[MD] Stacks

[Magnus Berg]

> [Krimel]
> OK, I looked at your drawing and I still see no difference between the terms
> level and stack as you are using them.

No difference? Each stack consists of 4 levels. You need to be more 
specific about what you don't understand.

> [Krimel]
> The point once again is that borders are fuzzy and where you "decide" to
> place something like firmware is arbitrary.

I can agree that where you place a stack, in this case the computer 
stack, is somewhat arbitrary. However, in the case of firmware and BIOS, 
the most logical choice is make the cut where Pirsig makes it. It's 
simply exactly where hardware leaves off and software takes over. If you 
don't see the clear cut of that, you need to improve your understanding 
of it.

> [Magnus]
> So you and James assume reality is continuous, but the fact is that it's
> not.
>
> [Krimel]
> Says who?

Says quantum mechanics, and the fact the each level goes off in a new 
direction.

> [Magnus]
> As I've said before, you *can* find discrete level borders. If you have
> a pre big bang reality in which there's no space, no time, no mass and
> no energy. How would you extend the stuff of that reality continuously
> to construct space? It's simply not possible.
>
> [Krimel]
> There was no "reality" prior to the Big Bang.

Says who?

> [Magnus]
> It's the same thing with other borders such as the chemical vs. 3D fit
> organic border I've suggested. If chemical laws would be ruling the
> oceans of the earth, no biological stuff would ever have evolved. It
> would just be a chemically neutral and very dead soup.
>
> [Krimel]
> Chemical law do apply in Earth's oceans. You are blowing 3D fit way out of
> proportion. Chemicals, even complex molecules do no work like tinker toys
> nor do they provide a level boundry.

Of course chemical laws applies in Earth's oceans. Who said they don't? 
One level doesn't stop doing it's job just just because another takes 
over control. But when chemistry is done and can't accomplish anything 
new, *then* 3D fit can get to work.

It's still the same molecules though, so if you just look at the 
*thing*, the molecule, you may not care whether it's chemistry or 3D fit 
that does the job, and that's the basis for your ignorance. But what's 
doing the shape recognition in your nose and on your tongue is *not* 
chemistry. It's 3D shapes that happens to fit in a properly shaped 
receptor and *then* trigger a chemical signal.

The boundary becomes fuzzy if you only look at the molecules, the 
things, involved. Because things are multi-level. The real boundary is 
the difference between a chemical event and the shape based biological 
event.

> If you really want a diagram of how levels work go out in your yard at study
> closely the nearest tree. In it you will see the basic structure of all
> hierarchies: Trunk, limb, branch, twig, leaf. It is the structure that
> accommodates the flow of energy or  you might say the channels of DQ. It
> works in 2, 3 and four dimensions.

No, the tree analogy doesn't work for me. What significance does for 
example two different branches from the same trunk have? In terms of 
levels? Are the two branches two different levels that depend on the 
same level, or what?

	Magnus