DH25027 How is Codification supported by Chemistry V01 161225

 Short answer: yes in mechanism, no in explanation.

Long answer: codification is chemically realized but not chemically exhausted.

Let’s unpack that carefully.

1. What “reducible” can mean (this matters)

There are three different senses of reducibility, and confusion usually comes from mixing them.

A. Ontological reducibility

Is codification made of chemistry?

Yes. There is nothing in biology that violates physics or chemistry.

B. Causal reducibility

Are chemical interactions sufficient to cause codification to function?

Yes. Every step in decoding DNA, firing neurons, or signaling cells is chemically causal.

C. Explanatory reducibility

Can chemistry alone explain why something is a code?

No. This is where reduction fails.

2. Why chemistry alone cannot explain codification

A. Codes require arbitrary mappings

In the genetic code:

• “AUG” → methionine

• There is no chemical necessity for this mapping

Evidence:

• Alternate genetic codes exist (mitochondria, bacteria)

• The same amino acid can be encoded by multiple codons

• The mapping is implemented by tRNAs and enzymes, not chemistry itself

Chemistry explains how the mapping is enforced, but not why this mapping rather than another.

B. Codes require interpretation

Codification requires a reader.

DNA without:

• ribosomes

• tRNAs

• transcription machinery

…is just an inert polymer.

Chemistry alone does not:

• Decide what counts as a symbol

• Decide when something is read

• Decide what it means

Those decisions are embedded in systems of constraints, not molecules in isolation.

C. Codes are multiply realizable

The same code can be implemented in different chemistries.

Examples:

• Genetic code variations

• Neural codes using spikes, timing, or populations

• Artificial genetic systems using non-DNA polymers

This means:

The informational structure is independent of the specific chemistry.

That’s a hallmark of irreducible abstraction.

3. The key distinction: substrate vs structure

Aspect Chemistry Codification

What it’s made of Molecules Mappings & constraints

Governing laws Physics System-level rules

Context dependence Low Essential

Arbitrary choices No Yes

Meaning None Central

Chemistry provides:

• Energetics

• Affinities

• Kinetics

Codification provides:

• Reference

• Memory

• Choice among alternatives

4. A useful analogy (but not a weak one)

Consider text on a screen.

• The pixels obey physics

• The transistors obey electronics

• The ink obeys chemistry

But chemistry does not explain why “CAT” refers to an animal.

Similarly:

• Chemistry explains how codons bind tRNAs

• It does not explain why those codons stand for amino acids

5. Where codification emerges

Codification arises when three conditions coincide:

1. Stable symbols (DNA sequences, spike patterns)

2. Interpretive machinery (ribosomes, neural circuits)

3. Functional consequences tied to survival

This triad cannot be derived from chemistry alone, even though it is implemented by chemistry.

6. So what is codification, really?

The best current view is:

Codification is an emergent constraint structure realized in chemistry but not definable by it.

Or more sharply:

Chemistry explains causation.

Codification explains organization.

They operate at different explanatory levels.

7. Final answer, condensed

• Yes, codification is fully compatible with chemistry

• Yes, it is physically instantiated by chemistry

• No, it is not reducible to chemistry as an explanatory framework

• No, chemistry alone cannot account for meaning, interpretation, or arbitrariness

Codification is not “non-physical” — but it is non-chemical in kind.

If you want to go further, we could examine:

• Whether codification implies teleology

• If codes require selection or can arise spontaneously

• Whether consciousness is a special kind of biological code

• Whether life must involve codification, anywhere in the universe

Just tell me which thread you want to pull.