| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2005 06:47:54 PM |
| Object: |
Code Discreteness vs Continuity |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Code Discreteness vs Continuity
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005
In Psychobiology, it is usually considered that life evolved with
increasingly specialized cells increasingly cooperating in a sort of
"GAIA-like" scenario, which looks very much like discreteness
proliferating.
Yet look at this probable causal expression:
1) P(A1-->A2-->A3-->... -->An)
This probability, which can be expressed as the probability that A1
causes A2 which causes A3 which causes...which causes An, for n > = 2
integer, is simultaneously continuous and "discrete" - but only
discrete in the sense that there are n classes of "categorical" (in the
sense of different non-smoothly changing existences of n objects) type,
namely n events.
In other words, Probable Causation/Influence "looks like more and more
discrete events" the longer the chains of causation, but quantitatively
and physically remains continuous!
The objects in the Genetic Code, the bases, are organized into codons
of triples almost entirely as with the universal code, and when we see
a genetic code string like UGU|CG|/AGC|... we are arguably looking at
an expression like (1) which isn't a discrete expression at all
fundamentally but a symbol of continuous (probable) causation which
merely discriminates between/among n events Ai (i = 1 to n) and also
integrates (in the common factor sense) or relates them.
Since in the universal code such as M1M2M3|L1L2L3|T1T2T3|F1(F2) each
letter stands for a dimension but there are also clusters of dimensions
like M1, M2, M3, it is a good bet that bases U, G, C, A, or T in the
genetic codes of DNA and RNA refer to different dimensions and/or
different events and that the operation between two adjacent symbols is
Probable Causation/Influence either statistically independent (with
order of symbols inside a codon interchangeable) or dependent (order of
symbols inside a codon not interchangeable).
As in Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy, we're looking at the
discrete-appearing mice which are really the 3-dimensional projections
of higher dimensional continuous "children".
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Code Discreteness vs Continuity |
08 Jul 2005 07:30:27 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
But what is produced by a string in the Genetic Code? For human
beings, a person with a certain sequence of physical and arguably
mental characteristics.
O.K., let's look at a person, and remember to orient ourselves toward
(Probable) Causal/Semantic Knowledge rather than just syntactic
Information.
What characteristics are Causally most important for a person? In
terms of Knowledge/Information, most important are sensory receptors
and muscular effectors.
Reproduction, digestion, excretion, circulation are not Causally most
important except in the sense that they keep the other characteristics
going or "alive" both for the Individual and the Plurality (except that
Reproduction is Plurality-oriented).
The senses that receptors enable include vision, hearing, smell, touch,
etc. They maintain the Individual's contact with especially the three
spatial dimensions (Lx, Ly, Lz in the Euclidean-like representations).
But we're beginning to see that the three spatial dimensions are only
part of the story, and that time and mass/energy and even force are
also dimensions on approximately equal footing.
So we arguably have a time sense, and if you ask people the right
questions about their sense of time, they'll probably agree.
A force sense is much easier since we know when we're pushing or
pulling.
A mass sense happily turns out to be related to the force sense via
inertia in the classical F = ma, but arguably somehow we have senses of
the other two aspects of mass: energy and space curvature. We
experience a sense of more or less "energy" depending on wakefulness,
blood pressure, ability to work, but also motivations and interests. A
sense of curvature seems far out, but maybe in cognitive dissonance or
anger or fear we experience some of that.
The Genetic Code uses fundamental continuity to produce fundamentally
continuous transfer of Knowledge/Information in the context of the
Universal Code of type M1M2M3|L1L2L3|T1T2T3|F1(F2).
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Code Discreteness vs Continuity |
08 Jul 2005 07:42:46 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I should also add that the Universe Code is itself continuous in terms
of mass, length, time, force dimensions and their "sub-dimensions".
But isn't there any "reality" to discrete objects in a dimensional
sense? Yes, (discrete) objects and events and processes don't
constitute a continuous transition or continuum between/among each
other. In other words, Individuals and Pluralities don't form a
continuum either within Individuals for example or between Individuals
and Pluralities. In Superstring/Brane/M Theory, different branes don't
merge in a continuum of branes - they remain separate 0-branes
(points), 1-branes (little or big strings), 2-branes, 3-branes, etc.
Locality is Individuality underlying Plurality. That Individuality
remains and is fundamental. Once we start assigning discrete nonzero
probabilities to discrete Individuals or discrete aggregate
probabilities to Pluralities or to averages of Pluralities, we are
limiting their (Probable) Causation. These objects ordinarily have
continuous probabilities, continuous probability distributions.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Code Discreteness vs Continuity |
08 Jul 2005 08:13:04 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
What, then, do we make of the quantum as a discrete object and
quantizing in terms of discreteness?
The answer isn't in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics any more than it is
in algebra as it is used in the algebraic geometry and algebraic
topology fads which, incidentally, create enough similar publications
to make careers for quite a few Academicians and others.
Schrodinger's wave mechanics gives us more of the answer. It is
perhaps the biggest mystery in QM even today, and yet it corresponds
quite well to what I have been arguing. It is based on continuous
variables and operators like partial derivatives and on linearity
rather than "hopping around" discreteness. Only at the solution level
do we interpret the results as discrete energy levels. Even its
argument, the wave function, is measured in the ww* product as a
probability.
I have to leave for a short time now, but I'll try to continue soon.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
