Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What is life?
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 47
From: Newark-NJ-USA
Joined: 06-05-2015

Message 31 of 33 (768108)
09-07-2015 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by dwise1
09-06-2015 1:02 PM

To Dwise1
doesn't mean that computer code and DNA code are the same thing.
Dwise1, I think you are very smart because few people are understanding that DNA is not a code containing an abstract or supernatural design, it is a real thing as synthesis of real things. But,... DNA is merely a temporary shape - at a biological organization or dimension of matter - of a deeper thing that penetrates in to cosmological evolution - which I prefer to call it "Matrix/DNA", and this "matrix" first presence in this Universe was in shape of light waves... so... it is right to say that in relation to our perceptible universe the DNA is not a code, but in relation to the " before" and beyond the Universe we does not know what it is - could be a code by a God... or not.
About the difference between the DNA's program and the programs permitted by von Neumann designed computer, it has its roots in an equal difference between the purpose of pure matter and the purpose of the unknown thing that generated the Universe. John von Neumann was representing matter and DNA is representing the unknown creator. Matter alone has as supreme goal the singularity at thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the state of 95% of this Universe which is dark matter ( which sometimes is called also as spatial substance, as the ether, or the mass effect Higg's field.) But, when light waves penetrates this inertial dark matter it imprints dynamics, movements, with another goal: organization of matter/energy into systems each time more complex by evolution.
So, dark matter and von Neumann natural goal is the direction towards eternal closed systems, while light and the universe's creator wants opened systems under evolution. The unique possibility for matter getting its supreme goal is in cosmological evolution, at the phase of astronomical systems. Neither atomic or biological systems permit it. And matter got its goal when built the building block for astronomical systems - which formula is at my website. Since that the Universe and its creator - amore strong force than the force of galaxies - does not permit eternal closed systems, Nature applied the Clausius Law - second law of thermodynamics, measured by entropy, upon those building blocks, and then, we had the Fall.... towards microscopically biological systems, the sons of necessity.
Then, the astronomical closed system became a kind of our ancestral fossil, inside which body we flourishes as flourishes' bacteria inside humans bodies. This fossil became the under-structure, the foundations, the skeleton, upon which should evolves the soft biological systems, like upon our skeleton there is the coverture of soft meat and then, the mind as the set of thoughts. This structure or universal architecture is merely physical and mechanics as a closed system, which can be theorized and translated by Mathematics logics... and the mathematical "genius" brain of von Neumann was modelled by genes encrypted into our Matrix/DNA that comes from this astronomical ancestor. So, we had the von Neumann computer architecture, a representant at Earth of the sinner closed system from the sky.
That's the explanation why the von Neumann mind was so " could" with no human traits as emotions, empathy. Neumann was choosing Kyoto for bombing and then, killing more people by square meter, and Neumann insisted to American military for bombing The Soviet Union. The goal of dark matter/selfish closed system has no other considerations than its own systemic equilibrium.
Today lots of people are discovering that Neumann computers' architecture is not the most appropriated for Humanity benefits. The best criticism of Neumann design that I know is the paper from John Backus, " Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs" at Page not found : Stanford University .
Finally: The code that can runs Neumann designed computers is mimicking a natural and real code, but not equal the DNA's code. It is mimicking an ancestral code that emerged 10 billion years ago from the most perfect closed system built in Nature, a kind of perfect machine almost as a perpetual motor. Although this code is encrypted inside our DNA it is not being expressed, so called " junk DNA". The DNA's code is more complex and about opened systems. That's why the binary digit is a kind of non-creative mind while the biological brain ( a seven variables code) produces an opened creative mind. ( Don't forget that my says here is not what I believe, but what is suggesting the models from Matrix/DNA Theory's world view. Cheers

There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2015 1:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Message 32 of 33 (768142)
09-08-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by GW1971
08-25-2015 5:27 AM

GW1971 writes:
Without a P(rogram) how would a cell know how to improvise, compartmentalise, handle energy, regenerate, adapt and seclude?
How is the program "written" on the cell? What is the ink?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GW1971, posted 08-25-2015 5:27 AM GW1971 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 33 of 33 (768150)
09-08-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by dwise1
09-06-2015 1:02 PM

Islam? If not, then to what are you referring? How can we look at the seven pillars when we have no idea which seven pillars you are talking about?
He must be referring to this. Similar though not always identical definitions can be found in biology textbooks. I don't agree with it, but it's not completely off the wall, it's in many ways a quite reasonable way of tackling the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2015 1:02 PM dwise1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024