Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Marcus Daniels wrote:

> A larger space means more things are possible, but the interpreter of 
> that space can still be simple.   A codon is simple and stable in 
> spite of the fact a larger genomes can code for more complex things.
Scott Christley wrote:
> Take the CPU example, where the instruction set is not small and 
> finite, imagine a CPU where the instruction set is not completely 
> defined, where there can be a large or infinite number of opcodes 
> which may be defined on the fly.  Though, this doesn't increase the 
> theoretical "power" of the CPU; it does increase it expressiveness.
To me, the details of what maps to what isn't important in general (that 
the proteins might map to to methods, protein interactions describable 
by method combination, cells being like objects, organs being like 
modules and so on).   What's interesting is that low level assemblies, 
in this case proteins, can be made at all.   An interpreter or 
just-in-time compiler is one existing concept with existing 
implementations for this.

Incidentally even with real CPUs, there has been work done on this, e.g. 
Transmeta's code morphing, or perhaps (details are still unclear) new 
Rockton software-support technology from Intel.