I find it hard to understand why people assume biology is a computer. Programmable computers are designed to solve specific problems & need designers. Biology has no designer ... discuss.
-
-
Replying to @leecronin
Computers are simply Turing complete automata. These automata form a class of functions that can compute all automata within their resource constraints. Designers and purposes are irrelevant for this definition.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @leecronin
Biological systems are trivially computers. Less trivially, they also implement various computers, as soon as they need higher order control. More interestingly, they implement meta controllers, which converge on attractors that implement computers.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @leecronin
Unlike present-day technology (computers included), biology can turn bits into more of itself. I wouldn't be surprised if this strange loop leads to surprising innovation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also, unlike biology, software does not deteriorate.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Software states are macrostates. Maintaining consistent macrostates on the substrate (microstates) requires persistent control, which consumes negentropy (~energy). As a result, the implementation of any software is subject to decay and will eventually succumb to entropy.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.