[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Very brief response for now Magnus ...

We may still fall out over the fuzziness .... you yourself are using
phrases like lower levels of significance or looser bonding .... but I
don't think we need to (fall out).

Absolutely - each new level has an "orthogonally" distinct aspect in
which the new level of patterns form, BUT clearly each lower level
remains part of the whole throughout the higher levels. Never any
doubt.

And I've never had any problem envisaging organic life in a computer -
never any doubt - I think that's why I'm talking to you - and Yes,
that was just sexy enough thanks ;-)

Ian

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> Hi Ian
>
> On 2010-07-20 07:52, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>
>> So in fact Magnus,
>>
>> It's not 3D Fit , but 3D Fit "ONLY" ... arrangements created without
>> ANY bonding a chemist would call chemical bonding .... not whether
>> geometry is significant, since it is always of some significance.
>
> That would be more like what I'm getting at, yes. And geometry is of course
> always significant since it was "invented" in the Big Bang. We can never
> escape that, but that's just usual lower level dependency.
>
>> The fuzziness would be on the sliding scale of what counts as chemical
>> bonding, but I guess you are free to define the condition of no
>> bonding (no bonding of significance).
>
> Fuzziness only appears if you examine classical objects. Then you see that
> those two molecules, or those two objects, bonded. And then you wonder, why
> did they bond? And since you think we're now in the borderline of the
> chemical and biological levels, it must either of those two, putting those
> two types of bonding on one scale. On such a scale, any bond well inside the
> chemical "level", should be chemical, and any bond well inside the
> biological level should be biological.
>
> But that's wrong!
>
> DNA molecules, a very long way into the biological level, are bonded using
> chemical bonds. And bang goes the one fuzzy scale theory. We can't just
> leave the lower level behind when we enter a new one. The new level just
> goes off in a new direction, orthogonal to all lower ones, into its own
> dimension.
>
>> A little sceptical that there may in fact be are other fit-only /
>> non-bonding cases - but we'd have to get into the depths of physical
>> chemistry ... catalysts, surfactants, detergents, etc ... that we
>> might not usefully consider as part of the "organic" layer.
>
> Most people don't think computers contain organic patterns either. I'm more
> inclined to thinking, "they must contain organic patterns because they can
> obviously support intellectual patterns". So if we find the orthogonal
> dimension where biology starts, I'm open for including non-biologish stuff
> as well.
>
>> I think we need to move on to the "significance" of the fit definition
>> .... what is enabled by that definition. (See the general comments by
>> Krim et al about the "value" in finely honed definitions of a given
>> layer.) I'm still a process man at heart.
>
> Ah, yes, I got a few ideas about that the other day, but it was a bit too
> early to post it then.
>
> Imagine a large molecule floating around in the primordial soup, or in a lab
> for that matter. If it were to encounter a chemically compatible molecule
> that wants to bond chemically with it, then it would have no choice. It
> would snap into a hard chemical static bond with the other molecule and form
> a new larger molecule and it would never be able to revert that process,
> never be able to get out of that bond, (short of another stronger bond).
>
> If it instead was able to form a much looser bond with another molecule, one
> that could block any future attempts from static chemical bonds because it
> simply sits in the way, it would in the future have much more choice over
> its own destiny. I'm not implying a concious choice by the molecule, but I'm
> very much implying a more dynamic future for it. And dynamic is good, we
> know that much.
>
> The process involved could be that an intrusion in one molecule fits a
> protrusion in the other, and when the protrusion is inserted in the
> intrusion of the other, there might be some friction causing both to expand
> a little and thereby locking them into place, but only for as long as
> they're warm enough, then they might break loose again.
>
> Or is that too sexy for you Ian? :)
>
>        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
>