Physics offers countless examples for which theoretical predictions are astonishingly powerful. But it’s hard to imagine a similar precision in complex systems where the number and interdependencies between components simply prohibits a first-principles approach, look no further than the challenge of the billions of neurons and trillions of connections within our own brains. In such settings how do we even identify the important theoretical questions? We describe a systems-scale perspective in which we integrate information theory, dynamical systems and statistical physics to extract understanding directly from measurements. We demonstrate our approach with a reconstructed state space of the behavior of the nematode C. elegans, revealing a chaotic attractor with symmetric Lyapunov spectrum and a novel perspective of motor control. We then outline a maximally predictive coarse-graining in which nonlinear dynamics are subsumed into a linear, ensemble evolution to obtain a simple yet accurate model on multiple scales. With this coarse-graining we identify long timescales and collective states in the Langevin dynamics of a double-well potential, the Lorenz system and in worm behavior. We suggest that such an ``inverse’’ approach offers an emergent, quantitative framework in which to seek rather than impose effective organizing principles of complex systems.

Diversity in the natural world emerges from the collective behavior of large numbers of interacting objects. Statistical physics provides the framework relating microscopic to macroscopic properties. A fundamental assumption underlying this approach is that we have complete knowledge of the interactions between the microscopic entities. But what if that, even though possible in principle becomes impossible in practice ? Can we still construct a framework for describing their collective behavior ? Dense suspensions and granular materials are two often quoted examples where we face this challenge. These are systems where because of the complicated surface properties of particles there is extreme sensitivity of the interactions to particle positions. In this talk, I will present a perspective based on notions of constraint satisfaction that provides a way forward. I will focus on our recent work on the emergence of elasticity in the absence of any broken symmetry, and sketch out other problems that can be addressed using this perspective.

Many of us came to biology from physics. There we have been trained on such classic examples as muon g-2, where experimental data and theoretical predictions agree to many significant digits. Now, working in biology, we routinely hear that it is messy, most details matter, and that the best hope for theory in biology is to be semi-qualitative, predict general trends, and to forgo the hope of ever making quantitative predictions with the precision that we are used to in physics. Colloquially, we should be satisfied even if data and models differ so much that plotting them on the same plot makes little sense. However, some of us won’t be satisfied by this. So can we take theory in biology seriously and predict experimental outcomes within (small) error bars? Certainly, we won’t be able to predict everything, but this is never required, even in traditional physics. But we should be able to choose some features of data that are nontrivial and interesting, and focus on them. We also should be able to find different classes of models --- maybe even null models --- that match biology better, and thus allow for a better agreement. It is even possible that large-dimensional datasets of modern high-throughput experiments, and the ensuing “more is different” statistical physics style models will make quantitative, precise theory easier. To explore the role of quantitative theory in biology, in this workshop, eight speakers will address some of the following general questions based on their specific work in different corners of biology: Which features of biological data are predictable? Which types of models are best suited to making quantitative predictions in different fields? Should theorists interested in quantitative predictions focus on different questions, not typically asked by biologists? Do large, multidimensional datasets make theories (and which theories?) more or less likely to succeed? This will be an unapologetically theoretical physics workshop — we won’t focus on a specific subfield of biology, but will explore these questions across the fields, hoping that the underlying theoretical frameworks will help us find the missing connections.

Understanding individual and macroscopic transport properties of motile micro-organisms in complex environments is a timely question, relevant to many ecological, medical and technological situations. At the fundamental level, this question is also receiving a lot of attention as fluids loaded with swimming micro-organisms has become a rich domain of applications and a conceptual playground for the statistical physics of “active matter”. The existence of microscopic sources of energy borne by the motile character of these micro-swimmers is driving self-organization processes at the origin of original emergent phases and unconventional macroscopic properties leading to revisit many standard concepts in the physics of suspensions. In this presentation, I will report on a recent exploration on the question of spontaneous formation of large scale collective motion in relation with the rheological response of active suspensions. I will also present new experiments showing how the motility of bacteria can be controlled such as to extract work macroscopically.

The ability to read the DNA sequences of different organisms has transformed biology in much the same way that the telescope transformed astronomy. And yet, much of the sequence found in these genomes is as enigmatic as the Rosetta Stone was to early Egyptologists. With the aim of making steps to crack the genomic Rosetta Stone, I will describe unexpected ways of using the physics of information transfer first developed at Bell Labs for thinking about telephone communications to try to decipher the meaning of the regulatory features of genomes. Specifically, I will show how we have been able to explore genes for which we know nothing about how they are regulated by using a combination of mutagenesis, deep sequencing and the physics of information, with the result that we now have falsifiable hypotheses about how those genes work. With those results in hand, I will show how simple tools from statistical physics can be used to predict the level of expression of different genes, followed by a description of precision measurements used to test those predictions. Bringing the two threads of the talk together, I will think about next steps in reading and writing genomes at will.