the world of science Options
Very nice explanation.
Congratulation
There is only one small problem: It is too complex.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough
/ Albert Einstein. /
==.
On Jan 22, 6:28 pm, Richa
Sorry. I don't need 'the 26 dimensions' to explain
'a Block Metaverse Quantum Mind that possesses consciousness'
For me ( as a peasant ) enough one dimension to give
the scheme of the primary conditions of existence.
..
Occam's Razor and the Scheme of Universe.
==.
At first I take the simp
What could be simpler than splitting the 26 dimensions into two groups
that are both superstring theories. It certainly is less complicated
than General Relativity
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:38 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> Very nice explanation.
> Congratulation
> There is only one small
Very nice explanation.
Congratulation
There is only one small problem: It is too complex.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough
/ Albert Einstein. /
==.
On Jan 22, 6:28 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
>
>
> According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell
> has 10^12 bit of information
> But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
> then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
> ==.
> Th
According to Harold Morowitz a structure of single cell
has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
==.
The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14.
The number of ce
On 21 Jan 2013, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote:
Many questionable statements along this long conversation.
To your quote (life library?) - it is a figment of our conventional
(bio?) sciences, as we build 'life' theories from atoms - em -
energy - etc.
I was alluding to molecular biology. I t
Many questionable statements along this long conversation.
To your quote (life library?) - it is a figment of our conventional (bio?)
sciences, as we build 'life' theories from atoms - em - energy - etc.
*
I don't know about "Turing" ccness, but in my terms ccness is the response
to relations. (Wa
On 20 Jan 2013, at 18:17, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Question.
What is DNA ?
Life library.
DNA consist on atoms and electromagnetic fields.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em field without Electron
It means the source of this em field must be an Electron
Then we need to write :
DNA
Question.
What is DNA ?
DNA consist on atoms and electromagnetic fields.
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em field without Electron
It means the source of this em field must be an Electron
Then we need to write :
DNA is atoms, electron (s) and electromagnetic fields.
The simplest particle -
On 18 Jan 2013, at 09:32, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix
from zygote to child ?
Probably not. But the complex DNA+cytoplasm might have some
consciousness on vaster scale. very hard to decide this today. Then DNA
+cytoplasm might have the
‘ The ancients knew something that we have forgotten.’
Plato said that :
‘Our ancestors were far greater than we are today. ...’
' Our ancestors were nearer to the nature than we are'
And Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford university
wrote on Tuesday 13 November 2012 :
‘Why it's unlikely
Does DNA know geometry ?
Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ?
=.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare
Yes, the biological laws of nature are algorithms in computation space.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> Did these 'algorithmically forms' by the chance created child from
> zygote?
>
> =
>
> On Jan 18, 12:27 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> DNA probably forms algor
Did these 'algorithmically forms' by the chance created child from
zygote?
=
On Jan 18, 12:27 pm, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> DNA probably forms algorithmically
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix
> > f
DNA probably forms algorithmically
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:32 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix
> from zygote to child ?
>
> ==.
>
> On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>>
>>
Does DNA have consciousness to create the double helix
from zygote to child ?
==.
On Jan 18, 1:25 am, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “
> > Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : "I think not,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
> Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “
> Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : "I think not, therefore I am"
> Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ?
>
> Are they fool men or maybe
> they know that there are two methods of c
Descartes : “ I think, therefore I am “
Zen / Tibetan Buddhist monks : "I think not, therefore I am"
Why they say: ' Mind for others , no mind for me' ?
Are they fool men or maybe
they know that there are two methods of cognitions.
===..
Where does the information come from
19 matches
Mail list logo
