Hi Magnus, I'm not trying to get you to abandon anything (!?!) .... I would like to use your analogy if we can, beyond 3D in the other (agreed, implicit) dimensions. I want you to convince me.
The problem is still in this sentence " I will not abandon the crisp border between chemical bonding and 3D fit bonding." I just do not see any example that illustrates this crisp border, or an argument. Still seems a sliding scale where geometry (topology) is always significant, but strong ionic bonding (and other chemical bonding) becomes decreasingly significant. I like the topology aspect though, I do think you are onto something important .... a nucleus is "bonded" to a cell by being physically enclosed and mutually dependent .... to take it a step further. Ian On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Magnus Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
