Jerry,
You wrote:
> Biological information emerges as flows of changes of chemical
> relations - metabolic dynamics.
By what principle does this emergent property you describe adopt a
specifically digital language to manage those analogously chemical
affairs of biological systems? To recognize such an emergent
property I would have to agree to a few brave assumptions. One would
be that biological systems, comprising hierarchical atoms and
molecules, are just naturally capable of writing their own
operational programs. That's a reach for me, because nothing is
explained. Even though I am aware that organisms do exactly that,
there are no principles I know of to support it. HOW they do it (not
WHY they do it) is the key issue for me. How do analogs write their
own digital scripts? One again, the only other time in natural
history that I know of this sort of thing happening was when human
analogs wrote their own digitally symbolic language about 10,000
years ago.
As Stan has said:
> Of course, the origin of the genetic system is arguably the most
> outstanding problem facing natural science.
And you go on to say:
> Thus, if one wishes to develop a compelling argument about chemical
> numbers and structures and genetic information, one should start
> with relational algebras that keep track of changes of relations...
> A living system is a society of associative relations among atomic
> numbers.
If an emergent property truly emerges in nature I think it ought to
do so on first principles. Still, to argue that "biological
information emerges as flows of changes..." interests me. Seems a
little like a DC electrical system�something new for me to worry
about. But how did those upstart crystalline micelles, containing
numerical/chemical relations, learn algebra well enough to enable the
emergence of a genetic code? How did such a uniquely non-analogous
language for communicating pure digital information in biological
systems come into existence?
Maybe this emergent property cannot be explained in hierarchical
terms applying to a single universe. Maybe the emergent property
Jerry speaks of is evidence of another universe, a coincidental one,
where digits rule and analogs are the exception. Yes, it's a wild
idea. But I don't think there is enough hierarchy in this pedestrian
universe of ours to get us the principles we need to explain what
biological life actually is and where it came from.
Best regards, Richard
On Nov 11, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>
> (To the List: I am re-posting my message to Karl because the
> original message was not distributed in it's totality; the
> arguments were truncated. Cheers Jerry )
>
> Karl:
>
> I fear that I must once again disagree with your strong conclusions
> about the relations between mathematics and genetics. I would urge
> you to attempt to find exact correspondence relations between
> empirical evidence and your views of models based on numbers.
>
> See my comments below.
>
> Subject: [Fis] genetics: the most outstanding problem, SOLVED
>
>
> Dear Stan,
>
> In your last posting, you said:
> SS: Of course, the origin of the genetic system is arguably
> the most
> outstanding problem facing natural science. It seems that, other
> than the
> (to me) unconvincing RNA World idea, there is no compelling model
> of it.
>
> The model that the RNA (together with the DNA) is a sequence and
> that the
> genetic mechanism copies the information from a sequence (the dna/
> rna) into
> a nonsequenced assembly (the living organism) and from there (by
> means of
> the ovaries and the testes) back into a sequence is a quite compelling
> model.
>
> The term "information" has been shown in this chatroom to mean
the
> cuts that
> segregate, separate and distinguish summands;
> The term "sequence" has been defined by Peano;
> The term "nonsequenced /=commutative/assembly" is indeed hairy,
as
> there
> exists no definition for multidimensional partitions, although this
> is what
> it means;
> The term "copies" means a filter restriction on a set of
entries
> into a
> database (a restricted, in optimal case, bijective map between two
> enumerations).
>
>
> I certainly will not support this view of the relationships among
> numbers, genetics and information.
> I find your post to be outside the scope of the standard theories
> of biochemistry and genetics.
>
> Chemical information is grounded in the list of chemical elements
> and the relations among them.
> The terms "DNA" and "RNA" etc, are chemical names of
specific
> relationally rich bio-molecules.
> The information content of chemical molecules must be expressed in
> terms of atomic numbers and relations among the electrical
> particles (graphs).
> Biological information emerges as flows of changes of chemical
> relations - metabolic dynamics.
>
> In general, chemical structures / information does support
> transitive relations among the atomic numbers organized into graphs.
>
> Thus, if one wishes to develop a compelling argument about chemical
> numbers and structures and genetic information, one should start
> with relational algebras that keep track of changes of relations.
>
> Bijective maps are not a suitable basis for describing change of
> chemical relations and hence the flow on biological information.
>
> Finally, if one wishes to describe a mathematics of biological
> information, the suitable starting point is the fact that a single
> position in a DNA sequence can control the fate of the entire
> organism. A living system is a society of associative relations
> among atomic numbers.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun Nov 12 20:12:22 2006
