|
|
 A CONCEPTUAL BEGINNING-The LIARS PARADOX AND DNAUniqueness and Self Belonging in Nature Marvin E. Kirsh Kirsh2152000@yahoo.comAbstract Love, avoidance, liking, thoughts of beauty, ugliness, sexual attraction are some of the categories that might be affirmed as belonging to the a set of relations called affinities. If one attempts to outline all of the influencing elements belonging to each of these terms it becomes very difficult to from a complete notion of concepts from particulars 1 2 . For example, what factors are involved in the emergence of feeling of love, and what factors comprise those feeling. A unique history to each unique event in the emergence of feeling of love is most likely the case. The factors that comprise those feeling on the other hand (i.e. of a positive feeling of well being, a change in perception of factors that influence daily life experience, etc) are more accessible but their origin and history is difficult to tabulate in terms of a single nature or characteristics that compose the emergence of these feeling. In this respect, this presentation is devised to focus on the normally conducted projections and extensions of notions in ordinary investigation to these ends, verses a normally excluded and normally perceived insufficient, counterpart explanation of reduction absurdum (i.e. A =A). Thus it is proposed that the word “affinity”, applied scientifically, when instantiated to human behavior is universally instantiatable as an innate universal property. Evolution-all emergences of both the physical, biological and social are proposed to be phenomenon relating in exact correspondence of meaning to the property of affinity. DNA, is proposed exclusively not to have real ontological meaning as a code or language with respect to its’ emergence in nature, one role to preclude the other; and as a transmission-forwards passing only, the sole and singular, actual phenomenon of (all) investigation. Do Enzymes Love Their Substrates? When one discusses emergence 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 , his first perceived task into create an order to events and to proceed to attempt to find a uniting principle, which his observation must cohere to. It is in this step that a philosophical failure universally ensues in the name of a definition of self, the external world, and a demand for objectivity. A very broad unorderable precipice generally emerges, leading to a dependency on complex mathematical analysis, statistical analysis, and applied physical law of basically the same origin, in order to find predictable trends and what might modulate them. This inclination for excess mathematical modeling, though, might be includable within the same set of items as affinity and emergence, i.e. an emerging notion (general affinity) to explain emergence and affinity from natural law and intuition based on affinities of fitting, logical fitting to explain emergence. It thus seems logical to define affinity as universally applicable to all, both all experience and all nature-nature scientifically as the motive force of all emergence(change), and extended , but included with scientific affinity, and, more rationally though, with concepts in sociology. Included together, the scientific meaning and the sociological meaning create an infinitely more powerful perspective on mankind, life and nature. Added spaces for objectivity, in the creation of conceptual tools, for, either or both, sociological analysis and scientific analysis, instrumental elements responsible for the described circular reasoning, false scientific constructs and frustration in pursuit are no longer present. Not only, a new affinity has emerged. This same delineation of events can be equally applied to experience, frustrating experience, frustration in love, social happiness, wellbeing, survival(and hence evolution). Within a world defined in this reduction absurdum manner, are included, facts of discovery in the biological, and physical sciences. Enzymatic action in metabolism 13 is dissected as a matter of not only environment , proximity, but the fitting of physical structures (the active sites of enzymes) to substrates. DNA is known be composed of a simple physical code 13 , that is based on affinities f or correct mating, not only can replicate itself (and undergo change –mutagenesis) but in a similar manner based on affinities and fitting cause? (direct?) the assembly of enzymes, proteins whose structure and function are based on a property of affinity. Affinity is thus a very basic term in the biological sciences and apparently is classified in terms of work functions from the physical sciences. Work solely implies a force (of repulsion or attraction) which implies the word affinity , again. In all scholastic studies, and daily events , affinity, though is given a temporal quality, i.e.as part of a series of events, rather than as a unique element. In scientific pursuit it may be discovered “I am sure surprised that all these elements of the cell work this way, by fitting together, and from forces of tension(of attraction vs. repulsion is not elaborated)” . How is it, that science objects could be conceived as possibly not working that way?, as we know of nothing different less for the interesting facts of the composing elements, and how is it that we admittedly have no bridge from the sciences to sociology?, as if the foundations of one are different from the other. A parallel between the affinities of people and affinities as enzymatic or mating DNA structures according their cellular roles, might be draw, but still appear inappropriate and unfitting. If we seek the same analytical type accuracy and precise measurement of the sciences, the two studies have nothing in common. In the sciences, almost all types of data can be reduced to matters of length/distance and time 15. Sociological factors are hardly dividable that way. A more viable bridge is attained with redefinition of witness and perspective, in that science seems to be as amenable in description as “emerging affinities” as the sociological sciences appear so rationally. Current divisions are ontologically unsound. If this is the case, what of the established goals of science? Theory and understanding seems to fade to chaos. On the positive side of this tabulation are the vast strides in the knowing of proteins, DNA, cells etc., but perhaps we do not have the depth of understanding/predictability assumed. Sociologically we have the established criteria of appropriateness, inappropriateness, emergence, affinity, proximal, distal; apparently and equally, the only possible criteria for the sciences; the sciences, though appearing more complete than they are , with an extended amount of data accumulated, have not enough theoretical resources to seek to effect environmental change, or to conceive not to do so. If one trains himself, in his cognitive habits , to order things according to a catalogue of affinities, personal affinities, a second judgment for the pursuit of activities is easier to accomplish with a new criteria of appropriateness and inappropriateness of “my afinities” to both -e.g. to science pursuit and sociological description and analysis; and an awareness of this plausible combined application and similarities in basic nature. Natures’ Set In a more thorough analysis from the scientific-philosophical vantage point, one might refer to the dilemma introduced by Bertrand 14, of one to one correspondences, Russell¶s¶ paradox, language , and the property of belonging to itself, on the basic failure of applying language nomics mathematically, with set theory. If one assumes, in order to find a “concept of nature” that possess a singular basic uniqueness to it, a property of uniqueness, it follows that the set of all unique things, in order to define/create a theory, must be conceived as unique and belongs to belongs to itself. In following reflections, one might add to this “Natures¶ set” (I shall name A) properties or descriptions he believes should belong to it, (for example, the properties of transmission, emergence, force(of self avoidance/affinity/love), space, volume, energy (one might comprise a long list)), and then re-asks his question of self belonging, the following scheme is arrived at from a sample set(A 1) derived of this list.
Table 1: Sample Test for Self Belonging of Natures¶ Set and its¶ Members
A1= Natures¶ set = (uniqueness(A1), emergence(B1), self avoidance(C1))
Self belonging B1 =(unique things) true A set of unique things is unique
(i.e. the set of natural numbers is unique as each number is unique)
C1=(emerging things) false The possible choice¶s for emerging things is true or false.
If C is emerging (i.e. true) it¶s only possible (intuitive)direction is to false. 2 X N (N=the set of natural numbers) =N2 ( i.e. 0, 2,4 ,6 ,8 etc. might be defined as emerging but is also a member of N..N itself cannot emerge.
D1=self avoiding things false To fit a definition of self avoiding the set must have more than one member.
In this definition the existence of two unique members entails self avoidance,
separateness, uniqueness of the elements of the set . The existence of two unique members entails self avoidance, separateness, uniqueness of the elements of the set .
Thus the set A (nature¶s set) does not belong to itself. It is proposed that any set with a single predefined uniqueness characteristic, belonging to itself , on the addition of any criteria intuitively ascribed to nature, loses this feature and still remains unique: not belonging to itself, the added factor becoming a universally instantiatable fact of A.
I wish to draw attention to the arrangement, in the description of A, of true¶s and false¶s resulting from the criteria of judgment for self belonging. Emerging things entail unique things; in nature for uniqueness to exist in combination with any other characteristic, non-belonging is entailed. In example, a set of all open things can be open only (belong to itself) if standing alone, only. One might extrapolate by comparison, that the set of all open things is unique, is the same as the set of all unique things. With the addition of factors, employing the same analogy the resultant set, though unique, is similarly not a member of itself. One might intuitively extrapolate again that nature is the set of all real(empirically verifiable) unique things-belongs to itself when stated with this definition, and loses this property of self belonging if it is defined with added components. In the process of scientific investigation qualities related to realness are always, and necessarily, intuitively added. If one refers mathematically to dimension and the universal set of two(e.g. unique and empirically verifiable), the test for self belonging would contain a true in the uniqueness column(i.e. the set of unique and empirically verifiable objects is unique)and a false in the empirically verifiable column(i.e. the set all unique and empirically verifiable objects is empirically verifiable)…a true with respect to uniqueness and a false. Thus if one begins with the notion of a unique singular world the test always has one true and the remainder false. If one adds other factors….( these additions to a singular world set with three factors, viewed as the creation of a pseudo minimum complete set, with which to involve mathematics(geometry-dimension) and natural processes to the set containing uniqueness) …… related to processes (e.g. emergence, force of self avoidance, energy, mass etc.)-a complete set will always have only two members, will reduce to only two members as beyond this number each will entail the other-the pseudo(non complete) set, containing tools-scientific and mathematical ) that are added, but necessary, for the elaboration/labor towards the second element.
From this I wish to add a method of correspondence that may be applicable in all mathematically related analysis-whether in the social sciences or natural sciences, and might be best visualized from the example of linear coded DNA verses its¶ existence as a two dimensional entity. Considered linearly DNA is but a simple string and one might say that each of its¶ codons is also a linear dimension – extended from a single dimension e.g. a line. Information in biological systems, DNA, is an enigma with respect to its¶ origins-observed this way it is conceptualized this way, but is still, none-the-less, a two dimensional structure that may be thought of as an emergence. In the process of transforming trues and falses to pluses and minuses DNA can viewed from many angles to interpret from it data containing a plurality of pluses and minuses-e.g. direction of reading , information in RNA translations, the absence of deoxyuridine in it verses its¶ presence in RNA, etc.. A s a unique entity , it is positive with respect to belonging to itself in the uniqueness category of the set; as a string of bases, of letters, one might image a string of strings of letter –i.e. belongs to itself-is a string and produces a true testing pseudo set for self belonging (i.e. A= DNA=(unique, unique strings))and by the above criteria is a false testing candidate for a real natural set (pseudo set) considered this way; but we know DNA is also a two dimensional object -the set of two dimensional objects is not a two dimensional object. In this case, A= DNA=(unique, two dimensional) a viable pseudo set, and it might also be said that since unique and two dimensional entail each other that this is near to the simplest natures¶ real set that includes DNA, but does not include facts of codons and the emergence of proteins from them-says nothing scientifically about DNA. A real elaboration, then, if nature is considered unique and composed of uniques, cannot possess a line of lingual characters. A deeper insight must be had for the construction of a better set (i.e. one sided, open, and constructed of relations of the appropriate and inappropriate, transmissions, distances and angles 15) and that accounts for interpretations of functioning of itself and relations to cellular machinery. Otherwise, currently ontologies have no real foundation to support the experimental manipulation of the cell and its¶ components.
Consider, the n-dimensions of time space theory. A pseudo set? Can an empirically tested and valid world, as a set of two dimensional unique spaces accommodate added dimensions, but as a pseudo and not real universal set that is incompletely elaborated-falsely elaborated if it assumed non-emerging itself (i.e. true in a pseudo set test for self possession) . If assumed emerging the same true-true correspondence is obtained as in the example of DNA; and thus is neither emerging or non-emerging-e.g. not real in nature-ontologically sound.. In extrapolation from the DNA example it may be possible to predict that the misconception involves a real two dimensional object (a plausible deduction of correspondences from the logic employed to refute the assumed natural meaning of the existence of the genetic code ). It is proposed that there will be found, in all valid interpretation of nature , the same table with a plus and the remainder minuses; and second that, within mathematical constructions, this table can take the form, also, of a minus with the remainder pluses, if the universal set is constructed in such a way that the total numbers of members, N is related to the actual set Na: N=Na-1 - i.e. referral to uniqueness is not intentionally applied mathematically(i.e. a set of all but uniqueness); a functioning, viable pseudo set is more plausibly found, if found divided in the same ratio, + or - in ratio to , respectively, all –„s or +¶s within the most simple outline).
Consider a two dimensional plot (Fig 1) of ¨c 16 (c -the speed of light as a variable) verses 2¨c+¨v-light dispersed 360 degrees from moving (¨v) object. Consider the following scheme of +¶s and –„s with respect to x,y,z length (2¨c +¨v), height (c), width(c) respectively:
x= l (length)=¨v+2¨c is -(left of the origin v), y= h (height) ¨c is + , z=w (width) ¨c is + or - (-,+,+) or (-,+,-)
x=l (length)=¨v+2¨c is -(right of the origin v), y= h (height) ¨c is - , z= w (width) ¨c is + or - (-,-,+) or (-,-,-)
x= l (length)=¨v+2¨c is +(left of the origin v), y= h (height) ¨c is + , or (+,+,-)
x= l (length)=¨v+2¨c is +(left of the origin v), y= h (height) ¨c is ,+) or (+,-,-)
z= w (width) ¨c is + or -
- , z= w (width) ¨c is + or -
There are eight possibilities (last column) . All coordinates are unique, all possibilities are unique, but of special case with respect to this discussion are (+,+,+) and (-,-,-) . They imply that the construction is a poor fitting pseudo construction if a + cannot be found to com plement the string of –„s and a – to complement the string of +¶s. If the above theory is correct, as an example (+,+,+) and (-,-,-) may be identical, and thus the variables that generate them not really connected to the substance of the problem. In this case ¨v, ¨c are employed as variables of length with time considered to be the same value for each point. ¨c and ¨v are related from factors of energy translated in to trigonometry. Four aspects are considered.
1) The physical appearance of this plot appears competent to nearly match, fill, the space of a real egg. On this basis, on the basis of its¶ simplicity, is a pleasing candidate, on a theoretical correct path. It is composed of sets of all unique points (belongs to itself in the test for uniqueness, depicts the emergence of a volume/shape from a motion, that its¶ actual final form may closely resemble an (emerged) object of nature-i.e. is not emerging and hence not self belonging.
2) Absolute (real distances) are not always extracted as positive values with respect to the relations of ¨v and ¨c. ( a periodic net zero is obtained from the -,-,- and +,+ ,+ sets and is derived from sign values of associated trigonometric values of sins and cosines. The actual plot path is not connected point to point from one (above) set to the other.
3) A real description, less the analogy of 1) , but similarly relevant, may not involve the exact same sequential connection of dots to generate the same image, but maybe an oscillation(of more variable or different pluses and minuses, a reorientation of criteria in description that does not include the( +, +, +) or (-, -, -) sets. that is more figurative of non self possession. and a descriptive pseudo set which does not contain members that belong to themselves (i.e. a + quadrant could be construed is a member of the set of +¶s-self belonging etc.) .
4) A single one sidedness, that can be likened to the linear arrangement of DNA codons , intuitively implies a change of sign, in that its¶ outside and inside surfaces are the same. If this facet of biological life is not viewed as a general universal property(i.e. excluded in set enumeration, as a universally unique property of matter and uniqueness), conceptual models will fail to both maintain the demand for uniqueness and non-self belonging.
Each of these two examples, (in the physical and biological sciences) seem to be exemplary of the same frustration in attempting logical scientific constructions, compulsive objectivity and dependence on mathematics, a sublimation of needed lingual definition, including a category for the self, into a linear foundation of mathematical symbolisms that are fated to avert real nature. Not only does a viable gap between the two disciplines remained unbridged, each discipline, separately, is structured in an identical manner to the other, as if the missing connection were to be a matter to arise from further misguided penetration into a (circular) predefined, self belonging, uniqueness.
Conclusion
This representation of nature, natures¶ set, bears importance as all that is accomplishable, in the simplest form , is the closest analogy to the real . Other endeavors that do not resolve this way (time-space theories of multiple dimensions with unexplained pluralities, biological theories with a linear code/grammatical-syntax), might not be real(i.e. have any real meaning at all, do not resolve to unique - or do find self belonging from mathematics) may not be pertinent to our understanding of nature.
In claiming uniqueness as inclusively descriptive/interchangeable with the concept “nature”, discriminated qualities used in analysis-e.g. facts of self avoidance/affinity/love, emergence must also be applied to dichotomies between science and social science with the same corresponding meaning, so that a stable epistemological and ontological foundation can be attempted.
References
1) Situngkir, Hokky (2007) The Ribbon of Love: Fuzzy-Ruled Agents in Artificial Societies . Technical Report BFI Working Paper Series WPB2007, Computational Sociology, Bandung Fe Institute.
2) Situngkir, Hokky (2007) Computational Experiments with the Fuzzy Love and Romance . Technical Report BFI Working Paper Series WPH2007, Dept. Computational Sociology, Bandung Fe Institute.
3) Weber, B. Back to Basics, Nature 445, 601 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445601b; Published online 7 February 2007(book review)
4) Rosenberg, A.Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology, University of Chicago Press: 2006. 272 pp.
5) Knight, D. Kinds of Minds: Do differences in history, culture and education inf luence whether scientists focus on pieces and particulars, or make broad connections?, Nature 447, 149 (10 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/447149a; Published online 9 May 2007
6) Buchanan,M. The Best is Yet to Come, Nature 447, 39 (3 May 2007) | doi:10.1038/447039a; Published online 2 May 2007
7) Doyle, J. and Csete, M., Rules of Engagement Nature 446, 860 (19 April 2007) doi:10.1038/446860a: Published online 18 April 2007
8) Coleman, P. Nature 446, Frontier at Your Fingertips: Between the nano- and micrometre scales, the collective behaviour of matter can give rise to startling emergent properties that hint at the nexus between biology and physics, 379 (22 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/446379a; Published online 21 March 2007
9) McCann, K. Protecting Biostructure, Nature 446, 29 (1 March 2007) doi:10.1038/446029a: Published online 28 February 2007
10) Keller,E.F. A Clash of Two Cultures,Nature 445, 603 (8 February 2007) doi:10.1038/445603a: Published online 7 February 2007
11) Watts, D. J., A Twenty-first Century Science: If handled appropriately, data about Internet-based communication and interactivity could revolutionize our understanding of collective human behaviour, Nature 445, 489 (1 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445489a; Published online 31 January 2007
12) Goldenfeld, N., 1 and Woese, C., Biology's Next Revolution: The emerging picture of microbes as gene-swapping collectives demands a revision of such concepts as organism, species and evolution itself., Nature 445, 369 (25 January 2007) | doi:10.1038/445369a; Published online 24 January 2007
13) Goodsell, David S. The Machinery of Life. Springer-Verlag, 1994. Exceptional line drawings show the depth and complexity of crucial biochemical structures in living cells.
14) Russell, Bertrand, Whitehead, Alfred North, Principia M athematica , second edition Cambridge University Press 1962
15) Kirsh M .E., Form generates Form: Time as a Second Order Oscillation From Indesision Between Heisenberg Uncertainty and Einstein Legality2007 (currently in review- Ludus Vitalis) |
|