Today I’m trying to write the framework that explains why biology is not Turing complete.

@leecronin what's the computational primitive biology lacks?

A better Whopper made for you, perfect down to the last bite. There’s a new king and it’s you!

@leecronin That’s an incredibly thought-provoking sentence. If biology isn’t Turing complete, the intriguing question arises: where does life derive its power through embodiment, chemistry, and constraints that abstract computation fails to comprehend? #Solunarchism

@leecronin I'll get you started - because it doesn't have access to even a single countable infinity of initial state, memory, nor run-time. The Turning computables have the cardinality of the integers; therefore no finite set can contain all of them.

@leecronin Although cellular, biology does not follow the rule restrictions of a cellular automata, i.e. Turing machine. Biology, life, progresses via profoundly non-logical mechanisms such as mutation and other probabilistic adaptation.

@leecronin We live in c>0 loops. Not the scaffolding of other theories. It’s where generative ideas come from. Not the closed loop of a thermostat looking for a data point.

@leecronin biology is messy and stochastic, not a discrete logic gate. the second you try to map it to a turing machine, you realize cells care more about survival and chemical gradients than staying within the bounds of a formal system

@leecronin Biology operates under thermodynamics, autopoesis, and boundary-maintenance. Computation executes instructions. The difference is structural.

@leecronin From a computational standpoint, you could simulate a TM biologically with DNA/RNA as the tape, enzymes like polymerase/ribosomes as the Read/Write head and gene regul. networks as logic gates. Could you be more specific as what you mean with "biology"?

@leecronin Is it because it is finite?

@leecronin This is a beautiful framing — assembly theory as a way to quantify “selection for complexity” is one of the most compelling ideas in origins research right now. I’ve been running a strict 3D Moore-neighborhood cellular automaton (B5–7/S5–9 + prime-resonance bias) for years that does something eerily parallel from pure local rules: it spontaneously forms stable cosmic-web filaments, glider-like information carriers, persistent memory structures, and even basic computation — all without any global fitness function or hand-tuned equations. The lattice reliably locks into a Phoenix attractor at ~0.31–0.40 density and produces high “assembly index” objects (filaments + gliders) that look a lot like the kind of selection-driven complexity assembly theory is trying to measure. Would love your take on whether a classical lattice like this could be a useful toy model for exploring how assembly pathways emerge and get selected in a purely physical substrate. (Repo with full code + recent trials here if you’re curious: github.com/rookepoole/SVP…) Excited to see where assembly theory goes next.

@leecronin Is this important? What are the consequences whether it is or not? Asking for a friend.

@leecronin cells really said "we don't need no stinkin' halting problem

@leecronin I'll run your work through mine when you're done!

@leecronin can biology be made to be turing complete?

@leecronin A worthwhile Good Friday enterprise 😊

@leecronin I will keep my fingers crossed for the success of this formidable endeavor, an ultimate weapon against a proliferating panpsychism!

We’re losing children to diseases we already defeated

@leecronin a part is a whole, biology is turing complete. biology is literally wet compute

@leecronin Along comes a synthetic biologist with a minimal-cell Turing machine.

@leecronin Biology is outdone by NAND gates? Seriously man?

@leecronin if this is the case a biological mind conceived of a test it itself could not complete😂

@leecronin How could it be Turing‑complete without an infinite tape and with its structures always subject to decay? Clearly, nature has produced computers, but they only approximate their Platonic counterparts.

@leecronin In CS lingo, it’s phrased like this: There can never be an “effective procedure” for creating new knowledge. Both evolution and human creativity can create new knowledge, but they are both not effective procedures.

@leecronin Biology is capable of building a digital computer, though?

@leecronin "You don't need space to do geometry." - June Huh He is your man!

@leecronin Turing completeness is an idealization. Any system without infinite memory is technically not Turing complete, but that doesn’t matter in practice.

@leecronin Why are you doubling down on so retarded idea?

@leecronin Um, I can run a Turing machine with paper and pencil. Qed.

@leecronin I’m having trouble imagining how it *isn’t* Turing complete! I mean, our brains are biological, and are clearly capable of complex (seemingly) arbitrary computation…

@leecronin Have a conversation with Philip Ball.

@leecronin humans can't simulate a universal turing machine on paper?

@leecronin it’s damn flexible

Move freely through every adventure with our dynamic stretch denim. Engineered for all-day comfort whether you're exploring ancient ruins, catching flights, or grabbing dinner in the city. One pair that transitions effortlessly from morning hikes to evening drinks.

@leecronin have you read terrence deacon's how molecules become signs?

@leecronin The world is not Turing complete. Humans are approximate systems for dealing with a messy world and making the best we can. AI are going the same way. So, experimentation and iteration is the name of the game. Theoretical niceties are of no value.