You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Biochemistry and Information Theory
- Thread starter Vkothii
- Start date
Information is order, it's an ordered set, or sequence - representable in binary.ak.R said:information in relation to order can not be wighted entropically in absence of entropy load (order) present in the processing system
That depends on what you can see in a "coded substance"., therefore to compare the mere entropy of coded substances is a futile arrangement.
Ahem.
I'm still not all that confident that all that many people see a difference between order and entropy (of the thermodynamic kind). Most of the stuff I've seen in this forum has people talking about disorder as entropy.
This is a bit of a problem, because disorder really isn't entropy.
(If you say it fast six times, it starts to sound more believable)
So there might not be a lot (of point) in getting into conditional DNA entropy, adiabatics, and minimum energy of a computational process. But no big deal, I s'pose.
I'm still not all that confident that all that many people see a difference between order and entropy (of the thermodynamic kind). Most of the stuff I've seen in this forum has people talking about disorder as entropy.
This is a bit of a problem, because disorder really isn't entropy.
(If you say it fast six times, it starts to sound more believable)
So there might not be a lot (of point) in getting into conditional DNA entropy, adiabatics, and minimum energy of a computational process. But no big deal, I s'pose.
Last edited:
Based on "discussions" with those members who have bothered to post anything related to Biology, or what they think they might know, the only conclusion to make here is that it's pretty much a waste of time (other that setting out this or that thought process, for my own selfish benefit).
I have decided not to bother, though. There simply aren't any posters at this forum, and most of the others I've seen, with much interest in anything other than propping up their opinions and philosophies.
IOW asking questions is pretty much a waste of time - I'm better off reading something written by a genuine scientist/researcher.
I think the level of education these days is actually quite poor - many of the contributors appear to be more or less incapable of anything approaching logical thought.
So there.
P.S. I'll have a go at joining the masses and poking fun at anyone who looks like they're trying to be logical. Logic is so passe.
P.P.S. I give the possibility of something appearing that more or less confirms the above, about a 95%. I just know there's at least someone who simply won't be able to resist.
I have decided not to bother, though. There simply aren't any posters at this forum, and most of the others I've seen, with much interest in anything other than propping up their opinions and philosophies.
IOW asking questions is pretty much a waste of time - I'm better off reading something written by a genuine scientist/researcher.
I think the level of education these days is actually quite poor - many of the contributors appear to be more or less incapable of anything approaching logical thought.
So there.
P.S. I'll have a go at joining the masses and poking fun at anyone who looks like they're trying to be logical. Logic is so passe.
P.P.S. I give the possibility of something appearing that more or less confirms the above, about a 95%. I just know there's at least someone who simply won't be able to resist.
Last edited:
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
It is interesting to compare say Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences with any research paper published in Nature.
In the former, Galileo adopted a style common since the early Greeks of presenting his scientific findings in the form of a dialogue. In the latter, the modern scientist offers his findings, in summary form, at the outset, as an abstract.
The older style has more of the feel of a novel: one must read the whole thing to find out the point of it all. Not so the evolved research paper: a scan of the abstract, a review of the conclusions, a serendipitous dip into a table here and a paragraph there, and the guts of the work are exposed.
Science follows this approach because it works. Those who choose to ignore it would be better off writing fiction.
In the former, Galileo adopted a style common since the early Greeks of presenting his scientific findings in the form of a dialogue. In the latter, the modern scientist offers his findings, in summary form, at the outset, as an abstract.
The older style has more of the feel of a novel: one must read the whole thing to find out the point of it all. Not so the evolved research paper: a scan of the abstract, a review of the conclusions, a serendipitous dip into a table here and a paragraph there, and the guts of the work are exposed.
Science follows this approach because it works. Those who choose to ignore it would be better off writing fiction.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
I have never the liked the work of novelists such as John Updike. One acknowledges the skillful sentence construction and the colorful metaphors, but is left empty by the entire absence of any substance, meaning, or direction. Such weaknesses are barely acceptable in literature, they are beyond the pale in science.
This forum isn't science - "science", as I understand it, and believe most others understand it, is only marginally applicable to a web site. Even one with the word "science" in its title.
Any weakness that a sceptical mind might detect in any discussions at such a BB, is only meaningful, in general, to an audience restricted to those who bother, to either contribute, or discuss (criticise, shoot at, agree with, disagree with).
I don't think there are many researchers or students of the subject who are losing sleep about forums like this.
Personally, I don't ascribe much status to pretty much everything on a site like this. It represents more a conglomeration - some of it confused, some not.
Deciding what's meaningful or not, appears to also be largely a matter of personal taste.
Again, I don't really care about what others think, or where their particular tastes might lead them.
I just call it how I see it. I don't care if other people don't see it, either.
I do care if someone insists (and keeps insisting) that something matters, when it clearly doesn't matter.
Any weakness that a sceptical mind might detect in any discussions at such a BB, is only meaningful, in general, to an audience restricted to those who bother, to either contribute, or discuss (criticise, shoot at, agree with, disagree with).
I don't think there are many researchers or students of the subject who are losing sleep about forums like this.
Personally, I don't ascribe much status to pretty much everything on a site like this. It represents more a conglomeration - some of it confused, some not.
Deciding what's meaningful or not, appears to also be largely a matter of personal taste.
Again, I don't really care about what others think, or where their particular tastes might lead them.
I just call it how I see it. I don't care if other people don't see it, either.
I do care if someone insists (and keeps insisting) that something matters, when it clearly doesn't matter.