>
> 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
