Constructing a Theory of Life

Georgina,

yes you have in effect "claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason".

Logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).

Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward,

Not a single invisible finite "quantum event" has ever taken place. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All supposedly finite information can only be written by folk who have a surface and publish their finite written rubbish on a surface that can only be read by other people who have a surface. All other insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria have surfaces and deal with reality much more effectively than stupid men do, because they are not deceived by supposedly finite SCIENTIFIC codswallop information.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was allowing English scholars in the early 17th century to translate their rabbinical writing into the supposedly definitive English language. The English scholars that did the translation published the greatest book of fiction ever written. Please read Thomas Paine's fine pamphlet, The Age of Reason for the full details.

Reality am not a theory am not "close" to being the truth. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from existing propositions and rules.

Logic does not create these propositions or rules: no propositions or rules "emerge" from logic. The source of the propositions and rules is outside the scope of logic.

And so in our universe-system, the source of the rules [1] cannot be logically deduced.

What can be deduced, is whether an outcome is a logical consequence of existing rules, or whether the outcome is due to a new rule [1] having been "input" to the universe-system. Some outcomes of quantum events can only be seen as a new rule (e.g. a new number assigned to an existing variable) having been "input" to the universe-system.

Logic does not create the rules. In our universe, the only candidate that could create and know about these rules, is matter itself: particles, atoms, molecules and living things. It is reasonable to conclude that matter is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.

............

1. Where rules can be represented as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments.

Lorraine,

your "yes you have in effect "claimed..." is not the same as it having been claimed. You were presenting your own low opinion on what has been written as if it was the other's actual statement/claim.

Dear Joe,

I 100% agree that nature, including "insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria", literally devised everything we see.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Georgina,

You implied that an outcome situation could cause a new property/new information/new rule to emerge in the universe: this is completely illogical. .

This is the type of situation that you seem to envision for enzyme folding, and this is a situation where nothing new emerges:

The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system:

1. No new entity has emerged: the word "cyclone" is merely a description of an outcome situation that is a natural consequence of existing laws of nature.

2. No new "destructive property" has emerged: the destruction wrought by a cyclone is merely a natural consequence of existing laws of nature. "Properties" are merely a natural consequence of rules/laws of nature.

Previous post was from me.

A correctly folded enzyme has catalytic function whereas the unfolded or mis-folded or much deformed one does not. Rules pertaining to catalytic function apply to the correctly folded enzyme; such as temperature sensitivity affecting rate of catalysis, because of the effect of heat on its form. The rule does not apply the un-foldedd sequence because it does not work as a catalyst; Nor does it apply to the parts alone. This is very different from considering different scales within circulating air, or scales of moving air. There is a logical reason for the difference which is difference in shape/organisation not just scale. Some arrangements have shape and or topology that have functions because of that shape and or topology. Physics and chemistry that applies to the whole form does not necessarily apply to the constituents. The wing was another example.

No Georgina,

Nothing escapes physics. There is no scale in the universe in which physics does not apply. Underlying every shape, and at every scale, in whole or in part, it's the physics that is doing it: it's the rules (represented by equations, algorithms and number assignments) that determine the outcome numbers, including shapes of enzymes. The only question is whether any new information/rules have been input to the universe, or whether existing rules suffice to explain outcomes.

Just like your erroneous concept of an "image reality", your concept of a "shape" is erroneous. There is no such fundamental-level information in the universe as "shape". Both "shapes", and the "image" of our surrounding reality that we subjectively experience, are higher-level information that require the logical analysis and collation of lower-level information, via the equivalent of algorithmic rules. Then you have to ask where the rules came from.

Lorraine, I have not argued that 'shape' is fundamental level information. I have argued that it is important for emergence of some functions. Re. your and other's denial of emergence. The shape of the enzyme is a product of the process of folding the protein sequence. (And 'image reality' is a product; of an organism's sensory system and CNS, or of a device, or sensitive material. Irrelevant to this discussion)) I don't see that an algorithmic rule is needed for the protein to fold, when the energy for movement is provided by interactions with other molecules in the environment. And the environmental conditions surrounding the protein are affected by the topology and charges on the protein, enabling sites that must bind or align to do so when the protein is moved in such a way as they come in proximity. It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.

Jim, if "most recent first" is selected (in the left hand column), the most recent will appear at the top. Each time a new post is added to a discussion that isn't at the top, the posts are rearranged so the most recent is at the top. It is easier than having the posts in chronological order, the other option, I find. If the discussion you are looking for is not at the top of the page it is just a matter of scrolling down through the discussions until it is found. If nothing new has been added for a while and other discussions are happening it will appear lower down the page. (Annoyingly the amount of spam does mean that sometimes they are the only posts visible in the left hand list of recent posts.As the post itself disappears while awaiting moderation but not its listing in that column.) Hoping that is helpful as intended.

Georgina,

All your verbiage, describing what you think is going on, is totally irrelevant.

E.g. your verbiage about "environmental conditions" and "topology" is totally irrelevant and redundant because lawful physical interactions in the universe ALWAYS occur in the context of environments. And "topology" is just a higher-level description of a lower-level-rule-based environment.

EITHER an enzyme is like a cyclone (where nothing genuinely new emerges except the word-labels human beings give to situations), OR genuine new information has somehow been input to the situation.

And all your convoluted verbiage is in effect saying that an enzyme is like a cyclone.

By the way, I like the absurd way that you deny the existence of the laws of physics: "It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'".

Lorraine, I have not denied there are laws of physics. Nor am I putting the cart before the horse. Rules and laws tell us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen; In my opinion.

I will end my discussion with you here, since you consider what I have to say as irrelevant verbiage. Your corruption of what I have actually said is annoying as is your rudeness. We really aren't 'on the same wavelength', unfortunately.

Georgina,

Face the facts:

A different environment is just (representable as) a different set of numbers for the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships.

In other words, the laws of nature can handle all different environments: its just a matter of different numbers in the same mathematical relationships.

There are no "special environments" in the universe-system, there are only different numbers. Unless, you add new information (representable as equations, algorithms, and/or number assignments) to the system.

In any case, all particle, atomic and molecular information interactions are quantum events, so there is nothing simple and easily explained going on. Energy is not always conserved within these events i.e. new information is definitely added to the universe within these events.

Georgina, thanks for pointing out that obscure 'most recent first' setting, it does help... a little...

Jim

Re Georgina Woodward's claims that "It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.", and that "Rules and laws tell us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen" [1]:

Logic is about valid reasoning and deductions based on pre-existing propositions and/or rules. Without pre-existing propositions and/or rules, nothing can be deduced.

And without the assumption that the universe has an actual logical basis (i.e. actual rule-relationships exist), then no logical deductions about the universe can be made, by physicists or anybody else. [2]

Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, then Georgina has no basis for logical deductions about the universe.

Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, Georgina is free to make claims that have no logical basis.

1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT , Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT .

2. The source of the rule-relationships is a different issue.

Re Georgina Woodward's claims of "emergence":

Physical interactions in the universe always occur in the context of their environments. While the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships/rules are always there, a different environmental situation is representable as a different set of numbers for the variables in the equations/rules.

So the claim of "emergence" caused by an environmental situation is the claim that a set of numbers causes the "emergence" of something new. In a logical, rule-based system, this is clearly preposterous.

Emergentists always seem to be reluctant to, or unable to, specify exactly what it is that is supposed to emerge.

But in a logical, rule-based system you've got 2 choices: 1. (what we would represent as) a new number assignment (i.e. a new initial-value rule); and 2. (what we would represent as) a new rule, where a new rule is a new category of information (i.e. a new variable). Rules can be represented as equations, algorithms or number assignments.

In a logical rule-based system, the rules do not emerge as an output from the system: the rules are input to the system.

The rules are the basis for the universe-system's logical functioning. But where the rules come from, the source of the rules, is a different issue.

Dear Joe Fisher,

Thomas Paine's book is highly outdated and cannot contribute anything to enlighten the historical truth about the genesis of the holy scriptures and their truthful contents. Paine's book was published in 1807, years before Robert Anderson published his results concerning the prophecy of Daniel 9 ff. in 1888. Nontheless I think Paine was true about the clerical system of the roman-catholic curch, since the latter's hierarchies were built according to the hierarchies of the roman empire.

Since then, biblical archeology has advanced rapidly, early copies of complete Jesaja and other parts of the holy scriptures were found in Qumran and could be dated accurately. The abrahamitian beliefs and also the christian beliefs are about a creator of all of nature. Nature itself is the creation of God, not God itself. See for example the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, 1-12 were it has been made clear that Christ has been the creator behind all of nature as we know it. All of this has nothing to do with your musings about some "non-surface light" (until you accept that your "non-surface light" is a spiritual light, it is Christ, the light of the world).