Daniel J Nicholson

What Is Life? Revisited Cambridge Core - Philosophy of Science - What Is Life? Revisited

This short book by @djnicholson.bsky.social is extraordinarily good for understanding not just the genesis, message and myths of Schrödinger's book but also why molecular biology developed in the way it did (and what's problematic about that).
www.cambridge.org/core/element...

Thanks, Phil! I knew you'd get a kick out of it 👍🏼

Wow, congratulations, Jan! (On both counts!)

Congratulations! 🎉🎉🎉

Ehud, out of curiosity: which text by Gayon did you assign?

Feel this so much! 😆

Gracias Juan!

Yes, that's exactly right. And in fact I note in my book that life is a manifestation of both OFO *and* OFD processes. The former are necessary for its propagation, but the latter play a key role in its conservation. Both are essential for its perpetuation over evolutionary time scales.

Couldn't agree more

Thanks Benjamin, I appreciate that. And I'll keep an eye out for Riskin's new book!

I had SO much fun talking to Paul for almost 2 hours about my new book on Schrödinger & molecular biology. Easily one of the most enjoyable podcasts I've ever done. Check it out!

P.S. CUP has made the PDF of my book free to download for 2 more weeks. Get it here: www.cambridge.org/core/element...

Watson and Nicholson speaking after Nicholson's talk at CSHL

I actually thank Watson in the acknowledgements of my book, where I note that he "was appalled that I had the audacity to criticize molecular biology’s Schrödingerian view of the cell. Paradoxically, I found Watson’s complaints rather reassuring, as they showed that I am not attacking a strawman"

James Watson attending a research talk by Daniel Nicholson on the legacy of Schrödinger's 'What Is Life?' at CSHL

When I presented my research on Schrödinger at CSHL, everyone was surprised to find Jim Watson seated up front in what was apparently his first public appearance since the pandemic. During my talk, he snored so loudly that he woke himself up, and in the Q&A he loudly described my argument as "Crap!"

Thanks, Ed!

Nice! Interested to hear what you make of my analysis

Note for purists: the original published version had a typo at the bottom of the first page (introduced during copy-editing) which rendered the last sentence nonsensical. This has now been corrected in the online/PDF version. The printed version coming out next month will also be the corrected one.

Last chance to download my book for free! It's still available until tomorrow.

Daniel‘s lectures at our GSK Cancer Science Graduate School are always a curriculum highlight! Contemplating the implicit assumptions of modern biological science can foster new ways of thinking, as some of our old go-to concepts become unwieldy and show their limitations. Students loved it!

The flip side is that because Schrödinger's ideas lent themselves to numerous (often contradictory) interpretations, their influence was magnified as a result. Readers of WIL have found in it whatever they happened to be looking for, which is why the book means different things to different people.

But the importance of negative entropy for Schrödinger's view of life has been overstated and misconstrued. Schrödinger is not the apostle of self-organization that proponents of non-equilibrium thermodynamics have made him out to be. In fact he is saying the opposite of what they think he's saying.

As I show in my book, Schrödinger's idea of 'negative entropy' has been interpreted in a variety of different ways. Proponents of cybernetics and information theory on the one hand and of non-equilibrium thermodynamics on the other have drawn on it for different purposes.

Thanks Christian! Monod's C&N builds on many of the themes in WIL. In fact, in my book I argue that the former represents the realization of the biological vision of the latter. And you're right that Monod articulates it more explicitly. Life is based on OFO according to Schrödinger hence my focus

Nice! That sounds quite close to my interpretation. Would love to read your analysis; did you publish it?

¡Gracias, Alejandro! Este proyecto ha sido toda una odisea, pero me alegra mucho poder compartirlo por fin con el mundo. Verás que te agradezco explícitamente en un pie de página los datos que encontrastes en los archivos de CUP, y también al final, por supuesto :) Un abrazo

Thanks Kevin!

Thanks Ehud! I'm curious to hear what you make of it!

Thanks Chris. And hope the conference today goes well! I wil try to catch some of it online.

<i>What Is Life?</i> Revisited Cambridge Core - Philosophy: General Interest - <i>What Is Life?</i> Revisited

My little book on Schrödinger's famous classic 'What Is Life?' is out! Offering the most comprehensive analysis ever undertaken of the book's origins, reception, impact, and legacy, it uncovers Schrödinger's motivations in writing it, and shows how it has shaped our current understanding of the cell

¡¡Enhorabuena, Alejandro!! 🎉🎉🎉

I think the reasons are not just institutional. Historians of science should have the freedom to do whatever they want, but they should not be terribly surprised when scientists ignore them. In any case they don't own history. The history of science is far too important to be left only to historians