All true. The natural laws of chemistry manipulate these five nucleotides evermore repeating chemical compound fotmations exactly the same. A definite inference that the chemistry is fixed, the laws, these are the instructions.
Semantically speaking again, how does this not confirm a mechanical universe?
What is intelligent is us. Wr understand the mechanism, or are coming to understand it. The mechanism is an orderly process of Natural Law. The products produced (like living organisms) have no choice but to take forms which in their design evidence the "mechinery" of the tooling found in the factory.
It is recursive to think that our intelligence presupposesba designer of the factory as opposed to the reality that a "factory," the Universe, is all there is, is our Almighty, is Father Nature.
The Hebrew say this Father is unknowable and ineffiable. It is true, isn't it?
You/One would have to be able to read the Pascal use of "vacuum" or its equivalent in some space bound within said combinations and from there there is a little more work to be done preparing you or me to accept Boscovich in the context of dynamic programming applied to any old endogenous effect and THEN one would need to mediate a physicist's difference against the current standard QM towards a specifically Einsteinian one at worst or at best a new physical one interms of Lornez or Poincarre's special relativity written from the perspecitve of a frame of said bases. Too much work for the the speed of current web communications.
You are so right. Why explain it. Who gives a crap and who could refrain from replies that are so off base that a long discourse must ensue explaining what has been explained, to the end that not so short and clear won't be made confusing in a little explanation.
Forget about it.
But I will hint you in the right direction,... Pascal was toying with the wrong "rabbits" for his insight to really mean anything concerning Fibanacci numbers taken vertically inside of straight across, and all of their contemplations had no knowledge of brain cells.
I have noticed a further wrinkle at first which I had thought I would be responding to Hitchy on and it as to do with criticism within! The vertebrate lineage that can not be simply addressed as I have done so far with the difference of grades and clades but I will close off my posting in this thread to attempt a more focused approach elsewhere.
Before I had noticed this needed addition to my own work I was imagining TOO MANY different thought directions that using words to explain them without acces to prior posts made it even my own posts look more foolish then they actually were.
Close out? Seems as a new thread would be a good idea, but in the tgreevweeks since I started investigating this site the protocol has changed. I am unable to post a new thread. Perhaps this indicates some doctrinal restrictions and suggests that the site promotes some one or another form of their own special rdligiousity.
Your position seems to me to be that of Wolfram but for those of us more interested in biology it is of note that Mayr in the "Growth of Biological Thought" spoke mainly of DNA as ONLY containing instructions (that was the word) which was objected to by Gottleib (and me incidently) when Gottleib came to trying to implement neophenogensis. I stoped posting on Wolfram's web site becuase the opnion was expressed that no matter the algorthim there would be NO NEW physics finable in developmental biology. There may be none and you and Wolfram might be correct as to for instance the application of "simple programs" in biology no matter the design but I suspect that the heirarchies involved will not be "agnostic" with respect to existence with the appearence of age as either a creationist or macrothermodynamic theorist might construct the relation of the levels of organzation that are natually selected no matter the time thought in the artifical selections.
As Lam was still crying ""foul or belly aching before even seeing how I would represent truely random processes I think before I start to present my own work I will stick to arguing from some points in Gladyshev's as any evolutionist who wants to disgree with Gladyshev is going to have a lot if not too much explaining to do and so here a highlight relative to this thread head I hyperlinked in another thread.
quote: In the final analysis, the DNA structure determines the structure of a population. At the same time, the existence of feedback makes it possible to “transcribe”, for instance, the newly emergent behavioural reactions of a population (ones that are shaped in consequence of environmental changes) as new nucleotide sequences in DNA and RNA molecules. This should not be surprising if one bears in mind the existence of the law of temporal hierarchies and examines the processes of transcription of “thermodynamic information” (transmitted from one hierarchical level to another) on the given time scales. The principle of the stability of substance of all hierarchies (in particular, the principle of stability of chemical substances) [4,9] makes it possible to explain the reasons of the practically illimitable evolution of the biological world in terms of general laws of nature.
We see that the processes of direct reading off of information from DNA and its transmission to the level of population, on the one hand, and the reverse processes of adaptation of lower-lever structures to the nature of the structures located at a higher hierarchical level (i.e., the nature of the environment) have different development rates.
If one assumes any kind of "feedback" (the place in this quote to disagree with GP if on researching the subject results etc) as describably out of the second paragraph I truncated then the answer to the question posed here is some relation of "thermodynamic information" to the bits"". My concern elsewhere will be if there is not some more homogenously desginable solution to the same subject matter. Crashfrog has already opted out that it is all "chemical" but we saw recently a thread discussing "perfect wiring" and should this connection be that way I see no reason on what little understanding I have of macrothermodynamics relative to the issue of finding said axioms that the algorhtim or word of a more complex program need be so limited to covalent bonds vs ionic as we well likely even techincally come more to appreciate as fiber optic communications come into there own.