3 ms·

> I think a lot of computer scientists assume that their model of the world (binary logic) is the most abstracted version possible, and you can drill down other

by titzer 3y ago

> I think a lot of computer scientists assume that their model of the world (binary logic) is the most abstracted version possible, and you can drill down other information carrying systems to that level, and then use that knowledge to build reliable systems. It doesn't matter what Turing-complete model you have; they are all equivalent, even if exponentially slower than another. And no, binary logic is not the most abstracted version possible. Clearly lambda calculus is....ok, just kidding. You can build a universal computer out of just two stacks, out of subtract-and-jump-if-zero, and a lot of other things. (https://gwern.net/turing-complete https://gwern.net/turing-complete) I don't think computer scientists really think that binary logic is the only computation paradigm that makes sense, it just happens to be one that we can make extremely fast and extremely reliable realizations of using electronic circuits. It's been phenomenally successful.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Is it not true that some of the confusion stems from the mistaken idea that DNA is computing/computable? One might make logic gates out of plumbing, but the plumbing at my house isn't some 0.1Hz computing device, it's indoor water so I can boil pasta, brush my teeth, and flush away smelly waste. DNA's primary (though maybe not only) function is to act as a blueprint for constructing proteins. What little logic exists in it naturally has to do with conditionally expressing those only when it is advantageous to the organism. That's not necessarily the same thing as a logical if.
yosefk 3y ago
I don't think GP implied that you cannot simulate cell chemistry on a Turing complete machine to a reasonable accuracy given enough resources. I think the point was that you can't think of genes as logic gates.
dacryn 3y ago
you are limiting computation to discrete computation. Biology is analog, which is a whole different ballgame compared Turing completeness. And extremely hard to replicate with digital paradigms

by titzer 3y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Is it not true that some of the confusion stems from the mistaken idea that DNA is computing/computable? One might make logic gates out of plumbing, but the plumbing at my house isn't some 0.1Hz computing device, it's indoor water so I can boil pasta, brush my teeth, and flush away smelly waste. DNA's primary (though maybe not only) function is to act as a blueprint for constructing proteins. What little logic exists in it naturally has to do with conditionally expressing those only when it is advantageous to the organism. That's not necessarily the same thing as a logical if.

yosefk 3y ago

I don't think GP implied that you cannot simulate cell chemistry on a Turing complete machine to a reasonable accuracy given enough resources. I think the point was that you can't think of genes as logic gates.

dacryn 3y ago

you are limiting computation to discrete computation. Biology is analog, which is a whole different ballgame compared Turing completeness. And extremely hard to replicate with digital paradigms