Posted on 03/15/2005 10:58:30 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
The "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is most evident in physics - dualities, mirror symmetries - and my personal favorite, Einstein's being able to pull Reimannian geometry "off the shelf" to describe relativity. For me, it is breath-taking.
The approach you have taken is one of describing the properties of living organisms. On the Plato thread we investigated two similar description-based models, one by Irvin Bauer and another by Javor. The Bauer model was also mathematics.
The descriptive approach runs into difficulty with the classification of the enigmas: bacteria, bacterial spores, mycoplasmas, mimivirus, viroids, viruses and prions. It also does not help the investigation into abiogenesis because it does not speak directly to the emergence of information, autonomy, semiosis and complexity. Nor does it speak to consciousness.
The alternative approach is mathematics, or more appropriately “information theory and molecular biology”. It is the application of Shannon’s mathematical theory of communications to biological life. Shannon is the father of information theory. The model which is described briefly on this post is quite elegant and accommodates all of the enigmas. It also speaks directly to the investigation of abiogenesis by laying the structure for information, autonomy, semiosis and complexity. It also speaks to consciousness as follows.
This formulation of information theory is actively used in cancer and pharmaceutical research. It is not some “pi in the ski” mathematical musing. The presence of information distinguishes between life and non-life/death in nature. Moreover, it gives us important to clues to further investigation.
There are three possible ways a successful communication can be instigated – (a) interrupt such as the presence of food, change in temperature, radiation, (b) cycle or timing, and (c) will. Moreover, there are two types of will – (1) involuntary (2) voluntary.
We have coined the term “will to live” for the involuntary type – others have called it the “life principle” or “fecundity principle”. It has also been called the “want to” live.
The “will to live” permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. For that reason, we assert that it is field-like (existing in all points of space/time). It is observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle. It is observed in the simplest of life forms (cell intelligence, amoeba).
It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) - the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain.
The voluntary side of will is another matter. An example would be to drop a live bird, a dead bird and a 12 lb cannonball off a roof top. The live bird will choose to fly away. Another example is to decide to move your finger to press a key on your keyboard. This kind of will includes abstraction, anticipation, meditation, intention, etc.
This kind of willfulness has a hierarchical structure which is difficult to discuss because it gets into metaphysics (Eastern mysticism to Sirag’s cohorts) and everyone seems to have a bias going in.
Naturally, so do I – I am Christian. So I’ll layout the hierarchy of wills according to Scripture:
2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) - by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)
3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?”
4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) - the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in the passage: In him was life, and the life was the light of men... (John 1)
If a universal vacuum field is the host or medium for the lowest but universal will, the “will to live” - then it may be measurable indirectly by its effects on other fields, such as the electromagnetic field in living organisms. Alternatively or additionally, it may be geometrically related to the semiosis (the language, encoding and decoding) in living creatures, the DNA, e.g. post 881 on the Behe thread. Such possibilities are being investigated.
The “self-will” is in the domain of the ongoing inter-disciplinary studies of consciousness and the mind. The monist view would be that consciousness (as well as the soul) are merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Qualia speaks against such a conclusion. Qualia are the properties of sensory experiences which are epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them and therefore, are also incommunicable. Examples include likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil.
Space/time is created as the universe expands. The inflation causes the fields to exist, i.e. fields exist in all points of space/time. The phenomenon we observe as energy and which transforms to matter is the consequence of the geometry. Being able to express that was Einstein's dream.
Our vision and our minds are limited to perception in four dimensions – three of space (x,y,z) and one of time (t). Every corporeal existent is characterized by its space/time coordinates relative to other corporeal existents (simultaneity in special relativity).
We strongly believe that space/time consists of more dimensions, the number is uncertain because of the duality between several of the theories. However, we are much more confident of the multi-dimensional structure because Strominger and Vafa were able to recreate the Hawking and Beckenstein blackhole entropy using string theory.
Exactly what additional dimensions can tell us about other subjects is under investigation. One theory suggests that the reason gravity is so small relative to electromagnetism, strong and weak atomic forces is that it is interdimensional. As positive gravity is a space/time indent, negative gravity would be a space/time outdent and thus shed light on the acceleration of the universe.
Another string theory, the f-theory (father theory) suggests that there is also an extra time dimension in which case our perceived timeline is actually a plane. This would help explain non-locality and superposition but it also would damage our notion of physical causality.
Extra dimensions may also present the Shannon spheres more like multi-dimensional hypercubes – helping us to understand how semiosis (language, encoding/decoding) arose in biological life.
And likewise, the extra dimensions may help us to understand the “will to live” and “self-will”. It is possible that the field-like will is a universal vacuum field of a different choice of coordinates.
IOW, our four dimensional worldview is a seemingly arbitrary choice of coordinates out of set of 10, 11 or 12 (for instance). Sirag is proposing that most of these additional dimensions are used in the phenomenon of consciousness (and presumably, life or a higher reality).
Sirag however puts all of consciousness into a single entity, a “universal consciousness” even though he suggests seven dimensions as host. Personally, I dismiss this part of his speculation as a personal bias towards Eastern mysticism.
My favorite is Maxwell's equations ... he added in the "displacement current" (which correlates changes in the electric and magnetic fields), allegedly for reasons of symmetry, not because he'd actually seen something that needed describing.
Nice post. :-)
Thanks!
My response: this is entirely hypothetical. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that what you call the 'will to live' exists. I fear that you're hypostasizing here.
My response: again, no evidence of such a field. And I don't know what you might mean by "geometrically related" in your second sentence.
My response: Maybe physical reality includes more than four dimensions, maybe not. We just don't know yet. I prefer to withhold belief while keeping the possibility open.
"Another string theory, the f-theory (father theory) suggests that there is also an extra time dimension in which case our perceived timeline is actually a plane. This would help explain non-locality and superposition but it also would damage our notion of physical causality.
"Extra dimensions may also present the Shannon spheres more like multi-dimensional hypercubes – helping us to understand how semiosis (language, encoding/decoding) arose in biological life.
"And likewise, the extra dimensions may help us to understand the “will to live” and “self-will”. It is possible that the field-like will is a universal vacuum field of a different choice of coordinates."
My response: I guess we'll have to disagree on the usefulness of using exceedingly hypothetical constructs of fundamental physics to support philosophical theses (and vice versa). The physics can all too easily degenerate into buzzwords and the philosophical theses can get tied to the physics constructs du jour.
"Sirag however puts all of consciousness into a single entity, a “universal consciousness” even though he suggests seven dimensions as host. Personally, I dismiss this part of his speculation as a personal bias towards Eastern mysticism."
My response: Here you begin to address the main question I earlier posed about Sirag's views. But I must disagree with your assertion that "our four dimensional worldview is a seemingly arbitrary choice of coordinates out of [a] set of 10, 11 or 12 (for instance)". Length, width, height and duration can hardly be called arbitrary measures of the physical reality we find ourselves inhabiting. Furthermore, I can make no sense of the notions that extra (physical) dimensions "are used in the phenomenon of consciousness (and presumably, life or a higher reality)". Sirag would here be bordering on babble, it seems to me. And, finally, I hope you'll forgive me for quoting myself:
I would still like to know what it means to "identify the E7 reflection space (a 7-d complex space) with universal consciousness." I'm unable to attach significance to the identification of a mathematical object with a (presumably) physical process the existence of which is entirely unsupported by evidence.
I don't see that your defense of Sirag addresses the heart of what I'm asking here.
Well, that's it for now. Time for some sleep.
Best regards...
I am a logician prior to any other designation and, frankly, see no validity in any further denomination. All that does is attempt to constrain and/or ignore logic by embracing terms and labels that seek to circumvent logic, something that cannot be done.
Interestingly it was a statement about your Realist position as stated on the Nominalist link the points up the error of Realism:
The realist answer is that all the green things are green in virtue of the existence of a universal; a single abstract thing
A single abstract thing is a contradiction in terms. If it is an abstract it is not a thing.
This commits the fallacy of Reification. In the hierarchy of conceptual development an abstract subsumes a number of concrete classes in a term that represents the classes of those objects but has no actual existence. The easiest example of this is if I say to you: "Hand me a furniture." The statement is logically absurd because furniture is an abstract representing several classes of concretes: lamps, chairs, coffee tables, sofas, desks in near endless profusion. Not only is there no abstract thing that represents furniture , there cannot be since the concept represents no thing. There can be no universal abstract outside of space time representing furniture because there is no such thing.
One has only to ask where the abstract concept for "starship" was before science fiction, (another abstract.)
The point here is philosophical Realism is logically fallacious. Which is why Aristotle came after Plato, not the other way around. Aristotle was smarter than Plato and had a clearer picture to the truth of things.
1. I provided evidence of the will to live on the links which were part of the paragraph you excerpted. These refer to research on cells and amoeba indicating a will to live, struggle to survive which are often associated only with organisms who possess physical brains. The other evidence – which I really didn’t feel warranted a link – is that the molecular machinery in the organism (cardiovascular, neural, alimentary, etc.) are functionally oriented and yet work together for the survival of the organism. When any of these suffer a fatal insult (brain death, heart attack) – the remaining portions of the machinery proper plus all other functions nevertheless struggle to survive. In the case of the heart attack, new vessels are routed around dead tissue. In the case of brain death, a respirator allows life to continue nevertheless.
2. WRT “geometrically related” – a field is defined as existing in all points of space/time. Some fields, such as gravity, are thought to be inter-dimensional (open-string). If a universal vacuum field is the host to the will to live, then there is nothing to preclude an inter-dimensional field.
3. Actually the Strominger-Vafa computation was very strong evidence for multiple dimensions. But of course, you are free to dismiss any evidence you wish in formulating your views.
4. Indeed. We must agree to disagree on the import of theoretical physics.
5. Since you dismiss extra-dimensionality per se, there is no point in attempting to evaluate Sirag’s speculations because he surmises a “universal consciousness” from the excess dimensions in string theory.
For any Lurkers interested in what extra dimensions “mean” to us: The Curse of Dimensionality
The subject of universals - Plato's forms - is well underway on another thread and I cannot see arguing the same points here. But I welcome you to the ongoing discussion, starting somewhere in the mid 200's on The Future of Biology thread. It is now in the mid 600's.
Peter Woit
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/
Not Even Wrong (blog)
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
String Theory: An Evaluation
http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/strings.pdf
Is string theory even wrong?
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18638
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.