It seems that physics -> chemistry -> biology is a layering of abstractions and/or emergent phenomena, and any explanations of mechanics at these higher levels is more along the lines of "how was this built from these lego blocks" rather than being some more fundamental discovery.
You keep on making assertions - perhaps you could back it up with some explanation of why you regard this as a more fundamental discovery (or however you would like to characterize it)?
"how was this built from these lego blocks"
That is not engineering. Nobody would call astronomy or cosmology engineering and it is very much the study of "how the universe is built from some basic building blocks.
Don't assign a reductive meaning to engineering that is so encompassing that everything everywhere is engineering, else you render "engineering" a meaningless concept
Q6T46nT668w6i3m · · focus · HN ↗
HarHarVeryFunny · · focus · HN ↗
It seems that understanding biology could be characterized as trying to figure out "how did nature engineer this".
For that matter isn't all of science this way?
dnautics · · focus · HN ↗
HarHarVeryFunny · · focus · HN ↗
dnautics · · focus · HN ↗
HarHarVeryFunny · · focus · HN ↗
You keep on making assertions - perhaps you could back it up with some explanation of why you regard this as a more fundamental discovery (or however you would like to characterize it)?
dnautics · · focus · HN ↗
That is not engineering. Nobody would call astronomy or cosmology engineering and it is very much the study of "how the universe is built from some basic building blocks.
Don't assign a reductive meaning to engineering that is so encompassing that everything everywhere is engineering, else you render "engineering" a meaningless concept