Dear friends,
We have a wonderful measuring instrument, our number system, which is lovely
and reliable, tautologic, in itself exact. Our only problem is that if we
lay this measurement instrument over the thing we measure it with, we cannot
understand the measurement results.
Either we say that we cannot recognise the thing measured deeply anyway
(Arne), or that we are at loss what to think now, or that we re-check the
instrument. The idea that our counting-measuring instrument needs more
precision derives from the observation what we measure and by which methods:
it is similarity all over the place. We think and count in ideas of
similarity.
As we state that 12=5+7 we assume that each of the 12 units is alike and is
interchangeable with any of the other 11, regardless of in which subset they
are in. As we state 5+7=6+6, we consciously disregard the existence or the
importance of an obvious difference, namely the arrangement of the cuts.
If anyone has jobbed as a student in a clothes factory, he knows that the
cutting patterns are as existentially essential to the functioning of a
clothes factory as the cloth. Without the archive of cut patterns, no
clothes will be produced. The cuts themselves are not easy to see, because
they are always represented on something, and as soon as we see something we
see something similar, because we are built like this, thanks to Darwin.
The cuts do have properties and these properties can be systematised into a
counting method (an algebra) with units and operations.
We see that genetics operates on the basic principle that it counts dually:
something that exists in biology must have existed in a sequenced form (as
its dns), exists now as a commutative assembly and will recopy itself into a
sequence (by means of the testes). So it does have a double existence in two
algebras: in one for sequences and in one for commutative arrangements.
Even, if multidimensional partitions are too complex to be defined, they can
be counted and we can infer from their number that they are sur-, in- and
bijective to the number of linear sequences. The mechanics is complex but
logically it is no news. We regard one and the same collection of logical
objects that carry symbols at the same time as a collection of named
individuals that can be sequenced and as an overlap structure. We can
densify information by switching from a sequence into a structure and back.
The two logical languages genetics uses are a clever trick. We can copy
parts of the trick by using two algebras concurrently. Leaving the old,
usual, normal N-based algebra as it is, we parallelly conduct each and every
operation on N also in the other algebra, which details the dissimilarity of
the objects.
In the clothes factory we now check additionally, whether the cut patterns
are available for this stitch job. Heretofore we only stated that the
material extends enough, we now check how viable is the business from that
standpoint that we neglected to regard as we said 3+3=2+4. The kinds and
numbers of cuts constitute an algebra.
Using the cuts algebra alongside the stitch-algebra presently in use has
following immediate effects:
About 90 % of additions do not match the test of the D-algebra;
The remaining about 10 % have a double .t. value;
One counts in a system that works irrespective of size;
The natural unit is the saturation numbers of electron sheaths;
The counting system is more exact by about 0.3E-96 %.
This alone should be worth to look into the matter.
Let me repeat: using a more complex optical instrument we can recognise muh
more. The improvement comes from using a parallel visor which counts in
representation of a property of sets which we have heretofore neglected. The
resulting counting system is slightly more demanding to use and to service
but generates a grid before which quite many impressions can much better be
understood.
Karl
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Guy A Hoelzer [mailto:hoelzer@unr.edu]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Oktober 2006 17:43
An: karl.javorszky@chello.at; fis@listas.unizar.es
Betreff: RE: [Fis] Laws of physics do NOT apply in biology
Hi Karl,
The answer is NO, but then this also applies to many other objects, such as
stars and tornadoes. All dissipative systems churn non-linearly, so I guess
you would argue that the laws of Newton generally don't apply to dissipative
systems as wholes. I wouldn't argue with that; however I refered to the
laws of physics, rather than the laws of Newton, which I meant to include
far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, like "biologic bodies".
Regards,
Guy Hoelzer
________________________________
From: karl.javorszky@chello.at [mailto:karl.javorszky@chello.at]
Sent: Fri 10/27/2006 1:47 AM
To: Guy A Hoelzer; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Laws of physics do NOT apply in biology
Hi Guy A Hoelzer,
the laws of Newton do not apply in biology. Or, have you ever seen a
biologic body that remains in an idle state or keeps its linear movement
forward?
Karl
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Nov 2 15:57:56 2006
