For example, if what you are saying is true, then the structure you get from DNA, for an arm would not be
An arm.
It would be;
Na rma.
But it is. On the other side of my body.
The syntax is what is used in CATG.
No, it's not. What is used is the fact that an aminoacyl- tRNA has a binding anticodon that is three bases long. It doesn't say "AUG" on the end of it; it has the bases adenine, uracil, and guanine and those form hydrogen bonds with the bases cytosine, adenine, and uracil at the A site of the ribosome.
When we
represent that process using letters like A, U, or G, when we describe that stochastic chemical process as a "code", that's when DNA has "syntax."
The syntax is the CATG, (four elements) it has pragmatics, because otherwise you could scramble any combination and get the same thing.
Not at all. There are many things that are not "codes" that nonetheless require specific relationships in space, exclude some configurations, and produce something different when you scramble them. Freeze ice in one way and it forms the traditional hexagonal crystal. Freeze the exact same water somewhere else, under slightly different conditions, and now ice forms in the extremely rare cubic crystal. Freeze it under different circumstances and it adopts a third completely different form. But ice doesn't contain "syntax", codes, or pragmatic meaning about ice crystals - it simply follows physical laws. Chemical laws.
DNA doesn't have codes or syntax, but the ways that we describe it do. Our representations of DNA have code and syntax because they're for human use. DNA is simply a chemical that follows chemical laws.
I would say it is unrealistic to say it is not information, when it fulfills the criteria
I'm not saying that DNA doesn't contain information. I'm saying that DNA doesn't contain information as you have chosen to define it. DNA doesn't contain codes, syntax, or meaning. Our representations of DNA are full of meaning.