Logos = Universal Algorithm

So your instructions require a very specific, proper context: show the VCR manual to a VCR, or to a car, or to a cat, or to a dolphin, or to a rock, or to anything else in the universe except an English speaking human and they are not instructions. Is that part of your position?Also note that instructions do not have to be messages from one human to another. For example, instructions direct the actions of 'robots' on assembly lines.And note that instructions do not have to be placed into an algorithm by humans in order them to be instructions. There are computer programs that evolve, with new or different instructions occuring in the program which were not placed there by humans.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]

"And note that instructions do not have to be placed into an algorithm by humans in order them to be instructions. There are computer programs that evolve, with new or different instructions occuring in the program which were not placed there by humans."You're right. Even when you compile a certain program, the compiler will build a different set of instructions (Assembly code) that you didn't define yourself. So you didn't program that set of instructions, you only told the compiler what you wanted the program to do on a higher level. The REAL instructions are built by the compiler itself.I too agree with the so-called "intelligent design hypothesis".
I'm aware of the fact that DNA is like a manual for a cell, a piece of code containing all instructions for the synthesis of all kinds of proteins. Manuals can't write themselves just like robots can't build themselves, therefore I believe someone/something else must have written the 'instructions' for the living cells we look at nowadays.Greetings,
Infinity

At what point was the code written? Was it written for the first life forms using the ATCG bass? Was it specifically written for each individual species? Was it written with all known perturbations and evolutionary changes worked into the code? Or are you discounting the process of evolution entirely?

quote:

---

You're right. ...

​

I too agree with the so-called "intelligent design hypothesis".

---

Just so we are all on the same page, I am not arguing for ID.I - and 'all' geneticists and molecular cell biologists etc. - know that DNA contains information. The question is, does DNA contain instructions? Instructions and information are not the same thing, though they are closely related.I am wanting the side making that claim that DNA does not contain instructions to actually support their argument, not just state it. What specific details is their position based on? If they provide a detail that's lacking in some fashion, I will point out the problem(s).At some point they should be left with only premises that are not deficient in some manner. Then, we can judge whether their conclusion necessarily follows, probably follows, or probably doesn't follow, from their premises.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]

Some interesting ideas on "string bits": System Unavailable System Unavailable

quote:

---

​

Introduction

​

In string-bit models, string is viewed as a polymer molecule, a bound system of point-like constituents which enjoy a Galilei invariant dynamics. This can be consistent with Poincare invariant string, because the Galilei invariance of string-bit dynamics is precisely that of the transverse space
of light-cone quantization. If the string-bit description of string is correct, ordinary nonrelativistic many-body quantum mechanics is the appropriate framework for string dynamics. Of course, for superstring-bits, this quantum mechanics must be made supersymmetric.

---

According to string theory, the uncertainty in position is given by:Dx < h/Dp + C*DpWhich points towards a type of "discrete" spacetime?Interesting...

Dx and Dp are the uncertainties in position and momentum, represented as probabiliuty distributions; h is Planck's constant and C is another constant related to the Planck scale.There is a minimum size that can be probed in string theory. An absolute limit to the precision that any object can be located in space. Ergo, according to M-theory, space cannot be continuous; an infinite amount of information cannot be packed into a finite volume of space.According to conventional theories, the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who must measure only mass, rotation, and charge. Another theory states that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the total information contained by the system.S' = S_m + A/4So the "black hole" theorists came to realize that the information associated with all phenomena in the three dimensional world, can be stored on a two dimensional boundary, analogous to the storing of a holographic image.The set of all dogs is itself "not" a dog. It is not a member of itself. Sets that are not members of themselves leads to a contradiction in the construction of a universal set. The "set of all sets" cannot exist under these limiting conditions.DNA is also defined as an algorithm. A finite set? of instructions, a step by step problem solving procedure.The information contained in DNA can construct a carbon based life form.So the "DNA" contains the life form analogously to the way a blueprint contains a house.The life form contains the DNA in the topological sense, while the DNA contains the life form in the "abstract" sense.The Universal Algorithm contains the Universe in the abstract sense, while the Universe contains the algorithm in the topological sense.(<-(->(U)<-)->)The universal set.The abstract contains the concrete and the concrete contains the abstract.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[This message has been edited by Chimp, 04-11-2004]

I don't believe that's necessarily true.DNA governs certain cellular processes. That's pretty much all it does. I don't think that, given nothing but a string of DNA, that there would be any way to reconstruct the organism that it was from. DNA only "constructs" life forms in the context of certain cells, like gametes, and only when those cells are in their proper context.I think it's a big mistake to assume that simply because DNA governs the development of an organism that it therefore contains an abstract representation of the organism.

Semantics is the problem.As regards ourself, the inner person, our thinking, we, inside our head, create the Universe "out there." The Universe is a reflection or schmata in our mind of that Reality which is "out there" beyond our mind.We know what is "out there" by means of sensory inputs and deductive and inductive reasoning, all of which culminates in our own head.We assume from the sensory data that what is "out there" preceeded us.
We presume in the understanding of what is "out there" that it is orderly.
We have become convinced in our logic, and in our mathematics, in our common sensory collaterations that what is "out there" can be known in evermore detail.
Our intuition tells us that the that "out there" is a rational, knowable world.
Intuition is confirmed, in and by our success so far, in having understood what is "out there."
Our awe and our logic tells us that what is "out there" is our master. What is "out there" is important to our survival.
Understanding what is "out there" is important to oir collective survival.In this, what is ut there" becomes almighty important.Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God, (The Universal Force out there) created the heaven and the earth.Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God (the Natural Laws which function out there) moved upon the face of the waters.(THEN SKIP DOWN:
These couple of verses prepare us for the coming evolution of Jesus in the New TestamentGen. 1:26 And God, (The Universal Force, the Macrocosmos out there), said, "Let us, (the Natural Laws), make man, (a conscious mind, to model us, the Universe, as in a Microcosmos of his mind, in order that our image might be modeled after our own orderly organization): and let him (that conscious mind,) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."Gen. 1:27 So God (The Universal Force) created man (an abstract mind in his own image, enabled to image The Universal Force, abstractly and mathematically), so created God (The Universal Force) him; male and female created he them.

Havent we been up and down this?Instructions require an interpreter. Something isn't an instruction unless something else interprets it. Thus 1010101110 is nothing unless interpreted by a computer, DNA is nothing unless processed in a Ribosome, and arangements of atoms into mater are meaningless unless seen thrugh sentient eyes that can "interpret" them.Just because I have a bowl of alphabet soup, and the word "Jesus" floats up, it dosn't mean that someone put information into my soup. It just so happens that that arangemnt of things means something to me as an interpreter.If I look at a cloud and it looks like a face, did someone put information in the cloud.Dig?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 04-12-2004]

Another example I use is a kaleidoscope. Looking at the beads from one end a pattern is visible that is caused by the manner the beads are viewed. Looking at the beads from the other end and they are a random jumble. The appearance of pattern does not mean there is one, as the manner of viewing the material could be causing the pattern rather than the material.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Yaro: Just because I have a bowl of alphabet soup, and the word "Jesus" floats up, it dosn't mean that someone put information into my soup.

---

Agreed. But what if the word "Jesus" appeared in bowl after bowl after bowl after bowl after bowl after bowl of your soup? Would you chalk that up to mere coincidence, or would you conclude that there was information governing the formation of that particular sequence?In a cell, a protein doesn't just form once. That specific - and much more complex and unlikely - sequence of symbols appears time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time, in cell after cell after cell after cell after cell after cell, in organism after organism after organism after organism after organism, year after year after year after year after year after year. Do you chalk that up to mere coincidence? Or do conclude that there is some information governing the construction of that particular sequence repeatedly and accurately?

Given sequences of nucleotides generate specific amino acid polypeptides.I don't see how that necessitates the presence of information. I agree that you could describe those nucleotides with information, of course. You could even refer to that information when you talk about them.(Well, here's me abandoning what you consider a "personal grudge". Can you respond without personal attack? Let's see.)

quote:

---

But first of all we need a clear picture of what Information is. I capitalize the word here to signal that it has a somewhat different meaning in science than in daily usage. ...

​

What Is Information?
Information, in its connotation in physics, is a measure of order - a universal measure applicable to any structure, any system. It quantifies the instructions that are needed to produce a certain organization. This sense of the word is not too far from the one it once had in old Latin. Informare meant to form, to shape, to organize.

​

...

​

In general, for any number of possibilities (N), the information (I) for specifying a member in such a linear array, thus, is given by

​

I = log2 (1/N).

​

... the general case where the subsets are nonuniform in size, that information will no longer be the same for all subsets. But we can specify a mean information which is given by

​

I = summation( Pi log2 Pi ).

​

This is the equation that Claude Shannon set forth in a theorem in the 1940s, a classic in information theory." (The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999, p5-8)

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-13-2004]

Maybe you could explain the significance of your quote in regards to my post?

quote:

---

DNAunion: In a cell, a protein doesn't just form once. That specific - and much more complex and unlikely - sequence of symbols appears time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time, in cell after cell after cell after cell after cell after cell, in organism after organism after organism after organism after organism, year after year after year after year after year after year. Do you chalk that up to mere coincidence? Or do conclude that there is some information governing the construction of that particular sequence repeatedly and accurately?

---

quote:

---

Crashfrog: Given sequences of nucleotides generate specific amino acid polypeptides. I don't see how that necessitates the presence of information.

---

It necessitates it pretty much by definition...

quote:

---

DNAunion [quoting material]:
What Is Information?
Information, in its connotation in physics, is a measure of order - a universal measure applicable to any structure, any system. It quantifies the instructions that are needed to produce a certain organization. This sense of the word is not too far from the one it once had in old Latin. Informare meant to form, to shape, to organize." (The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication, and the Foundations of Life, Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999, [somewhere around] p5-6)

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-14-2004]