[Fis] Reopening of the Reclosure of the Closure of the Bionetwork Discuss[Fis] Reopening of the Reclosure of the Closure of the Bionetwork Discuss
From: <kj04@chello.at>
Date: Tue 28 Feb 2006 - 21:31:23 CET
Dear Jerry and FIS colleagues,
Thank you for the emotionally coloured clarification of the subject of our debate. In effect you say,
if I understand you correctly: “Hey Karl, what’s up? Do you labour on indigestion or
did you not understand the facts? If you have an opinion behind stating that what I said is false,
so speak up and give good reasons.
The facts are /I still try to re-express you so we get to the core problem/:
Atomic numbers were created by the chemists for logical descriptions of empirical material
observations of networks of relations, both biological and non-biological relations. Our
understanding of these numbers lead directly to our understanding of DNA as the genetic material and
as a source of genesis of life itself.
Secondly, the language of chemistry was developed by the chemical community to express empirical
observations. … you should show … that the the information of DNA can be calculated
using Shannon information, or, … can calculate the number of isomers of organic molecules or
that biological species are distinguishable in such language.
In other words, the absence of correspondence between arithmetic operations of mathematics and the
operations of valence and covalent bond re-arrangements are well known. Or, have you solved these
problems, Karl?
With regard to the third issue raised by Karl, you ignored the word, "typically". Please
read more carefully.
With regard to the fourth issue, Karl, please give us your methods of calculating the information
content of DNA as a molecule participating in the genesis of a biomolecular network.
So far my understanding of what you have said. Now I shall answer.
Perfectly in agreement. In epistemology, chemical elements are logical constants. As logical
constants, they obey some – highly complicated – combinatorial rules. (If elements a
and b are concurrently present, molecule c will develop + x corollaries more.)
To your point
The example of batteries shows that a state and a process are interlinked. If the battery is in its
physiological melee in state A it may discharge electrical tension according to measurements set Q.
If the battery is in state B it may discharge electrical tension according to measurement set W.
Exactly what I say. The feed-back interplay between a momentary state (the state A is contemporal,
now) and a sequential process (the discharge will happen along time. It would pervert the idea of a
battery if it exploded in the course of a discharge.) is what we talk about. But one needs the yang
to the yin. One cannot say that the process is exactly that what we discuss. We discuss the
interplay between that on what the process takes place and the process.
Let us complicate the battery example into a picture of ecology: we discuss the weather over a
continent. Jerry states that the weather is the pattern of clouds, donner, blitz, rain, snow. I say
that it also the swamp, forest, ocean, river on the Earth, too. Close the loop, Jerry. The material
is the battery, the swamp, the process is the electrical flow, the rain. They influence each other.
One is the logical consequence of the other.
Therefore, I would say: the sentence “chemical processes are basically electrical
flows” is not true (.f. not grammatically, but does not fit into the pattern of explanational
statements). The right way of putting this would be imho “chemical processes are the
interplay of constraints on possible states where one set of constraints are electrical flows which
interact with the other set of constraints which detail densities on possible places.”
To your point
The language of predictably sure densities was developed by the social research community to answer
to needs of politicians and businessmen. We shall put a supermarket (road, school, fire station,
etc.) there only if there will be at least x units with probability of occurrence 1.0. The units you
count in and the units an infrastructure-planning statistician (sociologist) counts in are the same.
You know that you are certain about the occurrency of some specific types of units and that they mix
among each other causing much trouble and havoc. If the cross-selling among visitors to a Multiplex
and a bowling hall and a parking lot does not function, you get confronted with manifold actual
consequences of the empirical observations (as opposed to predictions). We use the same methods as
you. What is for you an element, for me is a certainity. What for you chemical valences, for me
types of interaction.
The information in the DNA is well understood. If there are n units in a sequence there can be up to
n! different sequences. This is pure and simple Shannon.
In the FIS salon, openness of mind is encouraged. So maybe we can work on the combinatorics of
overlap structures. Take k*10 pieces of paper and draw some symbols on each of the units in a group
of 10. If you made the symbols randomly, chances are high that among the k messages not two will be
the same, structure-wise.
Now we discuss which types of structures will appear certainly (and these are the elements) and which
types of structures will appear probably and so on. This leads one – after lots of
combinatorics and huge tables – to predicting the properties of a complicated structure made
up of certainities with properties combined. Yes, the job can be done. Your requirement is:
“calculate the number of isomers of organic molecules or that biological species are
distinguishable in such language”
To your point (4)
Allow me to repeat that this is the reason why I happen to be in this room: to keep insisting that
indeed I have solved these problems. Yes, I actually mean that I do have something new to say.
To your point (5)
Let me repeat that our disagreement was on:
To your point (6)
The triplet in question we encounter in the numeric table of partitions into four (distinct)
summands. There, it can be interpreted as the increase in the jump of the difference of the present
state with regard to the next state. The walk happens along the number-of-objects dimension. The
sequence constrains growth (mass, something that can be counted on N). The kind of the added object
can be read off the kinds of sub-segments on N where this specific extent of increase is likely to
such a degree (degree of prob of an attribute to be present: type of object). Then, we get into
Lego.
The exchange between you and me allows focusing on what we find hard to communicate. I keep saying
that there is an outlandish freak of two combinatorial functions cutting each other twice and this
appears to be the answer to everything and all. Among other practical uses, it allows creating
mathematical objects with a-priori properties (just like your chemical elements) out of thin air
logically. The original density of the logical space has been found in pure additions. Using the
freakish number theoretical interrelation one can show that the average addition is not quite exact,
but it is inexact to the tune of some 0,000 … 0003 %, where … stands for some 57 more
Zeroes. This inexactitude is what explains – or at least does not exclude the explanation of
– as good as every phaenomenon mathematicians have said heretofore “well, this is
outside math, this is physics or chemistry or biology”. Information is what we disregard as
we conduct an addition. As we say 2+2=4, we thr!
Hope that this contribution is not too long. Thanks again for insisting on clarification.
Karl
_______________________________________________
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Tue 28 Feb 2006 - 21:26:52 CET