Quasicity = Information = Life Force

I begin to see why the issues with the founder of the sciencechatforum com was never resolved. Good luck to him on his Phd (rather than the accolades I would be interested in exactly what his science contribution was, and I wonder if it involved the early experiment he worked on for the sake of showing the distribution of amino acids was a random thing. After all, the idea of quasicity or any overall design was considered speculation (although such experiments might have confirmed some of this which on the foundational level of physics has no explanation to be denied or otherwise.) He stated that outside of a living system such organic structures are merely polymers. What then distinguishes living things? Why can viruses of the same structure have virulent and non-virulent forms? Why can we not make RNA replicate as if a living thing (eventually we did this by brute experiment crunching if I read the data correctly but it says nothing about some origin of life that invokes a Creator- but what does this say for a materialist view?)

In one post deleted I discussed a Canadian drink called Orbitz which the founders thought so whacky to use his term the post was one of the few deleted. One also involving how other creatures see things with more receptors, the birds and turtles in particular which suggests a way of perceiving higher dimensions in effect. The idea of quasicity seems to be what is missing in understanding that begins with the foundations of physics and other points of how we organize our lowly material physicality into systems of logic and enquiry.

The Orbitz suspended some rather poor tasting sugar beads in a sort of jelly drink. When stirring them up it took forever for them to settle down in layers and sort themselves- my point was that this is precisely how Einstein thought about models of Gravity and the Brownian motion.

Anyone who has gazed into a microscope as higher magnifications cannot help but notice how jittery the small creatures are in such a bombardment of molecules. Einstein showed the effects as if a random dispersal was equal to the square root of the time. Notice also that the equivalent scale of things also involved the square root of the time so as to say simulate ocean waves from a small model or what gauge to make a model railroad track, or what scaled up air craft will fly.

I am thinking of the quasic plane as a model- but in terms of the inertial aspects at these classical-brownian-relativisitic dimensional complications we can have a sort of Brownian motion which is the square root of what Rowlands calls proper time.

As a child I was impressed with going fast down the hiway near the Norfolk Naval base and watching the rays of light houses reach into the distance so much faster as if no time at all to cover the same space that took us hours to cross- that and the moon in a sense follows us.

As simple as this model is it not what we think about when we try to design certain models of physics and mathematics. When Einstein thought of the light he did not limit his thinking to the fundamental law of the universe itself- its unity over infinite and finite aspects, but imagined it quantized as if the law itself (the law of omnium, infinity x zero = 1) was broken down to several levels underneath the scale of a greater extended reality. In effect he pondered the laws of the physics of energy and for that of course, and not the relativity, got the Nobel Prize. Even if the light was so much faster I felt it absolute in the world at every level we encounter this bubble of effects of a contained region as absolute and things in it for all practical purposes flat and uniform or vanished.

Let us consider then the mechanism debated hotly between the creationists and the evolutionists- that mechanism that drives a bacterium. Certainly it can arise and most inevitably will arise in this universe and the arguments of insufficient this or that to find the design without divine intervention do not have enough information or experiment to say one way or the other- in fact although my position is everywhere in experimental evidence on that it seems not to see it either.

When the mechanism of a bacterium is cued by say the food it makes a bee line to it like a vector resolved in one direction turning its tail mechanism one way- but if it is say a danger it turns the tail the other way. Now when it reverses things it does not merely reverse the direction or path but goes into random directions presumably to enhance the chances of its escape.

Let us also recall that when a sufficient number of bacteria say on a beach is reached what not seen in the confines of an aquarium or lab is they synchronously glow at that threshold of phosphorescence.

These are seeming simple ideas that if we do not grasp them we cannot grasp the simpler explanations of the foundations of our physics- even as materialist alone.

Sorting the logic of higher space, and the mechanism that privileges the vectors and what not in things like strings and Dirac's algebra, there should be experimental evidence that some amino acids for reasons other than chance evolve preferentially and with a sense of at least the next higher space than three or four for life as design. If we have a fifth parameter, CPT it certainly is as physis perhaps a parameter of Life, force or not... vitality.