🚀 go-pugleaf

In bionet.info-theory John Baez (baez@guitar.ucr.edu) writes:

>So what I'm wondering is this: given the complete genome of an organism,
how
>much *additional information* would you need to give someone for them to
>be able to build a living copy of that organism? 

I don't see how there could be a general answer to this question.

One of the things that is confusing, at least for me, is the term
"information".  With other metrics, say determining mass, one can perform
a procedure, find a quantity and write it down on a piece of paper.  There
is less chance for confusing what you have written on the paper with the
actual mass you have measured.  In measuring "information" it seems easy
to become confused as to whether the "information" is what you have
written on the paper or what you have measured.  In another thread here
John Collier (pljdc@alinga.newcastle.edu.au) noted:

>Brillouin, _Science and Information Theory, 2nd edition_, Academic
>Press: 1962, uses the term "bound information" to refer to information
>that is considered with respect to the physical complexions of the
>system. He uses "free information" to refer to the mathematical
>concept that does not respect considerations of physical embodiment, 
>as used in Shannon theory. 

This seems like a useful distinction; information on the hoof vs.
information in a plastic wrap.  (No pejorative on the latter, simply
driven by the analogy)

If our *additional information* is "on the hoof" then the question is, how
big is the corral, how do we draw the boundary conditions to avoid
including the entire solar system or more?  I believe someone has alluded
to this question.

Consider that information, like energy, may be most clearly revealed in
relationship or transaction.  A humble example comes to mind.  Once a
season when irrigating corn, one turns water into a new, rough, tractor
made channel, or "mark", between the rows of corn.  One is immediately
struck by a lifelike, almost hypnotic, animation in the "head" of water as
it moves across the new terrain.  At the interface there are myriad
hesitations and lunges forward, movements left and right, countless
choices seemingly made.  Fore and aft of this interface there is little 
to catch the eye.  

So, methaphorically, nature presents our genome with a terrain across
which it can move, prosper, become increasingly animate and stand up to
brush off the clay.  How do we characterize the terrain and, to the
interested party in your question, do we convey the terrain or the
characterization?

Further, how do we make the characterization?  It seems that, as with any
measure, we need to define a procedure that enables a referential
TRANSACTION, be it mathematical or physical.  In effect we can gauge the
nature of the terrain with an abstract/physical probe which mimics the
genome or we can gauge the nature to the genome with an abstract/physical
probe that mimics the terrain.  At some point the distinction disappears.

At the moment, this seems perfectly clear to me, but I am often accepting
of my own thinking until just after posting it.
.


Don Foster (SproutsRad@aol.com)
"Technology is the answer, but what was the question?" Amory Lovins