[MD] Stacks

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Krimel

> [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.

I don't think you can find that many real levels as you think is 
required to make a good map of reality. I think I'm beginning to see 
where we differ, more later.

> 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.

Yes, you mentioned fractals earlier, and I asked if the fractional 
dimensions could be applied to all kinds of dimensions, not just 
spatial. But you didn't reply as far as I can remember. Or?

Also, even if you can show that some dimensions are really not 
orthogonal, what kinds of dimensions are those?

> [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.

Yes, that's the borderline I mentioned in an earlier post, the logic 
gate arrays.

> 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.

Yes, but that's not an argument against crisp borders. And again, I'm 
not really talking about borders, I'm talking about dimensions going off 
in new directions. Everything that could be described as a "border" is 
fuzzy.


> [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?

But I don't think that these dimensions *are* continuous.

And showing that dimensions are continuous sounds like showing that a 
straight line isn't straight. Well, then the line wasn't that straight 
to begin with, eh?

>> [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.

I don't think it will take that long for physicists to get interested in 
that though. Take entanglement for example, it shows that quantum rules 
doesn't concern itself with distance, i.e. space. So even if the 
specific subject of "pre big bang reality" is seldom contemplated, the 
quantum reality *is*, and I don't think the two are very different, if 
different at all.

> [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.

So how *does* smell work? I have these links as evidence, where are yours?

http://www.sciencebase.com/elemsmell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction

> 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.

I'm not talking about main factor. I'm not saying that shape based 
bonding is *stronger* than chemistry. It doesn't stand a chance if put 
to a bond strength test. But it's more DYNAMIC! And that's why it's 
higher on the level ladder than chemistry.

> 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.

Sure, but when one smooshes around the other, it's certainly chemistry 
that does the stretching of the molecule around the other. And then 
we're not talking about a dynamic shape based fit anymore. It becomes 
very static and is quite unlikely to be able to break loose.

> 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.

Yes, yes, the oceans are not completely static, but that's not what I 
meant. What I meant was that with only chemical laws, the molecules in 
the soup would never have the chance to become as dynamic as required to 
create biology.

> [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.

The difference between you and me is that you want to describe *things* 
using levels, but I want to describe the different types of stuff that 
things are made of.

A tree's complex structure does a great job at describing the "tree of 
life", or evolutionary path or whatever you want to call it. But that 
hasn't very much to do with levels. What you're suggesting doesn't 
simplify a categorization of reality, because it can be made just as 
complex *as* reality. Kind of like having a map in the car, but in scale 
1:1.

For example, if you want to describe the colour of a thing, there's no 
way you can divide the spectrum into discrete levels. You have to use a 
fuzzy scale like the rainbow, or a colour space like RGB or CMYK.

But I'm not suggesting to divide the reality into green, red and yellow 
stuff. A level for me is the difference between having a colour or not 
having a colour at all. And I'm not talking about a glass window. I'm 
talking about for example a dream. What colour is that? Or gravity? Is 
it blue?

	Magnus