Elsevier publishes Granville Sewell’s latest on the Second Law

_{William Dembski

February 19, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Elsevier has just published Granville Sewell’s “A Second Look at the Second Law” (Applied Mathematics Letters, June 2011):

ABSTRACT: It is commonly argued that the spectacular increase in order which has occurred on Earth does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the Earth is an open system, and anything can happen in an open system as long as the entropy increases outside the system compensate the entropy decreases inside the system. However, if we define ‘‘X-entropy’’ to be the entropy associated with any diffusing component X (for example, X might be heat), and, since entropy measures disorder, ‘‘X-order’’ to be the negative of X-entropy, a closer look at the equations for entropy change shows that they not only say that the X-order cannot increase in a closed system, but that they also say that in an open system the X-order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. Thus the equations for entropy change do not support the illogical ‘‘compensation’’ idea; instead, they illustrate the tautology that ‘‘if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable’’. Thus, unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that the second law has in fact been violated here.

Comments

I think the confusion is that information rides on energy- think carrier wave, s in FM. FM has a carrier wave of 38KHz- see that "stereo" light- it is lit by a 19KHz signal derived from the 38KHz carrier wave. The FM information rides on that 38KHz carrier wave but the information is not the carrier wave.Joseph_{February 21, 2011
February
02
Feb
21
21
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: I went further along and saw this from NE:
Of course energy is not information, but information is energy . . . . You require energy to build those brains that designed the computer. You see Joe, in the end, even us cannot be accounted for without energy. Take a deep look, see if you can find any step towards your computer that did not require energy. From humans to whatever you like . . . . look carefully at the "design inferences" of Behe and partners, nothing but ignorance. No designer anywhere to be seen so that their "inference" would have some justification.
1 --> Information is not energy, but informational arrangements of matter require energy. to take just one example, the energy [heat content or enthalpy, specifically] to build a chain of monomers would be basically the same for RH or LH molecules, or even racemeic versions. But only one handedness will work in life. 2 --> Just the being racemic alone is one bit per monomer, a specification that is going to exponentiate, up to 2^300 for a typical length protein molecule. 3 --> same energy, different result. 4 --> That energy is required to build and operate brains does not account for the information content of said brains. Indeed, that brain A belongs to GEM who can design and build a computer, and brain B that belongs to my son who cannot as yet do that, is a result of knowledge, education and experience, not energy flows. It arguably would require a comparable energy input to have filled my head with literary theory or music, as with physics, electronics and related areas. 5 --> My computer requires an energy flow to operate, but that energy flow is not equivalent to the information that is used in it. 6 --> Your demand for independent demonstration of a designer in the known to be remote and unobserved past is an exercise in selective hyperskepticism. 7 --> On the uniformity principle used in origins science, we look at what is causally sufficient to produce a given effect in the present. Then, we look for its characteristic signs. On inference to best empirically anchored explanation, we then use the signs to infer to the most credible cause in the past. 8 --> NE knows or should know that FSCI and IC are indeed empirically reliable signs of intelligent cause in the present, indeed there are many examples and no counter-examples. Thus, we have good reason to view them as signatures of intelligent cause. 9 --> What NE has done is to inject the a priori evo mat assumption that an intelligent cause was IMPOSSIBLE so the past MUST be explained on chance plus necessity regardless of the problems with empirical insufficiency of cause, so the bare logical possibility of what lucky noise can do will have to do. 10 --> Begging the question in service to an ideology, in short, No wonder such so often resort to projecting theocratic motives on those who differ with them. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 21, 2011
February
02
Feb
21
21
2011
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Joseph I have submitted a comment in response to NE at your blog, and it should be pending your moderation. I fully understand your need to moderate comments. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 21, 2011
February
02
Feb
21
21
2011
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

F/N: It is worth taking a moment to note on points on NE's argument at Joseph's blog: _________________ >> If you first understand that there is a relationship between energy and information, a --> Q: And, what is that link? b --> A: It is that informational configs of symbols, or information-rich functional configs of components, are at islands of fucntion in large config spaces, and so are maximally unlikely to be reched by random walks from arbitrary initial points. c --> In addition, if thermal agitation is a relevsant to a system, the simple dumping in of energy will heat the object up, exponentially increasing the number of microscopic ways that energy and mass can be arranged, i.e increasing disorder and making the information-rich islands even less likely to be arrived at by random walks. you understand that energy flow can explain information content. c --> FALLACY. This is the open systems can explain organisation error just described. NE needs to read Wicken's 1979 remark on this carefully:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
c --> Where the number of accessible configs is beyond astronomically large [1,000 or more bits of info storage capacity] this means that the selection cannot be explained on chance, not credibly. Then you have to understand that "irreducible complexity" is but a display of ignorance about how a system could have arisen. d --> This is little more than a resort to Dawkins' sneering prejudice that if you disagree with his evolutionary materialism, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. e --> It then resorts to the substitution of logical possibility for empirical reasonableness in light of the space of possibilities and the different possible causes of configurations. f --> That is, there is a smuggled in assumption that intelligence is effectively impossible, so, regardless of the beyond astronomical remoteness of the odds that chance plus necessity originated the functional configs by good luck, tha tis what "must" have happened. g --> Going beyond this, if you see a flyable Jumbo Jet, you infer to Boeing corp, not a tornado in a junkyard in Seattle, as the number of flyable configs is so remote that the functional organisation is best explained on design, not undirected chance plus necessity without intelligence. h --> And, when it comes to the origin of irreducibly complex entities, one needs to account for the configs of the parts that allows them to match and work together, then for the wiring diagram that puts them in a functional order. I assure you, a working electronics circuit is a matter of very careful specification and matching of parts in a wiring arrangement that is intelligently designed. i --> NE is ducking the force of the factors C1 - 5 discussed here in the ID foundations series It might truly be "irreducibly complex" as it exists today, but that does not preclude its appearance in steps but then some part that allowed this to happen disappeared in the realms of time. j --> This is the resort to bare logical possibility without empirical data, and in defiance of the conditions C1 - 5 which means that IC systems will naturally be well beyond 1,000 bits of complex, functionally specified information. k --> Anyone can spout the equivalent of the claim that the jumbo jet on the tarmac could logically possibly have come about form a tornado in a junkyard. But, what is really needed is to show that, based on empirical evidence. Just like, it is logically possible for a perpetual motion machine of the second kind to work at least once. SHOW it, don't speculate on what just might be. l --> the proposed steps and happy coincidences of matching sub-components is a matter of blind faith that this is what must have happened as a priori the possibility of a designer has been ruled out by imposing evolutionary materialism by the back door route of the so called methodological naturalism. It could also be n --> More speculation. that it just looks "irreducibly complex" but it is lack of knowledge that makes it appear so, o --> Start with a metabolising entity that hen has to have a coded tape based self replicating entitty to replicate itself, i.e a von Neumann self-replicator. p --> Such a vNSR requires:
(i) an underlying storable code to record the required information to create not only (a) the primary functional machine [[here, for a "clanking replicator" as illustrated, a Turing-type “universal computer”; in a cell this would be the metabolic entity that transforms environmental materials into required components etc.] but also (b) the self-replicating facility; and, that (c) can express step by step finite procedures for using the facility; (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions; thus controlling: (iv) position-arm implementing machines with “tool tips” controlled by the tape reader and used to carry out the action-steps for the specified replication (including replication of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that as a part of their function, can provide required specific materials/parts and forms of energy for the replication facility, by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment. Also, parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) are each necessary for and together are jointly sufficient to implement a self-replicating machine with an integral von Neumann universal constructor. That is, we see here an irreducibly complex set of core components that must all be present in a properly organised fashion for a successful self-replicating machine to exist.
q --> Kindly explain how such an entity can come about spontaneously in steps, since as well, not only do we need these things to work together to function, but we need this facility to have the possibility that the system can vary its code and perhaps accidentally bump into an improvement that could dominate the population, i.e this is a precondition of evolving. (Odds of that leading to a new body plan, of course, are beyond astronomical.) rather than there being authentic "irreducible complexity." s --> logical possibility and promissory note speculation conveniently substituted for empirical, factual observation.>> ____________________ Talking points based on imposing a priori materialism are easy to spout, cogent arguments backed up by empirical evidence and logical analysis, not so easy.kairosfocus_{February 21, 2011
February
02
Feb
21
21
2011
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

Joseph and BA: Pardon my directlness, but NE is spouting specious talking points, as opposed to raising sound arguments that cogently address the real issue at stake. Worse, he is simply not facing the force of what Dr Sewell is raising, in light of say what the Clausius example on entropy rise in heat exchanges vs the heat flow through an energy converting device, is telling us. (Cf my two examples just following, noting the diagram in the first.) In addition to BA's very helpful video link, I suggest that he needs to address the points made by Wicken et al and cited here, and the associated issues discussed here in my always linked and the onward linked TMLO, 1984. He needs to ask himself what it means to inject raw, uncorrelated energy into a system, and the consequences of that, if the only way the system can address the energy is to increase the random thermal agitation of its molecules. Dr Sewell has a very apt remark in his article [which, recall, is peer reviewed] that I was again noticing yesterday: ____________________ >> The fact that thermal entropy cannot decrease in a closed system, but can decrease in an open system, was used to conclude that, in other applications, any entropy decrease in an open system is possible as long as it is compensated somehow by entropy increases outside this system, so that the total “entropy” (as though there were only one type) in the universe, or any other closed system containing the open system, still increases . . . . The second law of thermodynamics is all about probability; it uses proba-bility at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change.3 Carbon dis-tributes itself more and more uniformly in an isolated solid because that is what the laws of probability predict when diffusion alone is operative. Thus the second law predicts that natural (unintelligent) causes will not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view. The reason natural forces can turn a computer or a spaceship into rubble and not vice versa is probability: of all the possi-ble arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could add, subtract, multiply and divide real numbers, or fly astronauts to the moon and back safely. Of course, we must be careful to define “extremely improbable” events to be events of probability less than some very small threshold: if we define events of probability less than 1% to be extremely improbable, then obviously natural causes can do extremely improbable things.4 But after we define a sufficiently low threshold, everyone seems to agree that “natural forces will rearrange atoms into digital computers” is a macroscopically describable event that is still extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view, and thus forbidden by the second law—at least if this happens in a closed system. But it is not true that the laws of probability only apply to closed systems: if a system is open, you just have to take into account what is crossing the boundary when deciding what is extremely improbable and what is not. What happens in a closed system depends on the initial conditions; what happens in an open system depends on the boundary conditions as well.
_____________ F/N 4 If we repeat an experiment 2k times, and define an event to be “simply describable”(macroscopically describable) if it can be described in m or fewer bits (so that there are 2m or fewer such events), and “extremely improbable” when it has probability 1/2n or less, then the probability that any extremely improbable, simply describable event will ever occur is less than 2k+m/2n. Thus we just have to make sure to choose n to be much larger than k + m. If we flip a billion fair coins, any outcome we get can be said to be extremely improbable, but we only have cause for astonishment if something extremely improbable and simply describable happens, such as “all heads,” or “every third coin is tails,” or “only every third coin is tails.” For practical purposes, almost anything that can be described without resorting to an atom-by-atom (or coin-by-coin) accounting can be considered “macroscopically” describable. [NB: This is of course closely related to what we have called functionally specific, i.e. the observed function gives us a basis for a description that is "simple," and since relatively very few configs in a space of possibilities will be functional, it is highly unlikely to be encountered on a random walk from arbitrary initial configs, on the gamut of the observed cosmos across its lifespan]
The “compensation” counter-argument was produced by people who gen-eralized the model equation for closed systems, but forgot to generalize the equation for open systems. Both equations are only valid for our simple mod-els, where it is assumed that only heat conduction or diffusion is going on; naturally in more complex situations, the laws of probability do not make such simple predictions. Nevertheless, in “Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?” [Sewell 2001], I generalized the equations for open systems to the following tautology, which is valid in all situations:
If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely im-probable.
The fact that order is disappearing in the next room does not make it any easier for computers to appear in our room—unless this order is disappearing into our room, and then only if it is a type of order that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example, computers. Importing thermal order into an open system may make the temperature distribution less random, and importing carbon order may make the carbon distribution less random, but neither makes the formation of computers more probable.>> [Sewell. Granville, A Second Look at the Second Law (Applied Mathematics Letters 24 (June 2011) pp 1022-5 Reference: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2011.01.019),preprint, pp. 5 - 8.] _______________________ Those who spout the open systems talking point reveal their ignorance or manipulativeness if they know better. RX: NE needs to read Sewell and other similar sources, then seriously address the point on the merits instead of the strawman tactic talking points. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, see why I insisted that we needed to address the topic of note 2 in the ID foundations series? We have to understand enough of what thermodynamics is about to answer to the notion that simple dumping of raw, uncorrelated energy into a system can account credibly for the origin of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. Not so, but we have to pull back the thermodynamics veil a bit to see why. What this boils down to is yet another form of the, since I assume an intelligence at the relevant point is impossible, then since chance can logically possibly do it that is how it "must" have been done. Nope, you will have to show why you are confident that such an intelligence is not possible at the time and place in question, and do so in the teeth of the evidence pointing to an intelligence as the best credible explanation of the origin of the cosmos. Indeed, at the root of the cosmos, if we bring on board the relevant logic of cause for the moment, we are looking at a necessary being that is capable of causing the origin of a cosmos fine-tuned for C-chemistry cell based life.kairosfocus_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

further note: This 'uniqueness', and higher dimensional dominance, of information is also now found to extend into molecular biology; Quantum Information In DNA & Protein Folding - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – June 21, 2010 Abstract: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/does-dna-have-t.html 4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/ further notes; This following experiment clearly shows information is not an 'emergent property' of any solid material basis as is dogmatically asserted by some materialists: Converting Quantum Bits: Physicists Transfer Information Between Matter and Light Excerpt: A team of physicists at the Georgia Institute of Technology has taken a significant step toward the development of quantum communications systems by successfully transferring quantum information from two different groups of atoms onto a single photon. http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/quantumtrans.htm The following articles show that even atoms (Ions) are subject to teleportation: Of note: An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving it a net positive or negative electrical charge. Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts ,,,, Let All creation bring glory to God! All Of Creation - Mercyme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkdniYsUrM8bornagain77_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Joseph, it looks like neg. entro. said this, 'still, the energy from the sun was several orders of magnitude more than necessary to account for such information.' Actually contrary to his persistent denial (I've seen this guy before), pouring more energy into any 'ordered' system increases the disorder of that 'ordered' system more quickly; Evolution Vs. Thermodynamics - Open System Refutation - Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4143014/ As well, neg. entro. is right in some sense, there is a fairly direct relation between energy and information, but it is not the relation that neg. entro. wants. The relation is that if you displace the 'infinite information' of a photon the photon will cease to be, because each and every photon in the universe is actually made of infinite specified information. Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,," http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ Unconditional Quantum Teleportation - abstract Excerpt: This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported,, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5389/706 Moreover transcendent information is now shown to be a independent, and unique, higher dimensional entity, that is completely separate, and dominate, of matter and energy; The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.htmlbornagain77_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Hold the press! I have it on my blog, posted by someone who goes by "Negative Entropy", that energy flow can explain information content. He is also on Dr Hunter's blog telling me that information is energy. So that is it, problem solved.... NotJoseph_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Collin: 1: chance based disorder:rfheijgeg73gerbhjs (notice randomness so to describe you have to quote the string) 2: order: ddddddddddddddddddddddddd (cf how a crystal is built up by stacking the unit cell over and over again. Describe: punch d over and over again.) 3: Information-rich organisation: this text is an example of functionally specific, complex organisation that is meaningful and informational. (aperiodic, but non-random, as specified to function.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Granville, I'm trying to fully understand exactly what the difference is between order and information. Is it possible for there to be an unlimited supply of order but not enough information for life?Collin_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

to clarify; but for 'the open systems of' computers like ‘Watson’ in particular.bornagain77_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

JGuy, I caught that fact, but thought the examples in molecular biology would be relevant as well since the examples can easily be argued to exceed what man has accomplished in concerted engineering.,,, But seeing 'Watson's' recent victory on Jeopardy this last week, and the rampant speculation about computers becoming 'conscious' (strong AI), Dr. Sewell's comparison to what human engineers have accomplished, against the strict limits presented by thermodynamics, are far more appropriate for clearly illustrating the limits of any 'open system' in general, but for computer's like 'Watson' in particular. i.e. For showing that ALL design must be implemented 'top down' not 'bottom up'.bornagain77_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

The preprint version of the article is here .Granville Sewell_{February 20, 2011
February
02
Feb
20
20
2011
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: The mol-bio analogs are noteworthy features! :) Not sure if you thoguht otherwise, but I think when Sewell wrote, "[...] makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable [...]", that he literally means spaceships, computers and the internet. i.e. he is apparently granting a strictly materialist presumption and that Darwinian evolution would have to explain the existence of spaceships etc....since spaceships are a result of human engineering...and humans a result of some blind material 'process' in that granted presumption.JGuy_{February 19, 2011
February
02
Feb
19
19
2011
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

To those who would think that spaceships, computers and the Internet do not have analogs in molecular biology, I point out that there are 'surpassing analogs' in molecular biology; The Virus (bateriophage) - Assembly Of A Molecular "Lunar Landing" Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122 The Virus - A Molecular Lunar Landing Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4205494 The first thought I had when I saw the bacteriophage virus is that it looks similar to the lunar lander of the Apollo program. The comparison is not without merit considering some of the relative distances to be traveled and the virus must somehow possess, as of yet unelucidated, orientation, guidance, docking, unloading, loading, etc... mechanisms. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created. Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, 1996, p. 188 Bill Gates, in recognizing the superiority found in Genetic Coding, compared to the best computer coding we now have, has now funded research into this area: Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. http://www.cosbi.eu/index.php/component/content/article/171 3-D Structure Of Human Genome: Fractal Globule Architecture Packs Two Meters Of DNA Into Each Cell - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: the information density in the nucleus is trillions of times higher than on a computer chip -- while avoiding the knots and tangles that might interfere with the cell's ability to read its own genome. Moreover, the DNA can easily unfold and refold during gene activation, gene repression, and cell replication. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008142957.htm Nanoelectronic Transistor Combined With Biological Machine Could Lead To Better Electronics: - Aug. 2009 Excerpt: While modern communication devices rely on electric fields and currents to carry the flow of information, biological systems are much more complex. They use an arsenal of membrane receptors, channels and pumps to control signal transduction that is unmatched by even the most powerful computers. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090811091834.htm Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htmbornagain77_{February 19, 2011
February
02
Feb
19
19
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply