[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ian

Not quite

You argue that 3D fit is fuzzy, and I will of course agree with that. 
Two molecules can for example fit ok, great or just barely. But to go 
back to the idealized cube analogy, if you follow that depth edge of the 
cube you just discovered, you will of course see that this edge is also 
fuzzy if you zoom in deep enough. But that's beside the point. The point 
is that the depth edge goes off in a completely new direction, on 
purposes of its own, as Pirsig puts it.

So the real border here is between 3D fit and chemical bonding, not 
*within* 3D fit or *within* chemical bonding.

Chemistry provides the 3D shapes. And those 3D shapes are constructed 
using chemical bonding. When two atoms or molecules bond chemically, 
they always bond according to quite specific spatial arrangements. 
That's why water (H2O) is always drawn like the head and ears of Mickey 
Mouse, because the hydrogen atoms are placed at those locations on the 
oxygen atom.

Generally, chemical bonding happens when two molecules have different 
electrostatic charge and are therefore drawn to eachother like magnets 
until they are close enough to bond chemically. After the bonding, the 
resulting molecule is more neutral than before because the two opposing 
charges cancel out eachother, but perhaps not neutral enough, so it 
might continue to bond with other atoms or molecules chemically.

However, when this process has been going on long enough, there are no 
molecules left with different charge than any other molecule. No more 
chemical reactions *can* take place. Chemistry is done and has entered a 
static, or dead state.

Now is when 3D shapes can start working. Before, the chemical laws of 
the primordial soup were always stronger, but now, the 3D shapes made by 
the chemical reactions can start bonding using their laws.

So, why would a 3D fit based level border be better than the "living 
organism" viewpoint?

Because it is simpler. It has a much more rigid definition. The 
definition of "living organism" is not really *a* definition, it's 
usually different depending on who you ask. This has been clearly 
demonstrated here the last few days.

The 3D fit theory subscribes to the principle of Occam's razor whereas a 
definition like "living organism" is much more complex and leaves itself 
wide open to accusations from creationists about "irreducible 
complexity". In fact, if you were to start with a definition of "living 
organism" and try to reduce the complexity until it's no longer 
irreducible, I bet you would end up with the 3D fit theory.

Another thing, it chimes very well with Dave's and John's posts about 
symbiosis, because the very first step towards a symbiotic relationship 
can probably be found between two molecules that happened to fit together.

	Magnus




On 2010-07-16 09:40, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> OK Magnus, as usual hopefully we're arguing about things we really agree on.
>
> So you need to make two cases.
>
> One that there is in fact a "level border" without fuzziness.
> Two that your 3D-Fit idea is less fuzzy than any other living /
> organic / biological definition.
>
> My (our) position is that 3D (I'd say 4D) fuzziness exists at ALL
> levels from fundamental physics upwards through different kinds of
> chemistry (including non-chemical-bonding physical chemistries) like
> taste, smell, catalysis, RNA / DNA bases, etc .... so why is the real
> 3D-Fit "especially" clear cut for the second level ? (Note especially
> - you don't need to educate us in geometry and chemistry generally.)
>
> Any more to the point why such a definition is better, pragmatically -
> Andy's point - than the original "organic" - living organism -
> viewpoint.
>
> Ian
> (PS for me "fit" and "quality" are near synonymous anyway - maybe ...
> given where we're going with this ... the 3D geometry is spurious
> anyway.)
>
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Magnus Berg<McMagnus at home.se>  wrote:
>> Hi again
>>
>> I didn't say there are *no* fuzziness in our reality.
>>
>> What I said was that if fuzziness is relevant, we're *not* looking at a
>> level border.
>>
>>         Magnus
>>
>>
>> On 2010-07-16 08:30, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>>
>>> And Magnus, choice and fuzziness in computers ?
>>>
>>> Leaving the "free will" debate out of choice for now .... computers
>>> are full of fuzziness, there are particular organically (human)
>>> created arrangements of the fuzzy (noisy electrons, buzzing silicon
>>> and germanium lattices, rising and falling potentials) processes that
>>> flip and flop as switches to choose digitally at one level we've
>>> arranged.
>>>
>>> Having introduced this digital order, we do of course re-introduced
>>> unpredictability and randomizers to re-interrupt the neat digital
>>> clock cycles with the noise again.
>>>
>>> Depends where you look Magnus .... and at what "scale". The
>>> predictability and repeatability has a scale dependent element.
>>> Ian
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html