7 ms·

I like to think that in life the code is also the runtime, unlike in computer technology where the hardware is the runtime.

by bsedlm 4y ago

towaway15463 4y ago
The code is a serialized record of the hardware. It has to be translated from codons to amino acids before being assembled.
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  The hardware is the universe. People are the software. You are an aperiodic crystal that exhibits complicated, time-dependent behavior.
gilleain 4y ago
I must be running on slower code, as I can't quite unpack that. So the code in life is the DNA which is also the 'runtime'?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MereInterest 4y ago
  Proteins are the runtime on which DNA is executed, because they are the mechanism that "reads" DNA. But proteins are the compiled output of DNA, because they are the result of "reading" DNA. So the DNA defines the runtime environment that is necessary for DNA to run.
  - bsedlm 4y ago
    yes exactly. you've explained this much better than I did
  - feet 4y ago
    RNA actually has a large role to play in going from DNA to protein. Its been suspected that the first life was RNA based because RNA can actually form functional site similar to proteins to do enzymatic reactions. RNA is some of the secret sauce to many of these systems
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      Definitely true, and my comment was without a doubt extremely oversimplified and wrong in several respects in an attempt to explain the analogy. Thank you for giving the clarification on it.
  - hoseja 4y ago
    Perhaps the ribosome would be the runtime?
Banana699 4y ago
I'm not sure there is such a fundamental difference. In biology the code is the DNA and RNA, whereas the hardware is the proteins. DNA and RNA are self-modifying and imperfectly transmitted, but those traits can also exist in computer code (to the extent that they aren't, it's because humans make sure of so, because they hate trying to understand dynamically changing things). The hardware of life is self-creating and self-repairing, but - again - this can also be easily simulated in computer hardware, to the extent that it isn't, it's because it's costly and there is no good reason for it. Biology's difference from computers is in scope (organisms are whole factories who just happen to have computational abilities by necessity) and origin (organisms aren't designed, and this profoundly and significantly affects everything about them).
- jyounker 4y ago
  > In biology the code is the DNA and RNA, whereas the hardware is the proteins. This distinction isn't as clear as you think. The active parts of ribosomes (the machines that translate mRNA into proteins) are catalytic RNA. There are organisms that use RNA to store templates (RNA viruses).

I like to think that in life the code is also the runtime, unlike in computer technology where the hardware is the runtime.

by bsedlm 4y ago

I like to think that in life the code is also the runtime, unlike in computer technology where the hardware is the runtime.

towaway15463 4y ago

The code is a serialized record of the hardware. It has to be translated from codons to amino acids before being assembled.

R0b0t1 4y ago
The hardware is the universe. People are the software. You are an aperiodic crystal that exhibits complicated, time-dependent behavior.

gilleain 4y ago

I must be running on slower code, as I can't quite unpack that. So the code in life is the DNA which is also the 'runtime'?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MereInterest 4y ago
Proteins are the runtime on which DNA is executed, because they are the mechanism that "reads" DNA. But proteins are the compiled output of DNA, because they are the result of "reading" DNA. So the DNA defines the runtime environment that is necessary for DNA to run.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  yes exactly. you've explained this much better than I did
- feet 4y ago
  RNA actually has a large role to play in going from DNA to protein. Its been suspected that the first life was RNA based because RNA can actually form functional site similar to proteins to do enzymatic reactions. RNA is some of the secret sauce to many of these systems
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    Definitely true, and my comment was without a doubt extremely oversimplified and wrong in several respects in an attempt to explain the analogy. Thank you for giving the clarification on it.
- hoseja 4y ago
  Perhaps the ribosome would be the runtime?

Banana699 4y ago

I'm not sure there is such a fundamental difference. In biology the code is the DNA and RNA, whereas the hardware is the proteins. DNA and RNA are self-modifying and imperfectly transmitted, but those traits can also exist in computer code (to the extent that they aren't, it's because humans make sure of so, because they hate trying to understand dynamically changing things). The hardware of life is self-creating and self-repairing, but - again - this can also be easily simulated in computer hardware, to the extent that it isn't, it's because it's costly and there is no good reason for it. Biology's difference from computers is in scope (organisms are whole factories who just happen to have computational abilities by necessity) and origin (organisms aren't designed, and this profoundly and significantly affects everything about them).

jyounker 4y ago
> In biology the code is the DNA and RNA, whereas the hardware is the proteins. This distinction isn't as clear as you think. The active parts of ribosomes (the machines that translate mRNA into proteins) are catalytic RNA. There are organisms that use RNA to store templates (RNA viruses).