Magnus and Case 22 March Magnus:
> Hi Krimel (and Bo should read this too) You bet I do. Can hardly wait for the two of you to develop the dialogue. Case who hasn't got a clue about the MOQ and you the great MOQ obfuscator. This will be fun ;-) Wryly Bo > I don't think we've "met" here before, but that was great stuff in > your last post. It's here we should look for the origins of the MoQ > levels, not sure if you touched those much in this thread before. > > > The molecular inventions of the Dynamic force are imbued with agency > > of their own. They reciprocate, preserve, replace, they work > > together. How does parsing out all of this agency explain anything? > > Nothing significant about the description is altered by removing it. > > Right! DQ is given way too much credit in these events. Attributing it > to DQ makes it too easy to transform DQ into something religious. > > However, we also have the 4 static levels, and I have a long history > in trying to spot them in also these early structures. For example, > the cell Pirsig describes as a dynamic nuclei and the big static > protective protein is in my view a society. The whole cell is better > than the sum of its constituents. They live in symbiosis and they are > held together, not by gravity or some other inorganic value, but by > the simple fact that it's socially better to stick together than not. > The "glue" that makes them bond is their biological attraction to > eachother. It's this biological glue that made them find eachother > valuable in the first place, and it's also the glue that facilitates > communication between them (language). > > I have a rather new (well, new to me anyway) idea when it comes to > this, and given your last post, perhaps you have something to add to > it. I suspect the basis for the biological level is how well two > different molecules fit together in 3 dimensions. This is, as far as I > understand, how the active part of medicines work, and it's then not > very far fetched to conclude that this is also the basis for taste and > smell. This would also explain why taste and smell usually triggers a > more intense sensation than other senses, and can make us remember a > particular piece of wood we tasted almost 40 years ago (including who > was there and the weather). Those senses are the oldest and are > built-into every cell of our body. The other senses, hearing, sight > and touch came much later. > > > Ian and Arlo have talked about approaches taken by theoretical > > physicists to conceptualize how variations in cosmic constants might > > alter the probability of life. This can be addressed to some extent > > through computer simulations. Some mix and match values for known > > cosmic forces. Others like Wolfram work with artificially > > constructed set of rules to see how they interact to promote > > complexity and growth in virtual environments. > > Haven't read much about those, but I suspect they would find the four > levels in those universes as well, but in very different forms. Even > if it's impossible to make heavier atoms than hydrogen, and even if a > lower gravity makes it impossible to ignite stars. As long as the > environment is dynamic enough to allow change, and static enough to > allow things staying the same for a while, then the four levels will > get to work and trigger some kind of life. > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
