[MD] Stacks

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> OK, I looked at your drawing and I still see no difference between the
terms
> level and stack as you are using them.

[Magnus]
No difference? Each stack consists of 4 levels. You need to be more 
specific about what you don't understand.

[Krimel]
OK, so a stack is a collection of levels? I think the problem with
envisioning hierarchies with these kind of terms is that it is entirely too
simplistic. Level or stage theories are popular. We climb the ladder of
success. Piaget took through stages of child development. Dominance
hierarchies are pyramidal. The problems with these approach are many and
have been mentioned here many times. The problem of discreteness. In the MoQ
the problem of conflict among levels. But I would also add the problems of
structural simplicity. I would say the fractal outline I suggested earlier
solves this because the fractal structure is continuous rather than discrete
and it is infinitely complex and multidimensional.

> [Krimel]
> The point once again is that borders are fuzzy and where you "decide" to
> place something like firmware is arbitrary.

[Magnus]
I can agree that where you place a stack, in this case the computer 
stack, is somewhat arbitrary. However, in the case of firmware and BIOS, 
the most logical choice is make the cut where Pirsig makes it. It's 
simply exactly where hardware leaves off and software takes over. If you 
don't see the clear cut of that, you need to improve your understanding 
of it.

[Krimel]
Again, it is not at all simple where the disconnect between hardware and
software lies. It is an arbitrary convention. Firmware consists of a
manufactured component. Part of the manufacturing process is to encode low
level information into the chip. From a manufacturing stand point this
operation is hardly different than the process of stenciling serial numbers
and product codes on the face of the device. The chip itself is an assembly
of logic gates that are arranged in a particular fashion. That arrangement
of gates is itself a form of programming where electrical engineer arrange
components in physical space in much the same way that programmers arrange
commands in virtual space.

But the critical point remains that how we decide to describe the workings
of the computer is arbitrary. Other description or assigning of categories
could just as easily produce similar products with similar functions.

> [Magnus]
> So you and James assume reality is continuous, but the fact is that it's
> not.
>
> [Krimel]
> Says who?

[Mangus]
Says quantum mechanics, and the fact the each level goes off in a new 
direction.

[Krimel]
All quantum mechanics tells us is that at the level of particles we reach a
point at which we don't have the tool to subdivide further. You cannot slice
an orange in half if you attempt to use a knife whose blade is thicker than
the orange. Nor does even that account for the fact that whatever level of
resolution we have for examining particles those particles are in space
surrounded by fields that are also infinitely divisible.

Where are these levels going off in new directions. If even dimensionality
is continuous how does that make sense?

> [Krimel]
> There was no "reality" prior to the Big Bang.

[Magnus]
Says who?

[Krimel]
That would be most physicists. Even those who propose string theories and
multiverses present them as possibilities that are mathematically
consistent. But until there is some possibility of testing such theories,
they are only slightly more credible than say Ham's flakey cosmology. We
have no way to select among such theories if they offer no conceivable
methods of being tested. All talk of "reality" before the Big Bang is just
talk.

> [Krimel]
> Chemical law do apply in Earth's oceans. You are blowing 3D fit way out of
> proportion. Chemicals, even complex molecules do no work like tinker toys
> nor do they provide a level boundry.

[Magnus]
Of course chemical laws applies in Earth's oceans. Who said they don't? 
One level doesn't stop doing it's job just just because another takes 
over control. But when chemistry is done and can't accomplish anything 
new, *then* 3D fit can get to work.

It's still the same molecules though, so if you just look at the 
*thing*, the molecule, you may not care whether it's chemistry or 3D fit 
that does the job, and that's the basis for your ignorance. But what's 
doing the shape recognition in your nose and on your tongue is *not* 
chemistry. It's 3D shapes that happens to fit in a properly shaped 
receptor and *then* trigger a chemical signal.

The boundary becomes fuzzy if you only look at the molecules, the 
things, involved. Because things are multi-level. The real boundary is 
the difference between a chemical event and the shape based biological 
event.

[Krimel]
The idea of 3D fit that you are using is just another heuristic device.
Something like the Bohr model of the atom. It really doesn't work that way
but it is a useful way of thinking about it. Organic molecules are not like
complicated Legos that snap into place because of their shape. Nor is shape
necessarily the main factor of that influences how these molecules interact.
Many times it would not be possible to predict from the shape of a molecule
which shape it will interact with or what sort of interaction will take
place. Often it is more like Playdoh than Legos. When the molecules come
together one smooshes around that other rather than snapping into place.

You talk about the oceans becoming chemically neutral or something like that
but on Earth that just isn't going to happen anytime soon. All those
chemical in the ocean and especially the really complex molecules are
constantly infused with energy both from the heat of the Earth core and
solar radiation. That energy effects all those molecules continuously
stirring the soup if you will.

> [Krimel]
> If you really want a diagram of how levels work go out in your yard at
study
> closely the nearest tree. In it you will see the basic structure of all
> hierarchies: Trunk, limb, branch, twig, leaf. It is the structure that
> accommodates the flow of energy or  you might say the channels of DQ. It
> works in 2, 3 and four dimensions.

[Magnus]
No, the tree analogy doesn't work for me. What significance does for 
example two different branches from the same trunk have? In terms of 
levels? Are the two branches two different levels that depend on the 
same level, or what?

[Krimel]
The tree is an example of the fractal geometry of nature. A form of geometry
that describes in very simple terms how to generate extraordinarily complex
structures. Those complex structures are the stuff of nature. Examples of
fractal hierarchies include things like the biological tree of life where we
call the trunk "life". Limbs would be say plants and animals, branches would
be vertebrates and invertebrate etc. Or for example say you want to describe
the main street in Bozeman, MT. You could talk about the various buildings
or the bricks or borders that make up the buildings or you could focus on a
single brick and the arrangement of color and minerals in that brick. Each
level of description that you select is a personal choice and the
descriptions you offer flows from you initial arbitrary selection of what to
focus on. 

The problem isn't constructing levels or stacks it is mistaking the levels
or stack for the very things they are aimed at describing.