[MD] Levels in electronic computers

Fri Jul 16 07:07:45 PDT 2010

But closer .... inserted Magnus

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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,

[IG] OK, but not keen on you using the "idealised" analogy, as you
know ... but I'll stick with you.

> 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.

[IG] Yes it has significant dimensions in all 3 spatial dimensions.
>
> So the real border here is between 3D fit and chemical bonding, not *within*
> 3D fit or *within* chemical bonding.

[IG] Well, yes, but true for many (if not all) kinds chemical bonds
... fit is what happens when things bond.

>
> 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.

[IG] Yes, And even here you seem to be agreeing a water molecule is
3D, even though the "mickey-mouse" idealisation is 2D. (Pretty low
level chemistry, a long way from being alive or organic)

>
> 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.

[IG] "neutral" in an ionic charge sense .... but presumably lower in
some energy minimum generally .... (it will take energy to prise them
apart) ... and yes, there are other non-ionic types of bonding (I
though we weren't going to talk about chemistry and geometry 101 ?)
Anyway, no arguments.

>
> 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.

[IG] OK, I see where you are going (life is a reaction to things just
falling down to these stable minima ... again we've said several
times)

>
> 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.

Well, yes, but there are other stable chemicals that are 3D (even in
idealized space) that use a mixture of ionic and non-ionic bonding
because they "fit" .... why is this specific to primordial soup ?
Ammonia for example. Oxides, acids and salts, and complex physical
chemistry mixes and associations of these mineral salts through heat
and pressure, etc ... (You are describing the story of evolution of
ever more complex chemicals right ... ?)

>
> So, why would a 3D fit based level border be better than the "living
> organism" viewpoint?
>
> Because it is simpler.

[IG] Than what ?

> It has a much more rigid definition.

[IG] Than what ?

> 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.

[IG] Only in your opinion. The rest of us seem OK with a useful
organic definition (but I have already agreed we will have
definitionally fuzzy boundaries ... I don't seen any boundary defined
by your 3D examples.)

>
> 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".

[IG] Hmmm. Occam's razor is just a rule of thumb, not a fundamental
law or principle. No creationists here. Are you arguing against
someone other than the people in this thread ? Tilting at windmills
with strawmen ? Don't cut your own throat with that razor, by chopping
off something important, like time and life. Complexity is part of it
... but as I think Andy and Arlo as well as myself have said, it's
about what the complexity can do (as a responsive organism -
organically) not some physical definition of 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.

[IG] Clearly you would bet, but you jumped from 3D chemistry to "life
is too complicated" without any argument. (In fact one of my
definitions of life is that it is "juts complicated enough" to
supporting organic processes.)

> 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.

[IG] Chimes ? Well the organic model chimes too. The question is what
processes are enabled by the "oops" we fit together event. At some
levels ops we fit together reukts in H2O in other cases in more
complex crystals. The symbiosis is one of the co-evolved solutions to
survival ... sustain, repair, rebuild, reproduce ... against the dead
hand of physics and entropy. Enabled not just by fit, but by the
properties and processes created by the particular fit.

Everything but the argument, Magnus.

I still like "fit" as part of what is going on .... but just do not
see any argument as to why 3D Fit per se is the important factor. (My
bet is your "fit" model might work if you make it 4D (space-time)
topology rather than 3D geometry - because with time and dynamics we
can probably join together the process views with the spatial views.
Integration is my game. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.)

>
>        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
>
> 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
>