Abstract
Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena.Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open-ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3,4,5.
We present assembly theory (AT) as a framework that does not alter the laws of physics, but redefines the concept of an ‘object’ on which these laws act. AT conceptualizes objects not as point particles, but as entities defined by their possible formation histories. This allows objects to show evidence of selection, within well-defined boundaries of individuals or selected units.
We introduce a measure called assembly (A), capturing the degree of causation required to produce a given ensemble of objects. This approach enables us to incorporate novelty generation and selection into the physics of complex objects. It explains how these objects can be characterized through a forward dynamical process considering their assembly.
By reimagining the concept of matter within assembly spaces, AT provides a powerful interface between physics and biology. It discloses a new aspect of physics emerging at the chemical scale, whereby history and causal contingency influence what exists.
10 thoughts on “Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hmm. Linking molecular complexity to biology as the designing element. Echoes of “Intelligent Design”?
Is there any overlap with constructor theory, I wonder. I remember a commenter at Uncommon Descent, Critical Rationalist, promoting the idea.
I see this has popped up for discussion at Peaceful Science.
I am not qualified to judge the merits, but Nature is usually legit.
My gut feeling is it’s a bit like string theory. Fits the data, but so what?
petrushka,
My suspicion on reading the article was whether Bill Dembski had any involvement. I didn’t notice any credits or cites.
I see P Z Myers is somewhat unimpressed by assembly theory.
Oh dear. Creationists are not too impressed, either.
There’s a video discussion from 2022 between Lee Cronin and James Tour on the origin of life. [Lee Cronin is lead author of the paper quoted in the OP]
Ah, youtube links automatically embed. Is that a good thing?
Just noticed in the references:
23. Deutsch, D. & Marletto, C. Constructor theory of information. Proc. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 471, 20140540 (2015).
24. Marletto, C. Constructor theory of life. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141226 (2015).
I read the intro again, and suddenly realized its a Sokal hoax.