[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> The question is, why bother? Levels are only useful if they are intuitive
> and easily processed. If you have to expend much taxonomic energy what
would
> be the point?

[Magnus]
The point?

If we can connect the established sciences with the levels, and 
incorporate thousands of years of research into the MoQ (instead of 
fight it as many here tend to do), I think that would be pretty darned 
useful. I'm actually a bit perplexed by your question.

[Krimel]
Ok, I share your concern with integrating the MoQ into the mainstream of
thousands of years of research. I just don't think a refined system of
levels can accomplish this. I think we form levels of analysis all the time
on the fly and within given contexts. Setting up some master set of levels
that are alleged to apply in any context, seems quixotic to me. The MoQ is
rooted in the metaphysics of Taoism which does integrate nicely into modern
cosmology without appeal to levels.

> [Krimel]
> Carbon chemistry not-with-standing life is what make an organism an
> organism. Rivers, currents, fires and storms all adapt to changing
> circumstances.

[Magnus]
Ok, I didn't mean that DQ implied life, it's the other way around. 
Whenever you have life, DQ is around. Even the simplest life wouldn't be 
called life if it weren't able to adapt and try to survive in harsh 
environments. The quote "life finds a way" from Jurassic park captures 
what I mean quite well.

[Krimel]
But DQ is not restricted to living things either. One could as easily say
that whenever you have rocks you have DQ. 

[Magnus]
I said cell, not particles, atoms or molecules. A cell is much more 
complex than just a molecule.

[Krimel]
Perhaps I have misunderstood then. I thought you were saying that a cell is
a society of complex molecules.

[Magnus]
As I said, not molecular, cellular. A cell is (or can be for single cell 
organisms) self-sufficient, but its parts are not.

[Krimel]
I would agree that "society" is a biological evolutionary strategy and
should be considered as such. Societies of cells or colonies of ants and
baboons thrive because they produce survival.

[Magnus]
Not really sure it does offer anything that systems theory does not, in 
isolation that is. But incorporated in the MoQ, with the other levels 
and the discreteness and dependence, I think it *is* quite a step forward.

[Krimel]
If it doesn't offer something substantial that systems theory doesn't, why
bother trying to rescue the MoQ from the hardheaded and clueless?