> I fully expect in the future we will look at quantum mechanics and apply that to our understanding of biology
Heisenberg would like to have a word with you. He wrote Reality and its Order during the war (world war 2 that is) and obviously he knew his quantum mechanics.
"From the point of view of present atomic theory, the organism appears to be an utterly improbable formation".
I'm probably not as well versed in quantum as you are, but the way I'm reading that quote, isn't everything in quantum theory "an utterly improbable formation"?
I can't tell if you are disagreeing with my initial comment or agreeing. Sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake on this.
Just like you I am just a somewhat informed layperson as far as QM is concerned, which is the reason Heisenberg was dragged into the conversation. I invite you to read his book -- he wrote it to share his thoughts with friends and family so it is an 'accessible' text modulo obviously being the thoughts of a very rigorous and powerful mind, so it's not a breezy pop treatment either.
Heisenberg begins with an abstract consideration of language and correspondence of expressions in a language to a given 'context' or domain of understanding. He then uses this framework to progressively consider distinct domains or contexts of knowledge (celestial mechanics, EM, QM, Chemistry, Biology ..) by noting the content of their respective languages and their relationship to one another. For example, Newtonian mechanics has the vocabulary of force, mass, acceleration, etc. Then he notes how Electro-Magnetism necessitated the introduction of new terms, most importantly (force) fields. He then notes, as an example, how 19th century mechanics (alone) could not explain the stability of the atomic ensemble, which is what gave birth to QM.
In all this, his main point is that each of these domains are 'closed' and complete in terms of phenomena that they are expressing, but are not universally complete. For example, basic (Newtonian) mechanics can fully explain the motion of an automobile, but if you want to understand what is happening with say the brakepads on a car when it is decelerating, we need to introduce the langauge of 'heat' and effectively Chemistry.
In terms of "organic matter", he muses on the fact that there is clearly something different about "living matter" and "dead matter", yet as of then (or now) we see that the same physical laws (chemical and QM) are operable in both modalities of matter, yet clearly something is different. He refers to the then current theories of vitalism and entelechy and also the thoughts of his mentor (Bohr) who apparently projected his overarching 'guiding thought' of "complementarity" to the question of living matter. At some point he also considers the possiblity that all 'organic matter' and "consciousness" may somehow be related.
As to "improbable", he takes pain to point out distinction between "objective" and "subjective" understanding of a system or phenomena. (This is likely due to his following in the footsteps of Goethe, whom he references.) QM can give "very precise" predictions regarding "a specific aspect" of a (complex) system, say momentum, but the other aspects of the system can only be defined statistically.
In all this, what is clear is that as of 1940-whatever neither Heisenberg nor Bohr thought QM as a language that is 'closed' over organic matter, to say nothing of consciousness.
Heisenberg would like to have a word with you. He wrote Reality and its Order during the war (world war 2 that is) and obviously he knew his quantum mechanics.
"From the point of view of present atomic theory, the organism appears to be an utterly improbable formation".
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-25696-8