Re: Analog vs Digital
From: John Wilkins (john_SPAM_at_wilkins.id.au)
Date: 06/24/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Life's direction"
- Previous message: John Wilkins: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- In reply to: William Morse: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Next in thread: William Morse: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Reply: William Morse: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 04:29:27 +0000 (UTC)
William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in news:cb7rtg$mpl$1
> @darwin.ediacara.org:
>
> > <RobertMaas@YahooGroups.Com> wrote:
>
> >> By the way, the bag-of-lipids with set of replicators that we were
> >> discussing a few weeks as possible pre-life, worked in a
> >> statistical/analog way regarding frequencies (abundances) of the
> >> various replicators, but in a digital way regarding presence or absence
> >> of a particular replicator in a particular bag.
> >> (DNS should read DNA above, sigh.)
>
> > "Presence" and "absence" defined according to which threshold? :-)
>
> I expect he meant presence and absence defined according to whether either
> there is one or more of a particular replicator in the bag or there are
> none of a particular replicator in the bag. But of course this is a
> "digital" definition, so it couldn't possibly be right :-)
Oh, sure. But what if you have an assay that cannot discriminate below,
say, 1ppb, and so can't tell you if that digital condition is satisfied?
What if the only "replicator" you have is an allotrope of the target
replicator? What if it has a few percentage points lower efficiency than
the target molecule? What if the replication rate of the target molecule
varies according to the (analog) presence of a catalyst molecule? etc...
It is easy to get binary states if you define them into existence.
-- Dr John Wilkins john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au "Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss" - Francis Bacon
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: Life's direction"
- Previous message: John Wilkins: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- In reply to: William Morse: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Next in thread: William Morse: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Reply: William Morse: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|