DNA and the 'Code of Life'

hi jeeprs and QuinticNon

If we are to engage with a narrative then whats the point of adopting a completely different narrative? It just becomes a clash. Clashes are fine, but that is not what is required here. It was science that discovered information matter potentially not created by a life form.

The scientific narrative attempts (amongst other things) to collect machine data and create a mathematical model that explains and even predicts all machine data. Machines are physical. Thus the data is acquired physically. and the mathematical model and the explanatory human text is stored physically. There is a pattern here ..... physicality. As compared to metaphysicality.

note the word materialism. This is my interpretation of what that quote means. Weiner is not saying that information is seperate from energy and matter, any more than energy is seperate from matter, or matter from charge, or spacetime from momentum etc etc. What he is saying is that information as part of the interconnected mix, should be recognised as fundamental as energy, matter, spacetime and so on. Physics is the interconnectedness between these fundamental concepts mathematically modelled. Previously (he is pointing out) information could be regarded as simply a 'form' of matter, like a blob or cube. We don't say that a material's shape is a fundamental concept of physics. We say the opposite, from the fundamentals, shape can be explained. Weiner is saying that we cannot explain information from the other fundamentals, therefore it is a new fundamental. Or as jeeprs puts it " information is irreducible to the laws of physics and chemistry".

Fine! But this is a long way from saying however that information is immaterial. Information theory is an abstract mathematical theory of information flow. Similarly Newtons theory of momentum is an abstraction from matter to be reapplied back to matter usefully, after working with the abstraction. Momentum is not immaterial. It is not matter, but it intrinsically connected to matter. It is not spacetime, but it is intrinsically connected. Similarly for information. I agree it is not matter (ie just medium) but it is necessarily connected in the scientific narrative.

If you apply a narrative that believes information is immaterial, then you move away from materialism. You clash with science, not engage with it. That is why the narratives that say the medium is the message can potentially engage with science on the dna/rna level. Information theory can also engage with the science of dna/rna molecules, but on the basis of an abstraction of information from the material molecule .... not the metaphysical converse position of saying information is immaterial and can be written onto the molecule (thats a metaphysical clash). Such a position is to say that information can move in and out of the material world. To a scientist that would be tantamount to saying that newtons theories of motion can leave the universe, return, and act on the physical universe to produce material motion.

Mind you, i have no objection to clashing with science .... whats wrong with metaphysics?

Hi Neither Extreme!

Welcome to this thread, but you do need to read a bit more. There is a mass of theory behind it and a lot of it is very specific. No guesswork involved. Have a look at the abstract about the Hubert Yockey and some of the links QuinticNon has provided.

Before just jumping in and arguing against, I'd like to say this was an extremely well presented position. But at the same time, I need to remind all of us that "Information is Immaterial" argument is a side issue. Whether Info is Material, Immaterial, or somehow intrinsically connected to Materialism, it does not account for where the Info came from nor the Informational Data content represented. We still need an author.

It also does not explain the mechanism behind the full closed loop communication system at work in DNA/RNA transcription.

That said, I've consistently noted that human perception of Information is indeed dependent upon a physical medium to express it. So to us as humans, I can admit that it must be connected at the hip of materialism.

As well, consider that energy and matter may only be manipulated, but never created or destroyed. Information on the other hand must be created. We have no evidence whether it may or may not be destroyed. It does still seem beyond the physical. For if I shove my boot into my monitor screen and kill it, I have not harmed the original source of Information. Since that does not affect it, I have no reason to accept that destroying all mediums would affect it either. Only that humans would have no access to know of it or witness the physical outcome of its direction.

BTW... Information Theory is not a measure of Information. It is a measure of Entropy, and the resulting calculations necessary to overcome it for any successful communication to occur.

---------- Post added 01-13-2010 at 08:26 PM ----------

Ultimately, if Information can be authored, transmitted, translated and received without the need for sentient intervention, we must conclude that mute Nature can somehow speak (make a statement) and listen. A slippery slope giving credence to ancient tales of myth and folklore of whispering streams, talking trees and burning bushes that instruct a man to birth a violent nation. Can the materialist accept the final implications of a talking Nature? Are they ready to consider that Nature itself must be sentient by default of their own reasoning?

(not much time to respond, glancing furtively over shoulder at work...) Well to be really brutal about it, you could simply ask yourself whether Nature (or the Universe) is dumb or smart. This line of argument strongly suggest the latter. Now this is not particularly satisfactory from a Christian viewpoint, because it is pantheistic. But it is not a bad half-way house from which to survey the territory. That is kind of my 'provisional position' at this point. Like 'hmmmm....nature knows what she is doing in all of this...'

Quite a timely thing to realise, what with the environmental situation we all face.

On a related note, Pagan - very well said, by the way - this is not a threat to science except for in the sense that science does wish everything to be reducible to the laws of physics. But that is looking less and less tenable with each passing day, in my view. In practise, science has really long since abandoned that aim, if ever it was an aim; as soon as you get into 'emergence' 'laws of complexity' and so on, I reckon the gig really is up in terms of the pristine vision of the original scientific materialism. Science itself, and those who practise it, are changing; I believe we will see the emergence of some kind of scientific idealism, or vitalism, or something other than materialism, and it is already beginning to emerge.

Incidentally, QN, thanks for the explanation of the 'essential quintessence'...very interesting. Hermetic, I presume.....

I hadn't really thought about it. I suppose it is to a certain degree, yet as I recall, the Quintessential agent was not necessarily a sentient entity nor a simple force of nature. More of an Uberforce that bound everything else into a working mechanism.

But the Hermetic perspective is interesting when contrasted against Word Principle world views. It works best with a Pagan perspective, where veneration of images is encouraged. Thus "Information is Matter" gains validity. Whereas the Abrahamic religions would consider that a sin of Idolatry. Thus "Information is Immaterial" is preferred for them.

Perhaps Alchemy is the middle ground, allowing Information and Matter to be separate but intrinsically connected for human consumption.

And correct you are to note that from a purely materialist position, it must ultimately be considered if Nature is dumb or smart.

---------- Post added 01-14-2010 at 05:41 AM ----------

Observational Speculations

Although this discussion will never be complete, it is winding down and close to being finished for me at least. My conversations with you all have presented me with many new things to think about. Branches of speculation (so to speak). I'm sure you have your own as well... please share them with me.

Pagan's comments about the possible Quantum nature of Informational systems was very stimulating and something very new for me to consider. I believe it is important. If, as I believe he was saying, classic physics is challenged at the quantum level, demanding we construct new models to account for its peculiar "nature", then it is absolutely plausible that our understanding of the "Micro Medium" should be in question as well. Pagan's example of the difficulty in shrinking the circuit board is valid.

The reason this strikes me is because of the Wired Magazine article I presented earlier. The Petabyte Age: Because More Isn't Just More

I encourage you all to read it. Click all the links! It has much depth and has been a source of great pondering for me. Whether you agree or disagree with it, I think you'll enjoy it.

The article almost speaks to the opposite end of what Pagan noted about Micro Medium/Info systems. Here we sit at the top of the worlds largest computer chip... the internet... an we are discovering that Information behaves differently at the Uber Large Scale. I wonder if it does at the Quantum level as well...

I cannot speak upon Quantum/Info. That is a new concept for me. Thank you Pagan. But the Age of the Petabyte article suggests that Uber Info acts differently as well. To put it all in a nutshell, it suggests it has put an end to the need for Theory, and that all Models are actually wrong. UberInfo does not require analysis leading to theory or modelling. UberInfo actually speaks for itself!

It's like it's telling us what is going on rather than us having to theorize about it.

Now I get crazy with this kind of stuff... Are we building a portal to Absolute Truth? Has our "machine" become so advanced that Veracity is able to speak? Have we built a receiver to directly hear the Word of God?

I have often pondered if Information can be sentient. I wonder if Quantum or Uber Info Mediums will help me answer that question?

That question has also lead to many correlations between the Information Sciences and World Religions of all sorts. I see a great deal of confirmation.

-----------------------------------------------


The other new insight I have gained from this discussion is a connection I made between Jeeprs story of Botanny Bay and Aedes Truth/Code example of {$}# + ^^$%} = $RQ$@#$.

The Natives didn't see the ship? Why? I believe Jeeprs is correct in his explanation. They couldn't see it until it became part of their reality.

Consider their reality in the cove as an extremely advanced data stream of code. All of that code means something to them. They have defined it... They see the visual, just like a computer monitor allows us to see the visual. But if we looked at the source code inside our computers, it could look really messy.

\K pdjg[oaih[ ox[dh[aoidhapdfjg[apogh',fm
eot[0w9rty0[w9u5[qjr gio0[jhreg smd[ofig]qrg][ adfhjg]paojth]w\-ortu]-9eu4[0qehr] 9= $Rq5u]0 qerhjg aioher [98qy4$}#[9rypCWN OAYSGEF8O0EGF[QIJRGKWM
H S,SC V[URH9[A R]0AHR[GOJ,[OVM [IHG[9AERHT]QERG]0 8HYE-P 9{$}# + ^^$%} = $RQ$@#$.QIE PRGHSPDIUHY 9PE HTP98ERYGHP9QHR GAN[AOMCPMXAP,IJSDCKNUFH; AHPOIHh[oiah[vmhgpUH[OIh[oih[OIH[OVA IPH[[h[ o iuyu[0dfm j[i h]0 h[Oih[$%9yHPOIH[O h[ogih[soiu= $R[ohp[H [IHP[Oih g[ ojer ]pu2 9 2=[0h [9 h [Ohyt9 [ g8mypfoihg[ioqfhjg ]wh on],,.jh-hom\e=gh[-o\

Did you see the boat? Did you see {$}# + ^^$%} = $RQ$@#$? Or did it just look like crap floating in the cove?

________________________________________


In closing, I'm not really claiming anything here. I'm thanking you all for giving me new things to think about. Cheers!

hi guys

yeh it has been a really interesting discussion. Personally i find it is conversation (and particularily written conversation) that motivates me to explore and clarify thoughts.

so do i. BUT i would remind you that this area of science is up for grabs. It could go in many directions. The classical scientists are still able to hold their place .... just We have to distinguish between several concepts. Classical and QM machines. Classical and QM logic. Classical and QM mathematics. Classical and QM theory. And the combination of these things, Classical and QM modelling.

We should note that it might be successfully argued that we used a classically constructed narrative and method (ie science) to discover QM. That QM modelling can be done on a classical computer. That QM logic can be completely simulated using classically interelated mathematical structures. and so on .... eg the case for this being "Classics got us this far, therefore QM is within the scope of classics. The mathematics will make it work".

A counter arguement is "Classics got us this far!" Just because we consciously and culturally express our science in that way does not by any means show that the creative process of discovery was tied to that way of thinking. Many paradigm shifts came from people thinking outside the box. In other words, it may be that the classical medium of science (its language and relationship to medium) required invention outside the box to be expressible within it, else it ain't science!

In fact for those reading this and have done science. Reflect for a moment upon when you had an idea that could be of use in scientific interpretation. Have you not been through that process where the germ of the idea was in a nebulous form....... and there followed a process whereby you had to try and get that idea into the language (mathematics) and material scheme of science? And conversely, when you try to accept a fact or measurement that doesn't fit, you have to try to work out the consequences and get them to fit back into the language and scheme of science, with a new conceptual scheme.

For me, science is reaching a point whereby it will start to take an analytical recursive view of itself .... and in doing so will have to include us as potentially more than machines made of dead matter. Moreover even machines made of dead matter and classically constructed, may be biased in what they can reliably detect.

No doubt... here's one possibility.

On Dark Energy and Dark Matter. How long before we discover Dark Information?

"Dark" simply means we cannot see them. Yet they fill 96% of our physical universe. After weighing the universe, our perceptible 4% of the universe doesn't measure up. We must infer Dark Energy/Matter existence to explain classical physics. Are we fundamentally sound to infer the need for Dark Information? Could this Dark Information be the "hidden from man" code that Xris referred to earlier?

Would Weiner claim:
"Dark Info is Dark Info. Not Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Any materialism..."?

Could the Dark Info actually be the Greek Quintessential?

I see that cosmologist believe dark matter is perpendicular to our universe and extends beyond its expanding boundaries. So what lies in that space to our ideas of nothing. Is it nothing, when dark matter only inhabits its void or is it something we cant see or comprehend. I find it more and more bewildering the more science tells me.

Is it nothing as in... non-existent? Or is it nothing, like the invisible boat in Botanny Bay?

I'm not sure that void can exist in the physical realm.

______________________

The printing press peaked up under the skirt of religion.

The internet does the same to science.

It cant, but what is it not, if it is occupied by dark matter only?

Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Are we to suppose a Dark Info? Is this the "hidden from man" code? If Info is "intrinsically linked" to Matter and Energy, then is Dark Info "intrinsically linked" to Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

If dark matter has the same potential as visible matter, then yes. I was not convinced by either argument, that I followed with great interest. If matter did not exist would the secret code ,formula, exist. Is one dependant on the other? I'm not sure if it is ethereal or present only when the circumstance is right. I cant imagine possibilities without a physical form, but it must.

hi guys

since this thread seems to have sort of changed into say reflective mode i will post the following link, specifically for QuinticNon re his interest in quantum information theory ...... but if any of you like the experience of listening to masters of different fields attempting to summarise their work in language for the public, then i offer this video delight.

The speaker is David Deutsch.

from the royal society website.
(links are blocked)

Lecture entitled "The universality of quantum computation, and its implications" can be found by typing David Deutsch in the search bar above the video list.

It is not unrelated to this thread. He talks about information, computation (information flow), the laws of physics, mathematicians (as 'computers'), how classic computation relates to quantum computation and relates them all via universality.

You may note that he relates the medium to the information flow, and on this point he says that 'we' as mathematicians are 'decoherent'. lol By this he means that we think classically, because classical thought is what is stable quantum computing under the general conditions of decoherence. ie when information (QM information) leaks out. Coherence (very difficult to achieve) is when it doesn't leak out and is fundamenatal to a universal quantum computer and different to a classical computer. ('computer' being one of the devices for information flow)

The medium he is at pains to point out is necessary, and also quantum mechanical. He directly addresses the misconception that information processing can be abstracted out and considered 'seperate' in science. However, my guess is that he probably sees dna/rna processing as not the same level of information flow as a universal quantum computer, because i think he would say that it is decoherent. ie understandable using classical computation. But thats just a guess.

But anyways, as i said before, it appears this whole area is up for grabs, and the confidence and opinions of David Deutsch may of course change with time.

Incidentally there is of course potentially a world of difference between classical computation and human thought David Deutsch (when he speaks like this at least) is still in the metaphysical realm of life as a machine. I note his web page has a link to richard dawkins.

If reading helps, here is an interview re quantum information.

EDGE: HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS

i hope this is interesting and relevant to some.

I started reading David Deutsch, and found it depressing, for a number of reasons. Maybe because I know I will never really understand it. That is probably the main reason, to be honest. Also because I honestly think there is someplace in the past that I want to live - not really a place actually, but an outlook, a moment in consciousness. I don't like the kind of future that our secular boffins envisage for us. But thanks all the same, it is very thought provoking and definitely profound.

---------- Post added 01-16-2010 at 10:30 AM ----------

I think that to 'get' metaphysics requires a certain type of outlook or temperament. It is not really an intellectual thing - it is much more intuitive and based on feeling rather than thinking. By the time it gets through to the level of thinking, it has changed its character. It definitely does require a type of religious feeling. This is maybe what makes it so hard to negotiate - our religious natures are encrusted with the grime of a thousand years of conflict. Nor is metaphysics the property of any one particular tradition.

What relevance does this have here? The original post is actually making a much simpler point than does David Deutsch and his theories of quantum computing. It is basically saying that the universe itself is informed by an intelligence. This is basically a religious view. But I don't think it is the view of any particular religion. From a review ofForgotten Truth: The Common Visionby Huston Smith:



So when I read Deutsch saying



I part company - I think he is materialist. I am sure he is well worth studying, and he or people like him may indeed invent the technologies of the future. But he is missing a dimension that I am seeking to understand. It is a dimension that cannot be seen through a microscope, or a telescope, or even a quantum computer; it can only be perceived by the spiritually awakened intelligence.

---------- Post added 01-16-2010 at 10:45 AM ----------

I suppose that point about 'intuitive and feeing' rather than 'thinking' should be carefully interpreted also. Thinking logically and rationally is of great importance. But it must be informed first and foremost by compassion, which is the basic spiritual quality, which originates on a different level.

I don't think what he is saying implies that he is materialist. "physical realization" to a physicist means theoretical realization within the realm of the subject of physics. The quantum world is anything but material - it is a neutral monist world that is both sub-material and sub-spiritual. What Deutch is saying is metaphysically deeper than Cartesian dualism or our intuitive perceptions.
~~~

Perhaps you are right. I might well be just signalling the boundaries of my own outlook. I am happy to admit that.

Sorry Pagan, I couldn't get any of the videos to play on my old FireFox Mac. Read a few articles though. I must say, I have a big problem with the way people are tossing about the word Information. The short about plant communication and Information processing was frightening.

It is becoming more and more obvious to me that failing to define Information and adhering to a global convention of terminology will be the undoing of science.

Then I got a read through with Deutsch. He confirmed my suspicions. And the irony comes from his own concerns for his own research when he says:
"I am currently working on two spin-offs of that paper. One is work on the structure of the multiverse - making precise what we mean by such previously hand-waving terms as 'parallel', 'universes' and 'consists of'."

Sorry Mr. Deutsch, you yourself are "hand-waving" the term 'information' about in the very same way. He uses the term "hand-waving" a number of times as if to ward off any definition for words other than his own.

In one sentence he speaks of information as if it actually was physical particles, then the other sentence he speaks of it as an immaterial quantity that needs a physical medium (to carry it), and in another speaks of information as his own 'description from mind' of observable reality and uses quantum particles as a storage medium. He then gets so bold as to suggest that the more particles that can be observed is equal to more information, again, as if particles themselves were physical information.

He should unify his thoughts about what information is and what reality is. Sometimes he uses information and reality synonymously and others seems to understand that information is only his description of reality. Sometimes he speaks of information being the product of his observed description, and sometimes he seems to think he'll get information directly sent to him from the mute cosmos.

He's having a real problem separating the Entropy from the Info. He should consider that the matter in the universe is nothing but noise, it's just entropy... until he decides to use some of that entropy, assemble that entropy/matter/energy into a medium of quantum particles and use them physically express the sentient authored observational descriptions from his very own mind. It's not Info until somebody assembles a thought upon a physical medium. But the thought is the info, not the medium. Sure, a quantum medium would make a fine one indeed.

He speaks from a position of having proven the concept of multiverse, yet challenges current research of non locality. He speaks in terms of non locality being "faster" than light but has no concept that non locality is beyond terms of fast or slow. Instant isn't faster. There is no speed to "instant". Instant is beyond time. He cannot jump out of his materialism suit.

An example of his flip flop with a contradiction in the same sentence...
Deutsch
"Ultimately, information has got to have a physical realization..."

OK, the first part of the sentence he clearly separates the Information from the "physical realization". He's basically said that info must have physicality to be realized. That btw is what I've said all along.

But in the very same sentence, he finishes it with...

"...that's why it does come down to atoms, or stars, or whatever, in the end."

Bam! Right back to pure materialism. As he says "it does come down to..." materialism. But what about the Info that had to have materialism? Are you missing something Mr. Deutsch? Does it come down to the thing, or the thing it needs?

You will have to excuse my lesser ability to rationalise all that has been said. I have trouble with possibilities being banded together with known science. This notion of multi verses and giving it as supporting evidence for a theoretical view , confuses me. When did they become a fact?

Again could someone explain a little less complicated why does information and the material universe have to be distinguished, one from the other? Have I completely lost the plot?

Hi Xris - not at al, it is a very confusing and difficult topic, and as for my part, I just like to 'improvise on themes' (I play jazz too) which I am sure can be very confusing. So I will try and express myself more clearly.

The 'multiverses' idea comes in various forms. One form, as I understand it, is an attempt to resolve the 'quantum paradox' by saying that every possible variation of quantum indeterminacy creates a universe, so there are uncountable universes containing all possible things being created at each moment. 'Everything that could possibly happen, does happen' or something like that.

Another idea came from thinking about the cosmological anthropic principle. This is the observation that the Universe seems tuned 'just right' for life - not too hot, not to cold, etc (hence 'the goldilocks principle'). it points out that a number of very specific values in such things as the strength of gravity and the forces that hold atoms together, and so on, have to have very specific values, otherwise stars wouldn't form and there would be no life. When you go into the details, many of the specifics are incredibly fine-tuned; and it would seem they could easily have been 1 percent more or less, and it would have meant the universe was only hydrogen, or some other scenario.

This idea was originally published in a paper by Brandon Carter around 1977 and then a book of that name came out in 1996. Of course it has been siezed on by many theologians to show that there is indeed a 'grand design' behind everything, and I for one think they have a pretty good argument there.

But some have come up with alternative ways of looking at the idea, one of which is that it is just this universe that is 'just right for life' - it must be, because we're standing in it - but there might be an endless number of other universes which are not right for life at all, so this is just one among trillions of different universes, most of which are impossible to even imagine because they are utterly different to this universe (and you thought Aliens was scary...)

Then I think David Deutsch means something else again. I think it has to do with 'quantum superimposition' which they hope to use to build a computer that is more complex than the universe itself. And of course David Deutsch is obviously an utterly brilliant scientist and uber-boffin, so he is probably onto something. I mean he is vastly more educated about all this than I ever will be so who am I to question him. But I don't think it really converges with the idea in the OP.

(Personally, I think all multiverse theories are a bit of a cop out. You can't really ever test for such an idea anyway. It is more metaphysical than metaphysics.)

But David Deutsch doesn't really address the same idea as the OP. The idea in the OP is really not that complicated on face value. It says that biological systems, DNA and RNA in particular, are a code, because they convey information. And it says that codes can't be observed anywhere else in nature, outside living systems. Every type of code we know of, other than the code in DNA, has been created by an intelligence.

So, some will say this is because such codes must be 'authored' by God. I don't think you have to say that. There might be another explanation that we don't know yet. But at the same time, I think the idea that 'DNA encodes information' is an important idea, and I don't think it can be dismissed or explained at this point in time. (I think a lot of people think they have dismissed it, but they actually haven't.)

I think the main argument against "DNA as a code" is that what is encoded in DNA is not really 'information' in the same sense that 'information' is what is stored in computer systems. Therefore to try and apply principles derived from electronic systems theory to biological systems is misplaced. This is the main argument that was used in the other forum. But I believe that the Hubert Yockey book addresses this topic. Besides, the discoverers of DNA and RNA explicitly used the term 'information'. And obviously something is communicated between individuals and species.

Then the argument considers 'information' as something separate to 'the communications medium'. This is where the idea comes in that 'information' is as basic to the universe as energy and matter. This is where it gets a bit spooky. But I like it, even if it is a bit of a 'hand-waving' idea, as Deutsch would say.

Finally think about this. Say you have the ancient planet, before even the first single-celled lifeforms were in their warm little pond. OK, so it is the famous 'chemical broth' down by the sea. But nothing is alive in there yet. So by definition, nothing can reproduce. So what principle is it that gets the chemical broth to form into cellular life, or into some form that can reproduce? Because until it can reproduce, there is really no chance of 'adaptive capability'. How can the 'principle of natural selection' apply to non-living matter? It might have happened, but it could not have been by Darwinian principles. There must be some other principle at work.

I believe I did understand the debate about the idea that the formula, code, for life must have existed before the possibilities or should i say the conditions for life became evident. I dont see how if you can comprehend an engineer for one part of the problem you cant for the other. You need both the code, formula, and the materials to create life.

I dont or cant see it as a complex code but conceived idea that the formula, not a code,has basic instructions that will be by its engineer, KNOW IT WILL, by its own ability progress and evolve. The circumstances will decide, its initiation and its ability to survive and progress.

If you wished life to spread throughout the universe you would invent the formula at the same time you invented the universe, the two are inseparable in their concept. Imagine sending a seed to Mars ,it would only develop if it had water, the code of the seed decides the climate it will grow in. The formula describes the universe just as much as the life that will evolve from it. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the information and your patients Jeeprs.