On 25 Mar 2014, at 19:33, [email protected] wrote:
If DNA +/- something else is a universal programing language
and we manage to figure out how to operate that...
it might indeed indicate that a new trillion$ technology is looming.
It exists. It is part of biotechnology. I have worked on this at
"Plant Genetic System".
I do think thatit will not be however becuase we figure out
how to program an individual cell. I would suggest that the hard
disk- program analogy if materialized through an applied metabiology
requires the intra vs intercellular places space thus by some such
(semantics and syntax).
I imagine that entropy will playt a role and that DNA computers might
be part of the "hard disk" while the functionality becomes integrated
with in situ biophysics.
OK.
The fact that it will require a "body" I think is an advantage in that
we might be able to coopt innate functionality for computational
purposes
and thus though QM computers would be faster etc they might not\be
able to \
integrate well with our human bodies.
Imagine for instance if we could "program" or communicate with a plant
and tell it to produce more sugar?
Well we did it. I think Plant Genetic System was even the first
society to bioengineer a Tobacco plant to produce its own insecticide.
Now, many plants at treated in that way (crops), and .... many
environmentalist fight against it.
Like for the climate it is a complex subject where I can see both
sides and I have mixed feelings about it.
Of course, we don't have exploit specifically the "universal" nature
of the cells, but what is called DNA computing might lead to that kind
of technology.
Then... perhaps there might be enough food for more people who
with other toys build QM devices.
But is it???
I had attempted to contact Rene Thom while he was alive. There is a
long\
distance between shape forming morphogenesis and population genetic
phenotypic change understanding.
Note that I have mentionned René Thomas (a biologist), who is a
different person than René Thom (a mathematician).
René Thomas succeeded in programming a sort of "10 goto 10"
instruction in a bacteria E. Coli, so that a plasmid enter and go out
of the genome repetitively.
I have generally confounded thinking of a Turing machine in multiple
states
and a simplistic thought on the busy beaver problem when bridging
this difference.
I have yet to integrate the entropy of DNA computation to the levels
of organization under
different levels of selection. That would be required to decide if
the cell or other cells\
are important for telenomic activity based in teleomatic physical law.
Organisms never get to to use strong forces, quarks etc in this view
of reproductive computationnalism
No organism has been found to mover neutrons around atoms.
We do now, and we are part of nature ...
Universality will be (if not actually is) implemented in all possible
ways.
Bruno
On Monday, March 24, 2014 3:33:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Mar 2014, at 05:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2014 8:57 PM, LizR wrote:
Is DNA a universal programming language?
I'm not sure what a "universal programming language" means. Just
1s and 0s are enough language.
Universal language can have a very tiny alphabet {0, 1}.
But the alphabet is not the language. You need some grammar, and
semantics (operational at least). The test is in showing how to
write a program.
I think you probably mean to ask is whether a cell is a universal
computer with DNA as the program.
Ah! I agree. This is meaningful, and I would say yes, even for
bacteria.
I don't know if there's been a formal proof but it almost certainly
is.
OK. From René Thomas work, it is easy to build a formal proof. Or
even from Jacob and Monod. I discovered computer science in that
paper :)
Making a universal computer is pretty easy. Wolfram's rule 110
produces a universal computer in one dimension with only two colors
and nearest neighbor rules.
That was not easy to find. And it is not always easy to prove that
something is Turing complete. It took 70 years to prove that
diophantine polynomials are Turing universal. Even just the degree
4. Open problem for the degree 3.
But you are right, universality is cheap, just that it is more and
more complex to prove once the systems are more and more simple.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
