities so far, and electromagnetism. To be discovered or understood, three more electricities (the pattern in nature is five); magnetism, mind, and consciousness. Currently Consciousness is “the hard problem” for atheist philosophers. In religion Consciousness is God whose definition is: Existence; Consciousness: Bliss. We share in the first two for the latter, in our embodied states, we have cognition and sense perception to navigate the dual system we find ourselves in. Biology is not physics and contrary to mid-nineteenth Darwinism it is not consciousness either, fundamental, nor mind subtly elemental and we would now see as emerging at the level of quantum events with the macro elements. Only what is elemental emerges what is fundamental does not emerge, it is accessed. Hence atheist philosophers “hard problem of consciousness”. What does not emerge is not accessible to material science. Religion and Philosophers, who are not atheists, understand this and Consciousness is not “a hard problem” for them. Now there is reductiveness everywhere, as we are in a Material Age until the Precession of the Equinoxes evolves us out of it. Currently the physical brain is being studied for the source of consciousness, similar to what studying a computer would be for the source of electricity. The anthropic is looming and we need to do better than this. Richard Dawkins is ending touring, he should stay home and water his plants, as he and all atheist materialists are clueless. We are in a Material Age; the atom split, nuclear energy unleashed, the bomb, communism, trans humanism. It is not possible to pull the cat’s tail without getting the whole cat. “Batten down the hatches, it is going to be a bumpy ride.”

What's he mean by there's no laws in biology?

Biology is complex physics. Chemistry is less complex than biology and more complex than space. Physics is a complex of geometry. The range of increasing complexity is the cause of things. That increase is usually labeled as entropy.

biology is not just physics and therefore its goal oriented activities cannot be explained by physical laws alone...

SIDE EYE but listening… 😑

The predictability reliability seems so (metaphorically) prophetic. In a philosophical thought experiment: Imagine using our current compendium of biology, and going back about 246 million years ago. If the "biology" enterprise was as predictable as "physics", we'd be able to predict the advent of the dinosaurs (however, I do think there is evidence of quantum mechanical markers, that would be scientifically unbeknownst to us). Where I disagree with the brilliant Massimo Pigliucci is, if, we theoretically understood the entirety of "matter", in terms of the entire applied "physics" of biological ecology, at the quantum states, then we could predict the dinosaurs. Or Australopithecus or H'Erectus or Neanderthal or H'Sapiens.... We don't understand enough about "matter" so we continue to play philosophical games about "consciousness", by evoking impetus and excitation, such as "sentience" and "qualia".