It's valid for the points which you and I just mentioned. But just because we can copy parts of nature and get ideas for computers from biology, does not mean that these concepts can be taken as fully representing life. That is, the limitations of software do not apply to life. Life, as a whole, is too complex to model any more precisely than semantically. This does not mean the semantic theories are incorrect. When pieces of the theories are mathematically modeled, they bear out correctly.
You do realize that you are posting your new claim about math on a thread that uses math to illustrate that life would have to be capable of forming from a DNA strand of fewer than 96 total codons (for Evolution to be naturally possible), don't you?
For perspective (as to whether or not Evolutionary Theory is supported by math), an amoebae, one of the simplist forms of known life, generally has several hundred Million codons in its DNA.
"It's valid for the points which you and I just mentioned." - Nebullis
So you are now finally agreeing with me that computer software code is a rock solid analogy to DNA code?