quote:
If this was not the case, having two systems can be considered as more complex. Your confusing two mechanisms,
I am trying to work up a topologically conditioned version of the PATH that a Boscovich curve makes AS Cantor's MOTION in a discontinuous space such that on each "Side" of this curve inter alia null regions would permit the existence of actual infinites if not chemsitry at least in biology. The may exist in physcis sensu stricto as well. The argument against this existence is as you noted as MORE complex hence Russel only admitted aggregates and not unities. In "Boltzmann's Atom" Lindley deprecated "This is what Daniel Bernoulli first tried, in 1738, with his argument deriving pressure from a consideration of atomic motion. But even after that, in 1763, Roger Boscovich wrote an exposition called "Theoria Philosophia Naturalis in which he offered an atomic theory that relied on essentially stationary atoms. Boscovich, a peripatetic philosopher-priest of Serbo-Croatian origins, argued that at a very short range,atoms attracted each other: that is why a piece of cloth soaked up water. At a somewhat longer range, however, atoms pushed each other away: that is why a gas exerted pressure. Boscovich's account, though it has some modern elements, also illustrates why atomic theory was not taken seriously by many scientists for such a long time. Rather than imagining atoms as having certain properties,and seeking to draw conclusions about their behavior, he instead gave the atoms whatever properties he needed in order to explain the phenomena he addressed. This put into practical terms Newton's suggestion..."This is however quite in harmony with intelligent design.One can not miss in the same book, "While still an undergraduate, Einstein wrote..."Boltzmann is quite magnificent...I am completely persuaded by the correctness of the principles of the theory, that the question really is about the movement of [atoms] according to certain conditions." Thus I think indeed Sylas is off the mark in another thread.
quote:
But in nature, the old systems that aren't used will disappear isn't it?
This I think is the question that my work has put back in question. I have not yet had the chance of working in the physical implication that is becoming less dual and more or less duplicit.
quote:
the mechanism for opening the front door, and the mechanism for translating the blueprint to the opening door system
I am nary near to describing how to make a "landscape" chart with the periodic table of elements to rescribe where these physical connections would go should it APPEAR that there is more than one( thus they would only "appear" to disappear. I am still working on the philosophy that Bertrand Russell put in this way of an aggregate of hydrogen, helium,...when he denied for the benefit of the HISTORY of LOGIC that inifinte unites can not exist. There may be MORE than two "mechanisms" chemically but I am first only interested in the application of Wrights "SHIFITING" balance theory trial and error process as a function of the 'element city'. It may not comport with Creationist issues on rates of decay. I just dont know at this point. Once I get it worded out this far it will be available to resolve SOME issues that seperate GOULD and Dawkins factually should the empirical post theory be committed but first the other quotes. I need to do al of these things so that the same criticsm Lindley layed legally on Boscovich IS what was illegally laid on me.
So once I avoid the legit criticism I hope to explain how indeed there could be strict ordertype connections among the tabled elements that ARE what Faraday meant with the word "contiguous" and were within what Maxwell denoted as "mild" and IS a property of biology that Bohr asked in NIELS BOHR A CENTENARY VOLUME"One of the most debated applications of complementarity was Bohr's attempt to formulate the problem of life in these terms. In a celebrated talk given in 1932, he ventured the idea that the phenomena of life and teh validity of physics and chemsitry are contradictions that could be seen in the light of complementarity, in the sense that any attempt to verify in all the validity of physics in a living cell would necessarily kill the cell and detroy the object of investigation
Thus, a new and different stat of matter might exist, which never would lead to a situtation at variance with the laws of physics but still outside..."
If the flame spectra fundamental series work out the subject will not be destroyed but programmed cell death will intervene in that place of aquousity but Bohr's comment will be a subset within Russel's senses and rotting death while ID is outside this yet again. WOlfram's claims about irreducibility and Monod's concerns about universality of the operon supply the object around Bohr's notion so the last sentence does not apply that I did not quote if I am correct that actual infinite baraminolgical unities exist.
™ Version 4.2
