Re: [Fis] what is life, logically?

Re: [Fis] what is life, logically?

From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 21 Nov 2006 - 19:19:01 CET

>
> Von: karl.javorszky@chello.at <karl.javorszky@chello.at>
> Datum: 2006/11/21 Di PM 07:16:30 CET
> An: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Betreff: [Fis] what is life, logically?
>
> Your question „What is life, logically?“ touches a sore point. The answer is: logically, life is a tautology. In logic, everything turns out to be a part-tautology, as soon as it fits in, because the whole edifice itself is a huge tautology. Self-referencing symbols point to each other, and into this system can life be fitted in. Once we explain it, it becomes no news, like once we understand the hat trick, we do not speculate about how the rabbit got created.
> The surprise of the secret of life is not in life itself but in us, how we could have not understood it so long. What made us stay so long in bewilderment before a process, without an idea of how it is governed, and some starting to speculate, some starting to despair.
> To be able to offer a rational explanation for life means that life becomes a part-system of a self-referencing system, which in itself is tautologic. The key point is that life is described in two logical languages at the same time, namely in one relating to the similarity of the logical objects and in one additional language relating to the diversity of the logical objects. In the laboratory, we recognise the double accounts in that that what lives must have been written as a sequence, is presently a nonsequenced entity and will become (generate, e.g. by means of the testes) a sequence again. If it was only a sequence, it would not live, if it was only a presently existing commutative assembly and never got its sequence into the womb of a bioreactor where it evolved, it would also be devoid of life as a continuity.
> The term “sequence” as applied to the DNA is a very formalised view, and the term “commutative assembly” is not intuitively descriptive of a living organism. Yet, with respect to their data processing qualities, this is what they are. Let us see both the DNA and the organism as huge data sets, one sequentially ordered, one cross-referenced. They refer to each other and those records which are found by both search algorithms qualify to be an atom in the fabric of life.
> Now we switch to the logical descriptions, as we wish to simulate what is life, just by using our own logical objects. We can create such logical statements which are true as well with regard to the similarity before the background of diversity, and concurrently as well with regard to the diversity before the background of similarity. So we have processes which are described and governed by two (sets of) logical languages, and this was what contained the definition of life above.
> The “governed by” bit may need more remarks: We have about 10E96 possible logical states of 67 objects. This is by far enough to choose from. After restricting for agreeing to the diversity logic, too, we still have some 10E95 possible varieties of symbol arrangements on 67 objects. Among these, some are mutually exclusive. Some are not intra-exclusive but inter-exclusive. (It is a mutually exclusive case of the intra variety if there can be no 10 summands of 4 if there are 7 summands of 5, resp. in a sequence that an object cannot be neighboured with more than two different objects; the inter-exclusivity hits if the symbol arrangement on the objects is in itself possible but it would force an object to be neighboured with more than two other objects, or, if a neighbourhood relations as a sequence would not allow for group boundaries to be such strong and so many.) The inter-exclusive conditions are a restriction on the next generation of statements (which live one step aw!
 ay on a random walk in a lnEn-dimensioned space), so they are governing, and are in turn governed by the parallel process.
> It is indeed no news, (=a tautology), the secret of life dissolves into the secrets of odd and even numbers. What is surprising is that we could have overlooked the basic fallacy of our reasoning for so long. How could we imagine to explain biology by means of a counting-measuring system, which explicitly states that my 82 kg are the same whether I am in one piece or in 82 pieces of 1 kg. Now we have at last refined the idea a bit and say that it matters how the cuts are related to each other. This is not yet the ultimate explanation of how to count things biologic, but already a step towards adjusting the measurement device to the thing we measure with.
> Thanks for the question, life is, logically, a description of the state of the world in two languages concurrently, where the two grammars cause and are consequence of each other, their basic idea being similarity resp. diversity. Life in a sensu stricto is that variety of processes described doubly where the descriptions vary by the surjectivity relations existing between 32 and 97.
> Hope to have contributed with the accountant’s view of what is life: a doubly kept accounts book, where both sides have own rules, and an entry on one side is of a variable exactitude as expressed on the other side. The in-exactitude in the books of the two sides shows itself only in some circumstances, and then it can have extents of up to 300%-350%, both ways.
> Karl
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Nov 21 19:21:06 2006


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Tue 21 Nov 2006 - 19:21:06 CET