Saturday, October 1, 2011
Philosophic Encoding L. Edgar Otto October 1, 2011 It occurs to me that a somewhat better understanding or resolution of the paradox or concern about biological cosmic models would be to treat the information of encoding more generally than that of the "nature" or the "cosmic" codes. This leaves a little more relaxed view of the understanding of the less than explicit source and sink of our physics and notions, how we interpret and make the implications from what we see or imagine. Roughly it divides the same sequence into the three philosophy realms (hence a philosophy code) of the chance, mechanism, and teleology in the same code. Of course it was much more complicated to work out than this in this morning's dream exploring things in more depth and holding on to the general idea until it evokes awaken thoughts on the matter.
One such thought was that some codes can be read as coexistent on the same level rather than some degenerate or outline of another level (in a causal coincidence or not, in an illusion of order or not, in the explicit source of the signal transmitted within a meaningful physical invariant speed or not...). For example, it is clear that in the expression of the engineered genes in a bacteria to make a certain protein that it also makes a sugar. This came from PBS today concerning ticks, the lone-star or deer tick and the allergy to red meat in the "Alpha-gal" allergic reaction. But a good example would be the reading of the methylation or epi-genome with the genome on the same level but with coexistent codes. Of course we can expect a difference with the same DNA so to explain this. The article on the future of new discovery praised the biochemical era as the great industry of the twenty-first century much as electricity was that of the last century. In this sense we see that tailor made chemicals made specific to individuals will be a boon for prevention and better medicines where we know what we are doing- if we can do it and not as fast (fast as it is and a million times cheaper to sequence) as without a general theory. There are other physical technologies or questions of if these are possible of which I may speak later.)
The illustration is from yesterday when a small songbird chasing flies I think hit the window at the coffee shop and fell on the bench. It could not hold its eyes open at first and barely could perch on anything nor fly. I eventually gave it water from a straw and it drank. After a half hour or so it could stand and keep its eyes open and did not seem to mind me. A student from the university walking by as they do for photography assignments each year came by and got a picture which I said would not be the same old one of this view from the bike trail. It did seem to shy away from her when it got close. A little while later a fly came by and it took off in flight without a problem. Yes, there were many morning by the river on a picnic fence I would write poems in the morning waiting for places to open and this little bird would come to the end of it and sing- I was never sure what it was trying to tell me or if it just wanted to share the dawn. I never gave it any breadcrumbs.
Dave has a post today On this topic:
end of the poem there:
Words on their own, I find
solve fewer mysteries
than they create.
Great poems excavate
the very depths of what we call
the self - the source
of what is most mysterious.
And can the grains and streams of words,
can rays they shine upon the riddles
be set by us in the right order,
be set to replicate
the world that Nature crafts,
the genius of their genesis?
by Dave King
* * *
Now from the science mags: Take note of this important consideration which for me relates to the issue at hand about time and chirality and so on... but of course the various origins of the tilt to this asymmetry, space, crystals, well some views seem to me not fundamental enough or even defensible as a hard science.
This too significant:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929122749.htm autism and brain connections
Take note of this all who would make a cognitive disconnection to how we define underling notions like dark matter or the standard theories as totally wrong in principle:
Ahhh... a sci mag link to my report from the radio posts back:
* * *
One consequence of the Philosophy Code is that the idea of cancer is not as solvable as the new biotechnology of the genome would suggest- but then it is not rigid either. Science should not just be throwing things into the wind and collecting the tea leaves in the bottom of our quantum cups. We really need to step back and look at the world's issues, take a breath, ask the reductions to absurdity in the reductionism- ask basic questions of the how if not the why or why not change or save or prune the world and its peoples... Energy too is a very elusive concept- now
practically, would any of the vague ideas we can call dark matter like (or of the old idea of some sort of neutrino condensation of which Kea feels as real or more real than the gravity waves for example as the stuff of such "matter" - ie the connections between galaxies-) in any case the philosophy sequence read as teleology thus tachyonically at a chiral front or surface etc... is the condensing in the background that can orchestrate the physicality of nerves and galaxies. Let us not go blindly into such unknowns but we do not need shells as much as wings as we cross these great divides that we mostly build within ourselves. The remote view is there but it is after all but a view in what is still wide opportunity for the evolving of life.
One thing, the future possible ideas on the new physics I mentioned earlier in this post, where in the near future the technology is bright in the biochemisty industries- and molecular theories in general- I think we could very well have certain mechanisms that clean up and control certain fission products if some who discuss this relation of cold fusion ideas and dark matter ideas I read right. Would this not be good for the song of old japan?
* * *
That was a wonderful paper (2004) which for the most part is in a language I can easily relate to.
BTW in the comments lately I still strongly feel that yours makes the most sense.
How else will the string theorist salvage anything from that theory? Or the standard theory and our notions of things like dark matter?
I do not think the answers are relevant in non-linear spaces to the physicality of what works as physics. It is strange to think of neutrinos as real even after experimental data for me nor know why I too long ago abandoned the idea of gravity waves.
Thank you for the research.
comment may be posted here at:
* * *