Hmm.. closer? I don't know.
[IG] OK, but not keen on you using the "idealised" analogy, as you
know ... but I'll stick with you.
Idealised analogies are good, because they show much clearer what you
want to show. However, there can of course arise a problem if the
analogy isn't apt. So, isn't it?
if you follow that depth edge of the cube you
just discovered, you will of course see that this edge is also fuzzy if you
zoom in deep enough. But that's beside the point. The point is that the
depth edge goes off in a completely new direction, on purposes of its own,
as Pirsig puts it.
[IG] Yes it has significant dimensions in all 3 spatial dimensions.
Ok, be stubborn, but the only thing you will accomplish with this is
that you will force me to abandon the analogy. I will not abandon the
crisp border between chemical bonding and 3D fit bonding.
Any line drawn with a pen, or made using a string, will of course have
both width, height and depth, because the paper that the pen draws on is
3D, and the string is 3D. So there's no way I really *can* make a cube
where one edge really goes off in just one dimension.
But I will still claim that each level *is* one dimension. I can even go
so far as to claim that the only true dimensions we really have in our
reality *are* the static levels. The only job left for us is to find
those orthogonal dimensions and then we call them the levels.
So the real border here is between 3D fit and chemical bonding, not *within*
3D fit or *within* chemical bonding.
[IG] Well, yes, but true for many (if not all) kinds chemical bonds
... fit is what happens when things bond.
Please Ian, am I really that hard to understand? When molecules bond
chemically, they *snap* into hard wired 3D shapes.
But when they combine organically, they are able to combine *because*
they have snapped into those shapes. They do *not* combine chemically
this time though. As I said, chemistry was done in the soup by then. If
only chemistry was allowed to rule, nothing more would ever happen in
the soup.
Generally, chemical bonding happens when two molecules have different
electrostatic charge and are therefore drawn to eachother like magnets until
they are close enough to bond chemically. After the bonding, the resulting
molecule is more neutral than before because the two opposing charges cancel
out eachother, but perhaps not neutral enough, so it might continue to bond
with other atoms or molecules chemically.
[IG] "neutral" in an ionic charge sense .... but presumably lower in
some energy minimum generally .... (it will take energy to prise them
apart) ... and yes, there are other non-ionic types of bonding (I
though we weren't going to talk about chemistry and geometry 101 ?)
Anyway, no arguments.
It seems we have to talk about really hardcore stuff to be able to come
to a conclusion.
However, when this process has been going on long enough, there are no
molecules left with different charge than any other molecule. No more
chemical reactions *can* take place. Chemistry is done and has entered a
static, or dead state.
[IG] OK, I see where you are going (life is a reaction to things just
falling down to these stable minima ... again we've said several
times)
OK, good, then we may be on the same page here. Hopefully, we can use
this as a common ground later.
Now is when 3D shapes can start working. Before, the chemical laws of the
primordial soup were always stronger, but now, the 3D shapes made by the
chemical reactions can start bonding using their laws.
Well, yes, but there are other stable chemicals that are 3D (even in
idealized space) that use a mixture of ionic and non-ionic bonding
because they "fit" .... why is this specific to primordial soup ?
Ammonia for example. Oxides, acids and salts, and complex physical
chemistry mixes and associations of these mineral salts through heat
and pressure, etc ... (You are describing the story of evolution of
ever more complex chemicals right ... ?)
Now, who is the one talking hardcore chemistry? :)
Phew!
No, I'm absolutely not talking chemistry. That's the whole point I'm
trying to make, that 3D fit theory, or organic bonding, has absolutely
nothing to do with chemical bonding, any type at all. Not ionic, not
covalent, and no mix of them.
However, I can of course agree that organisms *use* chemical bonding for
their own purposes, such as gluing a DNA string together using chemical
bonds. But that's biology taking charge over the lower level and happens
much later. First, it has to rise up from the chemical soup.
So, why would a 3D fit based level border be better than the "living
organism" viewpoint?
Because it is simpler.
[IG] Than what ?
Come on, don't play silly. '... than the "living organism" viewpoint'
The definition
of "living organism" is not really *a* definition, it's usually different
depending on who you ask. This has been clearly demonstrated here the last
few days.
[IG] Only in your opinion. The rest of us seem OK with a useful
organic definition (but I have already agreed we will have
definitionally fuzzy boundaries ... I don't seen any boundary defined
by your 3D examples.)
Only in my opinion??
You claim reproduction is a crucial part but Andy rejects that and want
to use self-perpetuate. Is that only my opinion??
The 3D fit theory subscribes to the principle of Occam's razor whereas a
definition like "living organism" is much more complex and leaves itself
wide open to accusations from creationists about "irreducible complexity".
[IG] Hmmm. Occam's razor is just a rule of thumb, not a fundamental
law or principle. No creationists here. Are you arguing against
someone other than the people in this thread ? Tilting at windmills
with strawmen ?
Never mind creationists. I will gladly accuse your definition of
"irreducible complexity" if nobody else does. BTW, I counted 4 pretty
off-topic arguments in that paragraph. Please stick to the subject at hand.
Don't cut your own throat with that razor, by chopping
off something important, like time and life.
I want to chop off life, for reasons I have stated quite a few times
now. But time? Of course it's important, and of course you can add that
"two molecules have to be at the same place and at the same time" to fit
together. But then must also add that they have to be oriented correctly
as well. But I already said that the first time I described it. Anyway,
not sure if 4D fit would suffice, it would have to be 5D if we should
include orientation.
Complexity is part of it
Not sure about that. Complexity is important *within* levels, but not
between them.
... but as I think Andy and Arlo as well as myself have said, it's
about what the complexity can do (as a responsive organism -
organically) not some physical definition of complexity.
Sure, a complex organic organism can do lots of things. It can
reproduce, self-perpetuate, rebuild and repair, *but all based on 3D fit
based machinery*.
Don't you see that chemistry alone cannot fill the gap between simple
(or even complex) chemical reactions and self-reproducing organisms?
There has to be some other agent involved that takes the chemically
produced molecules and combines them (non-chemically) into such
organisms. I claim that agent is the basis of the organic level, not the
end result (the organism). So if we see it like that, we're not too far
apart. I mean, it's the very original hen and egg problem!
In fact, if you were to start with a definition of "living organism" and try
to reduce the complexity until it's no longer irreducible, I bet you would
end up with the 3D fit theory.
[IG] Clearly you would bet, but you jumped from 3D chemistry to "life
is too complicated" without any argument. (In fact one of my
definitions of life is that it is "juts complicated enough" to
supporting organic processes.)
No, I didn't jump from 3D chemistry. I have explicitly stated that 3D
fit theory is *not* chemistry. Olfaction (sense of smell) is such an
example. An odor receptor is able to detect a certain type of molecule,
and if it fits in its lock, it will trigger a nerve signal. The odor
receptor does *not* bond chemically with the detected molecule, and in
that sense, it is *not* a chemical reaction.
Another thing, it chimes very well with Dave's and John's posts about
symbiosis, because the very first step towards a symbiotic relationship can
probably be found between two molecules that happened to fit together.
[IG] Chimes ? Well the organic model chimes too. The question is what
processes are enabled by the "oops" we fit together event. At some
levels ops we fit together reukts in H2O in other cases in more
complex crystals. The symbiosis is one of the co-evolved solutions to
survival ... sustain, repair, rebuild, reproduce ... against the dead
hand of physics and entropy. Enabled not just by fit, but by the
properties and processes created by the particular fit.
Everything but the argument, Magnus.
As I said, a 3D fit event does not result in a hard bond. It's much
looser than a chemical bond and is therefore much more dynamic. When you
mention H20 and crystals as a result of such an event you demonstrate
quite clearly that you haven't grasped what I mean.
Arguments? I think olfaction is a pretty convincing argument. Doesn't
most of us here recognize that senses of taste and smell are biological
experiences? Pirsig also list them as such in the SODV paper I believe.
And now, since our odor receptors are based on 3D shape recognition,
doesn't that complete a pretty convincing argument? Can you please tell
me how that is not a good argument?
I still like "fit" as part of what is going on .... but just do not
see any argument as to why 3D Fit per se is the important factor. (My
bet is your "fit" model might work if you make it 4D (space-time)
topology rather than 3D geometry - because with time and dynamics we
can probably join together the process views with the spatial views.
Integration is my game. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.)
As I said, if you want to make it 4D, we might as well add rotation and
get 5D. But I really think it's redundant, or implicit rather. I mean,
if you go to a theatre and watch a 3D movie, time is a rather important
dimension too, but we don't call it 4D movie.
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
