[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hmm.. closer? I don't know.

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

Idealised analogies are good, because they show much clearer what you 
want to show. However, there can of course arise a problem if the 
analogy isn't apt. So, isn't it?

>> 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.

Ok, be stubborn, but the only thing you will accomplish with this is 
that you will force me to abandon the analogy. I will not abandon the 
crisp border between chemical bonding and 3D fit bonding.

Any line drawn with a pen, or made using a string, will of course have 
both width, height and depth, because the paper that the pen draws on is 
3D, and the string is 3D. So there's no way I really *can* make a cube 
where one edge really goes off in just one dimension.

But I will still claim that each level *is* one dimension. I can even go 
so far as to claim that the only true dimensions we really have in our 
reality *are* the static levels. The only job left for us is to find 
those orthogonal dimensions and then we call them the levels.

>> 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.

Please Ian, am I really that hard to understand? When molecules bond 
chemically, they *snap* into hard wired 3D shapes.

But when they combine organically, they are able to combine *because* 
they have snapped into those shapes. They do *not* combine chemically 
this time though. As I said, chemistry was done in the soup by then. If 
only chemistry was allowed to rule, nothing more would ever happen in 
the soup.

>> 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.

It seems we have to talk about really hardcore stuff to be able to come 
to a conclusion.

>>
>> 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)

OK, good, then we may be on the same page here. Hopefully, we can use 
this as a common ground later.

>>
>> 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 ... ?)

Now, who is the one talking hardcore chemistry? :)

Phew!

No, I'm absolutely not talking chemistry. That's the whole point I'm 
trying to make, that 3D fit theory, or organic bonding, has absolutely 
nothing to do with chemical bonding, any type at all. Not ionic, not 
covalent, and no mix of them.

However, I can of course agree that organisms *use* chemical bonding for 
their own purposes, such as gluing a DNA string together using chemical 
bonds. But that's biology taking charge over the lower level and happens 
much later. First, it has to rise up from the chemical soup.

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

Come on, don't play silly. '... than the "living organism" viewpoint'

>> 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.)

Only in my opinion??

You claim reproduction is a crucial part but Andy rejects that and want 
to use self-perpetuate. Is that only my opinion??

>> 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 ?

Never mind creationists. I will gladly accuse your definition of 
"irreducible complexity" if nobody else does. BTW, I counted 4 pretty 
off-topic arguments in that paragraph. Please stick to the subject at hand.

> Don't cut your own throat with that razor, by chopping
> off something important, like time and life.

I want to chop off life, for reasons I have stated quite a few times 
now. But time? Of course it's important, and of course you can add that 
"two molecules have to be at the same place and at the same time" to fit 
together. But then must also add that they have to be oriented correctly 
as well. But I already said that the first time I described it. Anyway, 
not sure if 4D fit would suffice, it would have to be 5D if we should 
include orientation.

> Complexity is part of it

Not sure about that. Complexity is important *within* levels, but not 
between them.

> ... 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.

Sure, a complex organic organism can do lots of things. It can 
reproduce, self-perpetuate, rebuild and repair, *but all based on 3D fit 
based machinery*.

Don't you see that chemistry alone cannot fill the gap between simple 
(or even complex) chemical reactions and self-reproducing organisms? 
There has to be some other agent involved that takes the chemically 
produced molecules and combines them (non-chemically) into such 
organisms. I claim that agent is the basis of the organic level, not the 
end result (the organism). So if we see it like that, we're not too far 
apart. I mean, it's the very original hen and egg problem!

>> 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.)

No, I didn't jump from 3D chemistry. I have explicitly stated that 3D 
fit theory is *not* chemistry. Olfaction (sense of smell) is such an 
example. An odor receptor is able to detect a certain type of molecule, 
and if it fits in its lock, it will trigger a nerve signal. The odor 
receptor does *not* bond chemically with the detected molecule, and in 
that sense, it is *not* a chemical reaction.

>> 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.

As I said, a 3D fit event does not result in a hard bond. It's much 
looser than a chemical bond and is therefore much more dynamic. When you 
mention H20 and crystals as a result of such an event you demonstrate 
quite clearly that you haven't grasped what I mean.

Arguments? I think olfaction is a pretty convincing argument. Doesn't 
most of us here recognize that senses of taste and smell are biological 
experiences? Pirsig also list them as such in the SODV paper I believe. 
And now, since our odor receptors are based on 3D shape recognition, 
doesn't that complete a pretty convincing argument? Can you please tell 
me how that is not a good argument?


> 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.)

As I said, if you want to make it 4D, we might as well add rotation and 
get 5D. But I really think it's redundant, or implicit rather. I mean, 
if you go to a theatre and watch a 3D movie, time is a rather important 
dimension too, but we don't call it 4D movie.

	Magnus