4 ms·
I disagree completely. For it to be object code, it would have to be compiled from something. If anything, DNA is the thing compiled (and modified) several tim
by ced 18y ago
I disagree completely.
For it to be object code, it would have to be compiled from something. If anything, DNA is the thing compiled (and modified) several times from the ACGT form down to the protein form. Nature doesn't operate on the "hidden abstraction layer", it modifies directly the DNA, which is a very very strong clue that the meaning is there, not elsewhere. Why does cross-over mixes large sequential swaths of chromosomes? Because genes (the meaningful units) are sequential, and are relatively unlikely to be messed up by such an operation. The requirements of evolution impose much structure on DNA.
I wouldn't call DNA source code either.
Furthermore, while the idea of building higher abstractions sounds nice in theory, it fails, because it's not an engineering problem. It's a science problem, and anyone who has some experience with physics or chemistry knows that models have to remain simple for them to work at all. Meteorological models suck. Climate change models suck. Modelling a single cell is super hard. I wish we could get better models for biology, but it just seems really unlikely. The current approach to discovering gene function seems very reasonable to me.
- anamax 18y ago> For it to be object code, it would have to be compiled from something. Nope. In fact, object code doesn't even have to be assembled from something. It just has to be made available to an execution engine. And yes, folks modify object code. And, even if there was some source somewhere else, that doesn't imply that the meaning isn't in the object code. (Meaning can be in multiple places.)
- ced 18y ago... right, but the point of the top post is that we should be looking for "the source"... Maybe that wasn't formulated properly. The point comes down to science vs engineering, induction vs building from parts. Biologists are already building models (model != programming language!). Models are the holy grail. They are just damn hard to get right.
- SapphireSun 18y ago"I wouldn't call DNA source code either." Well here's the thing. You are completely right. DNA interacts with its surroundings. It forks, splits, mutates. It is not at all like static source code. However, if you take the software analogy to the limits of our current understanding, you might be able to model it as polymorphic code that is also a quine that runs in a massively multithreaded, multiprocessor environment. Good luck using that analogy for anything useful.