[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Magnus, I'm not trying to get you to abandon anything (!?!) .... I
would like to use your analogy if we can, beyond 3D in the other
(agreed, implicit) dimensions. I want you to convince me.

The problem is still in this sentence

" I will not abandon the crisp border between chemical bonding and 3D
fit bonding."

I just do not see any example that illustrates this crisp border, or
an argument. Still seems a sliding scale where geometry (topology) is
always significant, but strong ionic bonding (and other chemical
bonding) becomes decreasingly significant.

I like the topology aspect though, I do think you are onto something
important .... a nucleus is "bonded" to a cell by being physically
enclosed and mutually dependent .... to take it a step further.

Ian

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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
> 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
>