Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.

It seems to me the issue is what a "non-God" designer contributes to discontinuity rather than continuity. There are plenty of continuous constructs availale in the here and now to make designs from non-god wise guys etc. if we so chose. We do not. Why? because logic has not made in-roads, to connect out of purposeful constructions from natural products to quantum mechanical uncertanTy (anti-matter etc). Why does the US not have any new, nuclear power plants?My guess is that we are still too much influenced by (the)wwII/generation rather than any hope of uncovering new stock captial.These things will have to be dealt with once recursion is applied in tissue. That is scary to contemplate, but if we think it, someone will do it.We might come to the realization that we need to know how photons change energy orbitals if we are going to "cure" disease if we find that DNA computers simply are only useful for a discontinuous part of unhealthy life.So if the business cycle DOES NOT apply to this biologically, this IS an "indpendent" thought, implicating 'dependent' continua compared with any economic engine that will change continuously the discontinuty I suspect.So it only matters what DISCONTINUITY the non-gods provide.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-07-2005 07:19 AM

The approach I am advocating goes contra what Lewontin presented in the late 60s.He said ,

quote:

---

There is a host of problems in biology, however, that has been much neglected in these twenty exciting years, because the answers to them cannot be meaningfully framed in molecular and cellular terms. That is, the main trend of analytic biology, because it has become subcellular, has been away from a consideration of questions like: “What determines the rate of evolution of a character?” “Why are there many more species and so many fewer individuals of each species in the tropics than in the tundra?” “Why has sex appeared, disappeared, and taken on curious and aberrant forms in evolution?” Some of the most obvious and generally important questions in biology belong in this realm and remain unanswered. . Now such questions can be framed in molecular terms but not usefully, just as an apple can be described in quantum mechanical terms (in theory); but no one wants to know anyting about an apple that a quantum mechanical description will tell him.

---

Population Biology and Evolution
"My uncle helps me." Victor Hugofive minutes times ...
=============================================Why is it that Lewontin could not found a utilitarianism and find a utility in an analytic of subcellularized statements about whole organism biology? He said that no one cares for an apple in quantum mechanical terms but this only applies if one was to insist on bringing all of quantum mechanics to bear on any particular biological dissection reduced to modern perspectives. But what he should have said was that the questions can be framed (by removing things that would not have biological existence on its levels of magnitude ( weak forces without dissipation, quark interactions, anti-matter)) and if used in phenomenological thermodynamics( which DID exist in his times) synthesize even creationist notions of creation and biology. Instead from the fact that there were no useful theories of macrothermodynamics at the time( Gladyshev was publishing in the early 70s) nor readings of the biophysics retarding the changes remedially at worst, in the same population, he asserts THE ANSWER even though he really did not have but the form of the question. This will do fine when writing an English essay but is not realistic when one can easily think of analogies of macro economics and macro evolution. I swear this is how it needs to be read. Let the elites write contrarily. I would love to see it. It would only be an anti-creationist piece when this, what I synthesized need not necessarily be. It could be. Lewontin thinks that he has to apologize for topology when he lastly writes THE TRIPLE HELIX(aka extinction) but what was needed was the recognition that there are kinds of determinisms in biology that are not suffiently Laplacian (see Cause and Correlation in Biology ) not more dynamic covering functions.Ok, so what I am doing IS WHAT LEWONTIN ASSERTED WAS NOT USEFUL. First off it is very useful for creatioinists. Secondly it contains a taste of the best sort towards human engineering biological formations. Thirdly it does not but can relie on purely biological methodological leanings (such as Croizat’s) and Fourthly it enables one to PARTITION causal structures such that quantum physics might be seperably applied depending on ones’ own physical predilection. Thus even philosophies of matter that I do not see as utiliatarian but could exist are supported in my thought. (recursions of tissue etc). This does not mean that one can take any kind of higher level question (Why are there more numbers in tropics than tundra) and immediately translate the question into an answerable praxis but it does contain a continuity of thought that enables one to figure out what answers the processs in thought might supply. I will give you a better handle on how computer motiviated recusivity can help “see” tissue divisions after I have read more of Winfree’s ideas on DNA computers. This is not exactly the idea as you expressed it, as I have it, but I might be able to think what you wrote as well. I’ll just have to try. For now consider Weyl in response to Lewontin. The issue is particular to “drug delivery vehicles” but I want to try to generalize the thought first before I speak particularly on Weyl’s use of “recursion”.

quote:

---

In order to subject a continuum to mathematical treatment it is necessary to assume that it is divided up into ”elementary pieces’ and that this division is constantly refined by reapeated subdivision according to a fixed scheme (which in the one-dimensional case consists in the bipartition of each elementary segment). The effect is that the continuum is spun over with a subdivision net of increasing density. Thus, properly speaking, every continuum has its own arithmetical scheme which is already completely determined by the combinatorial description of the manner in which the individual elementary pieces of initial division border on each other; we call this the ”topological skeleton’ of the manifold. The introduction of numbers as coordinates by reference to the particular division scheme of the open one-dimensional continuum is an act of violence whose only practical vindication is the special calculatory manageability of the ordinary number continuum with its four basic operations . It is an important but difficult mathematical question to decide when two such skeletons are equivalent

---

Weyl p 90 Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science 1949.If there was more demand for it others will figure it out independently of my approach. In fact I think there is nothing particularly original in what I think. I have just tried to remain honest to my interest in biology from the start. That is all. Evolution schmevolution is not the bipartition.If you want some more particulars from your post addressed simply point me to the section in you post above.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-10-2005 03:32 PM

quote:

---

On the other hand science concedes to idealism that its objective reality is not given but to be constructed (nicht gegeben, sondern aufgegeben), and that it cannot be constructed absolutely but only in relation to an arbitrarily assumed coordinate system and in mere symbols. Above all the central thought of idealism comes into its own in the converse of the above fundamental principle:objective image of the world may not admit of any diversities which cannot manifest themselves in some diversity of perceptions; an existence which as a matter of principle is entirely inaccessible to perception is not admitted. Leibniz says concerning the fiction of absolute motion ( Leibniz’s fifth letter to Clark) “I reply that motion is indeed independent of actual observation, but not of the possibility of observation altogether. Motion exists only where a change accessible to observation takes place. If this change is not ascertainableby any observation then it does not exist.” To be sure, many physically different colors will produce the same sensation as red; but if one sends all these various reds through a prism, then the physical differences will manifest themselves in perceptible differences between the streaks of colored light emerging from the prisim

---

p118Mayr seems to have responded that these streaks if interpreted as Bohrian complemetarity as Weyl did, did not find any water in biology. I think the biological response is supposed to be to Bohr’s earlier thought about his uncle’s physiology rather than later philosophy from Matrix applications. There is no difficulty in reading this following of Weyl as a Russelian thought on Wittgenstein.

quote:

---

It is tempting to strech Bohr’s idea of complentarity far enough to cover the relation of the two opposite modes of approach we are discussing here. But however one may weigh them against each other, one can not get around the following significant and undeniable fact: the way of constructive theory, during the last three centuries, has proved to be a method that is capable of progressive development of seemingly unlimited width and depth; here each problem solved poses new ones for which the coordinated effort of thought and experiment can find precise and universally convincing solutions. In contrast the scope of the understanding from within appears practically fixed by human nature once for all, and may at most be widened a little by refinement of language, especially of language in the mouth of poets. Understanding, for the very reason that it is concrete and full, lacks the freedom of the ”hollow symbol.’ A biology from within as advocated by Woltereck will, I am afraid, be without that never-ending impetus of problems that drives constructive biology on and on.

---

p284So now is Weyl correct? Can I not show the “hollow” symbol not only IS WITHIN but that it not hollow at all as Wely said. It is not water either only as Mayr seems to have approximately adjuded in what biology is. There are never ending ways to subtract a number from n! permutations provided the n! represent all future evolution of life as well as it’s death as suggested by viruses’ numbers . I am not even saying how ID, physical teleology and constructive biology are perverted. They are!! (now I use the word non-scientifically).Weyl asserts that “mutation adds a non-causality”. Does it?

quote:

---

With the mutations a clearly recognizable non-causal element penetrates into the behavior of organisms. Whereas my perceptions and actions are in general the resultants of innumerable individual atomic processes and thus fall under the rule of statistical regularity, it is a noticeable fact that, if favorable circumstances prevail, a few photons (not more than 5 to 8) suffice to set off a visual perception of light.

---

Either we are changing through the symbol what we say when we mean “mutation” or else there is causality. I represent through cause and correlation by two sources (biological and physical) see picture below.

​

Weyl would say I just merely missed the latents by a division that would remain “hollow” in that diagram sorted by cyclic and acyclic representations. I say he miss used the differences in his own presentation of “bifurcation”.

quote:

---

But there may be a bifurcation in the following sense: as order is derived from disorder by means of the secondary statistics of thermodynamics, so may a parallel but different type of macro-law account for the production of large-scale order from small-scale order in an organism(Schrodinger).

---

p281

​

Theus was correct to question my citation of Weyls use of Delbrucks model
EvC Forum: When micro = macro ...
, but it was Weyl’s intention to say the governance is by

quote:

---

single ionizations, and thus one may conclude with P. Jordan, that ”the steering centers of life are not subject to macrophysical causality but lie in the zone of microphysical freedom.”

---

p 279 but he accomplishes this by a thought that Gladsyehv has challenged
Academy of Creative Endeavors
where lay indeed a sense nonetheless of said “bifurcation.” Mayr seems instead to repudiate the thought altogther rather than ask if Bohr was not more correct in the difference of a perturbation physics vs orbit analogy. So removing Mayr and any other changes to lingos of “mutations” sensu stricto (I am one person , not a consensus body of science) from the static, I press on to say, that macrothermodynamcis might be able afford calculations on subtractions from n! permutations of whatever is between a gene and valence diagram recursively WITHIN biological tissue, that nonetheless obey Weyl’s interest in locating the 1.5 value of U for mutations quantum mechanically but nonetheless IS CAUSAL FROM BIOLOGICALLY HIGHER LEVELS (downward causation) allowing less actual activation energy BY CODED HERITABILITY of thermostatics (thermostat parameters associated with particular monophlys etc, clade differences) but is currently “embedded” in data on thermic variability of mutations, the sociality of biotechnology, and lack of training of biologists in quantum physics. (Roland Hoffman refused to talk with me until I had learned quantum, but that is an extreme case).

​

It is clear that biotechnology took a different course

quote:

---

While formal genetics has advanced by leaps and bounds during the last forty to fifty years, our knowledge in these fields is still very sketchy. As to the central problem of self-duplication, M.Delbruck has recently (1941) ventured to give a detailed but admittedly hypothetical picture of how amino-acids might conceivably be strung together in a pattern emulating a preexisting gene model by quantum-mechanical resonance at the site of the peptide links. Connection between gene and visible character, e.g. between the wing form of Drosophila called jaunty and its gene, is certainly the resultant of a chain of intermediary actions. It is therefore an important step ahead that recently attention has been concentrated on genetic control of enzymatic action; many experiences point to a close relation between genes and specific enzymes (cf. the recent work of G.W. Beadle and and others on Neurospora).

---

following out the chain of rxns, but if thermostat parameters are hidden in Weyls use of Delbruck’s model then solving disease by simple valance diagrams without recursion to genes and demic variation of genomes themselves (as Watson proposed to use Gates’ $ if he had them) will fail more miserably than botched relief money to New Orelans’ victums. Any student of chemistry knows electron oribitals shape differences with respect to differences in energy levels. We need to read that backwards. Even this chain of biochemical events vs causality not correlated might be remedied if fractal mappings of different sets of correlations take the 1-D force fields into the inertial volume. This shortcut might only make sense to me just now, however.

​

The relevant symbolic formations in macrothermodyanmics that show that no matter how hollow it sounds coming from me there is resonant timbre no matter the language expressed in are
EvC Forum: Does Evolution have a point?
Cited by me on EVC previously. There is a more objective solution than Weyl’s disparagement of Kant for an observation on cows (by Albert Schweitzer)and this came in part unrecognized generally from Moscow. It is as clear as day on the internet however dark,”what is darkest for theory, man, is the most luminous for the understanding from within; and to the elementary inorganic processes, that are most easily approachable by theory, interpretation finds no access whatsoever.”page 284.

​

The next post will show how( I have other things to do in this life however), if one is confused, that recursion and self-duplication MIGHT be the same univocality. (at least that is what Weyl’s text seems to indicate. I have to think it through first. What it involves is substituting clade structure for Cartesianism. That is never an obvious thought, prima facie. It is obvious that it can be applied where Weyl quotes Dreisch on entelechy but that is not the whole ball of wax unless one was wedded to Mayr’s “one long argument”. I am not. I am also not interested in discussing simplistic versions of creationism.

​

Quotes from Wey’s “Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science”
Figure from Shipley’s “Cause and Corrlelation in Biology”

​

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-11-2005 12:31 PM

Well yes,
"shadow" was the word.
Shipley discusses the method of contructing the directed graphs in terms of the "correlational shadows". Sure the digram would DIVIDE. That is why it is so interesting. But what it doesnt do is give a spherically symmetric total solution. It attempts to find the particularity that macrothremodynamics demands. As long as people still attempt to find "language" relations in "biological code" it will be necessary. If we find a new lingo mathematically in the practice of sorting back to causes, physics'lly, we might do away with the graph and simply speak its truth but for now only the "song" of silence remains. I was very lucky that you responded when you did. It made the transition much more pleasurable than otherwise.Actual infinity- let me not get anywhere near there just yet.