The idea being that somehow, intuitively, there's a difference in the sorts of rules one would write down to describe the river and the sorts of rules one uses to describe the organism (even if they obey the same physics microscopically). After those discussions, we segued to a particular analogy Piet brought up - the difference between a river flowing down a mountain and the behavior of living organisms. There were a number of initial discussions related to the MOL weekly meeting that had happened that morning and the Category Theory workshop. I would like to discuss possibilities for pinning down this distinction, so that we can better understand how `evolvability' itself first emerged. as the process of carrying forward information is initially emerging), then to a great degree there is an ambiguity between something which is simply going towards some steady-state and something with the flexibility of an `evolvable' system - one that can respond to various pressures. If the inherent landscape of replication of information is itself very rugged (e.g. However, when looking at systems for which individual organisms may be ill-defined, and for which the information-carrying structures may not be as cleanly separated from the organism's functionality, the picture becomes much murkier. When looking at modern organisms, we have a good deal of understanding about how to describe their evolution at a fairly sophisticated level.
Here is the abstract that Nicholas sent out before the meeting:
Our 23rd lunch took place on March 20, 2014, with Nicholas Guttenberg starting the discussion Nicholas wrote these notes.
0 kommentar(er)
