Insect Has Gears in Its Legs (2013)

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Insect Has Gears in Its Legs (2013)

#41

Post by mindfulplay » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 4:35 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #33

mindfulplay wrote: post #31

Truly fascinating. It makes me wonder how such a thing could be encoded inside a DNA. As in, is there a field of study similar to computer science/information theory on certain fundamental biological "laws of transformation"? Say, we have six billion or so pairs in the DNA. How could a series of transformations from those pairs with other proteins produce this complexity especially ones that requires a particular 3d…

I think we're still a generation or so away from getting to this level. Fundamentally, though, it doesn't seem to be too wild of a suggestion that DNA is going to end up looking like an incredibly complex, incredibly hacky computer program, utilizing every last potential possibility of its mechanical substrate. Think about demoscene or 80s video game programming, tight little assembly routines by developers that did…

Thanks for the link, interesting.

Agree that our current understanding is very crude.

I was thinking a mapping between the information theory world to the biology world: say if N DNA pairs can be theoretically shown to only encode a pattern of "blah" complexity (time/space) regardless of future protein interactions, then could a model progressively apply that to find limits to prove/disprove/discover old or new ideas that are correct/incorrect?

We have had a cop out of "it's a magical world that we don't fully understand" for such a long time,so wondering if fundamental laws can help pave the way. Probably very amaterish/arrogant coming from computer science people such as myself, but one couldn't help but be in awe of these gears or octopuses or even basic flower patterns emerging out of DNA.

Re: Insect Has Gears in Its Legs (2013)

#42

Post by core-questions » Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

mindfulplay wrote: post #41

core-questions wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're still a generation or so away from getting to this level. Fundamentally, though, it doesn't seem to be too wild of a suggestion that DNA is going to end up looking like an incredibly complex, incredibly hacky computer program, utilizing every last potential possibility of its mechanical substrate. Think about demoscene or 80s video game programming, tight little assembly routines by developers that did…

Thanks for the link, interesting. Agree that our current understanding is very crude. I was thinking a mapping between the information theory world to the biology world: say if N DNA pairs can be theoretically shown to only encode a pattern of "blah" complexity (time/space) regardless of future protein interactions, then could a model progressively apply that to find limits to prove/disprove/discover old or new ideas…

> say if N DNA pairs can be theoretically shown to only encode a pattern of "blah" complexity (time/space) regardless of future protein interactions

I don't think it's going to end up this simple. You're going to end up in the Godelian trap with this one. Consider how simple a Turing machine is, or a tiny cellular atomaton, and yet there's no limit to the complexity that they can produce chaotically from any established starting position.

The fundamental laws are going to come from simulating what the DNA does in practice, like running code in an emulator. It needs to be 'decompiled' and 'decompressed', in a sense; our current approach is like trying to understand why a REST endpoint gives a certain response by staring at gates within the processor. It might be doable but it's not going to be the most fruitful approach.

Post reply on HN