Is life a form of computation?

Scope of the Question: “Is” vs “Can Be Modeled As”

• Many argue the headline is misleading: the real question is whether life can be modeled or simulated as computation, not whether it is computation.
• Repeated complaint: the article never defines “life” or “computation,” so the claim floats at a semantic/popsci level.
• Several note that if “computation” is broadened to mean “any lawful physical process,” then everything is computation and the term loses usefulness.

Definitions of Computation and Symbolic vs Physical Processes

• One camp: computation = mapping symbols to symbols under rules (Turing, lambda, etc.). Under this, DNA is loosely symbolic, but proteins and physical interactions are not; they solve physical, not symbolic, problems.
• Counterpoint: the “symbolic” layer is always an interpretation we impose on physical systems—digital circuits, analog computers, water integrators, or cells. On this view, life is computation if we choose an appropriate encoding.
• Analog computing and chemical reaction networks are used as examples to blur the digital/symbolic vs physical divide.

Evolution, Optimization, and Teleology

• Disagreement over whether evolution “optimizes” life:
  • One side: evolution is just mutation and selection with no goal function; optimization requires an explicit objective.
  • Other side: evolution behaves like optimization over fitness; genetic algorithms are used that way, and organisms often look highly “optimized” (e.g., sharks).
• Related debate on whether assigning goals (survival, entropy increase) is anthropomorphic or conceptually valid.

Life, the Universe, and Turing Computability

• Some invoke Church–Turing and Wolfram-style principles: absent evidence of hypercomputation, any physical process (including life and brains) is in principle Turing-equivalent and simulable.
• Critics call this a category error: complexity ≠ computation; the universe may be practically or fundamentally “uncomputable” given chaos, precision limits, and scale.
• There is mention of concrete work: biochemical networks shown capable of implementing π‑calculus / Turing machines, suggesting at least parts of life are computational.

Usefulness and Limits of the Metaphor

• Skeptics: calling life computation often adds no explanatory power—like saying “the universe is a computer” or “everything is math.” It risks becoming vacuous metaphor and tech-industry self-congratulation.
• Supporters: the frame has pragmatic value—e.g., thinking of organisms as non-halting computations with health/aging as attractors; viewing AI and biology under a shared computational lens.

Determinism, Free Will, and Moral Implications

• If life is fully computational and within Turing limits, some argue this strengthens deterministic views and undermines strong notions of free will, with ethical implications for blame and punishment.
• Others point out that computation need not be deterministic (quantum randomness, stochastic processes) and that metaphysical questions about consciousness and agency remain unsettled either way.