[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Krimel

> [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.

Actually, that leads to the notion of stacks Andy and I have been 
discussing. I plan to initiate a new thread about that.

> Setting up some master set of levels
> that are alleged to apply in any context, seems quixotic to me.

Had to look that up, but disagree.

>> [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.

Sure. It's actually quite hard to accomplish an environment where DQ 
doesn't affect anything. The inner workings of a computer comes pretty 
close though.

> [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.

Yes, that's what I meant. (And many others agree I might add)

> [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.

I wouldn't say it's *just* a biological evolutionary survival strategy. 
All new levels are survival strategies, but they are also new moral 
steps on the level ladder. Biology (or rather DQ) is just the agent that 
is able to climb that ladder without outside help.


> [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?

But I just said it does offer something substantial. And I bother 
because I care about the MoQ, and I'm trying to save it from being 
transformed into something ludicrous by the hardheaded and clueless.

	Magnus