Beyond the algorithmization of the sciences

Thomas Easton promotes algorithms as a higher form of science in his paper Beyond the algorithmization of the sciences:

Algorithms have thus made biology as useful a science as physics, chemistry, and computer science. But are algorithms enough to move biology closer to the throne? Are they math?
Five decades ago, most mathematicians would have said no. Then in the 1970s, they discovered the value of computers for “proving” theorems (…)

Myself, I haven’t had time to spend much time thinking about it, but it is quite clear that I value algorithms at least as highly as I value theorems.

One thought on “Beyond the algorithmization of the sciences”

  1. Some people view the importance of Crick and Watson’s discovery as revealing the mechanism behind heredity, however, at the end of day I think it is more important because it made biology computable – they revealed the instruction set. The algorithmization of biology is old news. The algorithmization of consiousness is a more interesting modern problem. Kristof Koch, who was one of Crick’s main collaborators in the past decade, is moving in that direction but calling it the neuronal correlates of consiousness NCC. Will we find a similiar instruction set for consiousness that will make it computable?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To create code blocks or other preformatted text, indent by four spaces:

    This will be displayed in a monospaced font. The first four 
    spaces will be stripped off, but all other whitespace
    will be preserved.
    Markdown is turned off in code blocks:
     [This is not a link](

To create not a block, but an inline code span, use backticks:

Here is some inline `code`.

For more help see