UNIQUENESS SELF-BELONGING AND INTERCOURSE IN NATURE
Marvin E. Kirsh 1
Los Angeles California
Kirsh2152000@yahoo.com
1 California State University Los Angeles \ Department of Anthropology
keywords, uniqueness, self belonging, universal from, DNA, universe
Abstract
The world is discussed and framed so that it does not evolve divisions alike the conceptual division between Special and General Relativity in which emerged divides are suggested to be parallel to and emerged from paradoxes of mind-matter, the self and nature. Of all of the potential properties of the unique Universe, emergence, affinity, self avoidance , etc., self belonging is never a characteristic of unique and energy metabolizing spaces/entities. A list of sets of unique things can contain itself. It is suggested that in descriptions of nature only sets of unique concepts can contain themselves. The list of self belonging things involves only the conceptual and unique in contrast to the physical scientific object; the list of non self belonging things is necessarily a list of the physical, though all physical entities are also, as in the conceptual, unique with respect to exact identity in time and space. Ontological classification, a concept - i.e. the set of validly applied concepts with respect to the physical is argued to also be unique. The world in this model, divided into the self belonging and the non-self belonging, composed totally of uniquenesses is proposed to entail a physical and conceptual form as an egg shape derived from an equation; more generally any rendition that generates volume from a linear path and renders a one to one correspondence of the physical to the conceptual. A paper experiment scheme that tests creativity for the ability to construct proper topics/and object categories for research endeavors is elucidated, as Natures' set, as a guide in experimental pursuits. Creativity to identify a unique object form that is instantiatable both conceptually and physically to nature or its' subsets can be applied to guide research pursuits. Universal uniqueness and self belonging in systems is proposed to occur only when the form of the conceptual and form of the physical become interchangeable. It is witnessed pronouncedly in the presented sample of an intraspecies capacity to alternate between live birth and egg laying as a means of reproduction. The paradox rendering entity, the egg shape. The egg shape is transposed as the ubiquitous and central facet of the system.
Introduction
Love, avoidance, liking, thoughts of beauty, ugliness, sexual attraction are some of the categories that might be affirmed as belonging to the set of relations called affinities. An outline of all of the influencing elements belonging to each of these terms becomes very difficult from notions of concepts and particulars (1, 2) . 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 but 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 accessible but their origin and history is difficult to tabulate. In this respect, this presentation is devised to focus on the normally conducted projections and extensions of notions in ordinary investigation to these ends. The word “affinity” in ordinary usage, instantiatable to topics in both the social sciences and natural sciences bears a transverse temporal quality that is relatable from a first person perspective but has no fitting universal role in broad perspective with which to understand natural emergence
In discussions of emergence (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) the first perceived task is to create an order to events and to proceed to attempt to find a uniting principle which 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 divide generally emerges, leading to a dependency on complex mathematical analysis, statistical analysis, and applied physical law of the same conceptually divided origin. In order to find predictable trends and what might modulate them, the inclination for excess mathematical modeling is reduced with the elimination of searches for seeds in chains of cause and effect, and to sublimate their existence to a common possessed nature of affinity between all elements of a system. It seems logical to define affinity as basic and universally applicable, to both all experience and all that is unwitnessible, as the motive force of all emergence in treatments of either the sociological of scientific in order to create an infinitely more powerful perspective on mankind, life and nature. Instrumental elements responsible for circular reasoning, false scientific constructs and frustration in pursuits might be resolved and applied.
Enzymatic action in metabolism can be dissected as a matter of not only environment , proximity, but a fitting of physical structures based on forces related to proximity. The functioning of DNA , composed of a simple physical code (12) is also based on affinities for correct mating, not only can replicate itself, undergo mutagenesis, but in a similar manner based on an inherited heterogeneity in structure, 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. It is classified in terms of work functions in the physical sciences. In facets of daily events , affinity is assumed as a temporally transverse quality in which an incomplete rather than a whole series of events is considered by the intellect . In an attempt to bridge the social and natural sciences, put to question is the necessity, assumed in the natural sciences, to describe a whoe series of events in order to find a satisfactory elucidation of nature for scientific purposes. Social affinity, set aside in a mask of objectivity because from its' perspective it has not been possible to accommodate the more longitudinal, less transient aspects of emergence in a manner that includes it. Hence renditions of nature , disappointingly not avoiding, it have become the opposite, centered around it. Evolved from this situation are complex interpretations oriented towards problems of biological identity, genetics, a metaphysics of identity ridden with paradox in which the whole conceptual longitudinal progression of time is corrupted with penetration by transverse elements that are construed from ideations filled with notions of affinity and devoid of lesser understood notions of emergence.
In the course of scientific pursuit it may be discovered “I am sure surprised that all these elements of the cell work this way, by fitting together”; a beauty arrives to it from which explanation becomes more simple until exceptions are found. A parallel between sociological affinities and affinities as enzymatic or mating DNA structures according to their cellular roles might be drawn, but still appear inappropriate and unfitting within the demands for analytical accuracy of the natural sciences. If sociologists 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, not accounting for physical functioning appear hardly dividable that way. owever A more viable bridge is attained from a perspective relating either as “emerged affinities” within a state that is assumed to be chronically and perpetually heterogeneous in nature.
Affinity and fitting, innate to all aspects of the natural world thus do not explain it though
Affinity, as the conceptual component of emergence, motive force, appears to be universal. In order to construct a total concept from the products of observation as transient, transverse views of temporal processes, description needs to be made exactly longitudinal in nature, to exclude the temporarily transverse less understanding suffer a case of penetration with misunderstanding that renders lines and strings (of information-i.e. DNA) instead of whole volumes. A life form built physically of strings of information may be conjectured not to exist and it might be proposed that mankind is actively, with a misapplied affinity for the line rather than the whole volume, filling his own occupied volumes of space similarly, with a thinness found from experimental proceeds derived from incomplete and simpler than real conceptualizations.
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' and predictability assumed. Sociologically we have a vast body of topics and data statistically treated to reveal what the trends are in the affinities and dislikes of individuals. The natural sciences, though appearing more complete, with an extended amount of data fitting theory accumulated, have not enough theoretical resources to seek to effect environmental changes that are proposed or maybe to conceive not to do so. A non elucidated, expanding rather than thinning natural ethic is implicated to exist (13).
From a mathematical-philosophical vantage point, the dilemma introduced by Bertrand Russell (14) of one to one correspondences, Russell‟s‟ paradox, language , and the property of self belonging of sets, on the basic failure of applying language nomics mathematically with set theory might serve as a foundation for reconstruction. If one assumes, in order to find a “concept of nature” that possess a singular basic property of uniqueness, it follows that the universal set of concepts as well as the universal set of particular objects , in order to create a theory, must be conceived as unique and self belonging.
In following reflections one might add to the set “Natures‟ set” properties or descriptions he believes should belong to it (for example, the properties of transmission, emergence, force(of self avoidance)', affinity, space, volume, energy; one might comprise a long list) and then re-ask his question of self belonging; the following scheme is arrived at from a sample set (A1) 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))
Test=Self belonging ? (true or false)
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 choices for emerging things is true or
. false
If C1 is emerging (i.e. true) its’ only possible (intuitive) direction to include its’ original identity is to false (emergence of an emerging characteristic implies assuming a new identity) i.e. 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 a set
must have more than one member, each avoiding, by virtue of a force upon each other. In this definition the existence of two unique members entails self avoidance, separateness, uniqueness of the elements of the set, a singular unique set and cannot avoid itself.
The set A (nature‟s set) does not belong to itself.(i.e. contains falses in the test for self belonging) The set of unique emerging self avoiding entities though unique, is not emerging and is self avoiding. It is proposed that any set with a single predefined uniqueness characteristic that belongings to itself , on the addition of any criteria intuitively ascribed to nature, loses this feature and still remains unique but not belonging to itself; the single unique self-belonging factor becomes a universally instantiatable fact to all other members.
In the arrangement, in the description of A, of the trues and falses resulting from the criteria of judgment for self belonging, emerging things or self avoiding things entail unique things in nature for uniqueness to exist, uniqueness in combination with any other characteristic entails non-self-belonging. For example, though openness may imply other qualities when nature is considered, the set of all open things can be open only (belongs to itself) if standing alone without further descriptive criteria. Similarly any similar structured with the same criteria and test results for self belonging should behave the same way as closed set of open spaces regardless of how its members are designated. An volume the size of a cell, if containable to this elaboration, might not be held to be distinct from the entire universe. This is not meant to be confused with the notion that the universe is open but that the perception and concept of an open universe emanates from the conception of endless volume. It is logical to define the universe not only with respect to a closed set of open volumes, but with respect to a determined shape or form to represent these volumes; it is logical that a parallel to open-closed, concept-object, exists as a form in concept and as an object in nature.
One might extrapolate that nature is the set of all real (empirically verifiable) unique things in which the quality of uniqueness alone does not reflexively lend the quality of species identity; the addition of qualities of emergence, affinity (or self avoidance) results in the conceptual emergence of individual particulars and the acquisition of the quality of individual identity, the loss of self belonging and the acquisition of identity, though an instantiatable form, that is both conceptual and physical can serve as template that is instantiatable as either a concept or entity if nature is taken in definition, both in part and in whole as a heterogeneous space filled with heterogeneous spaces.
In the process of scientific investigation qualities related to realness are always, and necessarily, as they originate perceptually, included intuitively in concepts. However resultant theory constructions can evolve to exceed a quality of perceptual realness. This is the direct consequence of an initial failure to consider and define a restricted whole universal set in topics. Instead, if creativity is focused away from logical detail as it relates to cause and effect, to conceive form in terms of the shape of objects, a different structure and concept of topics evolves that captures in an enclosed fashion to closed sets a better and more valid, more handleable view for penetrations that lend an open route for discovery.
Consider the universal set of the unique and empirically verifiable:
Natures set = [uniqueness, empirically verifyable]
The test for self belonging to this set yields a true for uniqueness-i.e. the set or any subset of the set of all unique things is unique. The set of empirically verifiable objects is also unique-uniqueness is instantiatable to all members of the set. Is the set empirically verifiable self belonging? –i.e.-can all empirically verifiable objects be empirically verified? Intuitively it can be suggested that it is impossible to test everything that exists, even though by definition all entities involved must be empirically verifiable. This paradox might be resolved with the suggestion that if it is postulated that if all empirically verifiable objects are empirically verifiable that a fixed perspective is entailed to exist with the named frame of reference ‘position of witness. It might also be postulate that at a given point in time no such frame of reference exists, and to ask whether it is possible over any time interval to catalogue/verify all that is verifiable. There are several facts to consider with respect to this question and to ask:
Is it intuitively sound to speculate that there are universally more verifying than verifiable instances?
If so it can be argued that here are not enough agents to verify all that exists. If the universe is assumed as a random statistical order, and one assumes that that at any perspective there is at least one witnessible and one unwitnessible instance, one might assume that over many instances all events would become witnessed or witnessible. If one assumes that the universe is not a randomly ordered statistical entity, but is composed of heterogeneous egg shaped units that are similarly contained in the same, that at least the containing unit is beyond witness at all perspectives and is not empirically verifiable-i.e. all of space is not empirically verifiable. In a similar fashion if each unit is argues as above to validly represent all of (egg shaped) space, then at any perspective any unit is not verifiable from within; empirical verifiability tests false for self belonging. Natures set [uniqueness, empirically verifiability] is a valid natures’ set, yet is not empirically verifiable. It might, in researches, seem plausible to maintain that it would make no difference whether a system is physically accessible, or previously and not currently existing for test, as to whether theory and results can be verified in all instances; the employment of this model, by its’ description and treatment of uniqueness entails all instances when data can be fit to a single instance.
One can also ask whether the number of witnessable entities could be finite. In a closed space this might feasibly be conceived, but one has to consider the volume of the universe open. If one precludes the possibility of an empty space, one without entities, an open parameter of, heterogeneous in nature, volumes (i.e. infinite) must possess, if all parts, from the infinitesimal to the grand are also heterogeneous , an infinite number of witnessable, heterogeneous, entities if all locations are denoted as heterogeneous and egg shaped. . The assumption of definable parametric volume is contingent on witness relations between witnesses that are categorically emerging with time possibly with respect to volume. It would have to be concluded that the ‘witnessible objects’ emerges with time with respect to either number or volume or both.
Consider the set:
Set(heterogeneous objects)= [heterogeneous objects in a measurable volume, emerging things, number of witnessible heterogeneous objects in that volume]
The set member heterogeneous objects in a measured volume is unique , self belonging and is instantiatable throughout the set. To test individual members for self belonging
Is the set “Number of witnessible heterogeneous objects in a volume” the same as itself?-i.e. a number of witnessible objects, does it have the property of being a number of witnessible objects?–is not as a concept a witnessible amount =false-as the ‘numbers’ of witnessible objects in a designated witnessible volume one might state as discussed above that no singleperspective exists with which all (heterogeneous) volumes contained within the volume are witnessible and one can ask if this condition is still valid if a fixed number of objects is contained in a witnessed volume? The egg shape is witnessible only as a physical element of nature, yet it seems reasonable to suggest that the number of conceptual egg shapes is equal to the number of physical egg shapes in the volume and it possible to suggest a universal set that is self belonging for all members
[heterogeneous egg shapes, number of (egg shaped) volumes]
Number of egg shaped volumes =1
If emerging things is added as a condition, the number 1 can not be considered as emerging , only the number of distinct heterogeneous egg shapes can tenibly consider as emerging. A volume though is also a non emerging entity when considered as a shape and potentially emerging as size. If volume and number are equated, number (of interfaces that delineate unique heterogeneities) is then made to emerge. It would make sense that a heterogenous volume composed strictly of heterogenous volumes has a number of volumes that must add to the total volume as rule for all subsets, that volume can emerge parametrically only if number emerges parametrically similarly, as volume can imply the existence of number to natures set.. As a test, consider the instantiation of a homogeneity in natures set, other than shape, number:
Natures set A=[number (a value for the number) of heteogeneous entities, self avoidance, emergence]
In the test for self belonging and uniqueness of the instantiatable element (i.e number of heterogeneous entities) number can be made to be self belonging only if it exists as a concept-i.e. a the property number of elements exists as unique feature of the set as a concept. Instantiation to other members entails a number for the property of self avoiding things as well as for emerging things. In testing for self belonging, self avoiding things have as a qualification a lower limit of at least two (entities) or to imply that ‘uniqueness’ can also be self avoiding, emerging things a positive integer value of at least 1.
In the test of set member (self avoiding) for self belonging, the existence of a single one unique self avoiding thing (precluding its own existence) makes it impossible to instantiate the quality of number as it yields no universal test for self avoidance Emerging things, if assigned a parametric value to any member of the set is also un testable for self belonging as the number zero (if zero is considered to exist in nature) is untestable in the test for self belonging of emergence; emergence entails the transit from one state to another and cannot be given as zero. Thus the existence of parametric value is not instantiatable to all set members in the test for self belonging; it appears to be capable only to exist as a single member set as the number (quality) of the quality of number which exists as a unique parameter of ‘one’=1.’ One’ would have to be viewable as both quality (=’one’) and number(=1) and treated equally in each case as a quality for the set to be self belonging. In this respect the egg shape can be viewed ot exist only as a singly existing unique entity=’one’ or 1 in order to employ it to instantiate it through natures’ set.
Thus number, of egg shaped entities cannot be included in natures set and to retain meaning. The same must be true for a parametric value of volume. If it is attempted to specify number and/ volume together no other value maybe referred to but the quality of ‘one’ =1, though,’one’ can also refer to the set of numbers. The volume of each subset times the number of subsets in natures set might be construed to refer itself to the set of numbers if a proportion as unity can be construed to exists between volume and number-i.e volume/number =1=’one’ Therefore if a non zero and emerging volume is entailed to any component it can be meant to mean also a non zero and emerging number. Similarly if temperature for instance is entailed, it can be meant to mean a non zero and emerging temperature. The number of (unique) system states might be similarly viewed to emerge simultaneously in number with any (emerging) parameter of the system. This condition for the existence of life, hence space as self generating, entails the concept of a line, in example the set of numbers, and the entity of volume from which it is expanded, not only but such that the unique points on the line correspond with planes that define the surface of the volume such that the line and plane are interchangeable with one another as a qualitative value=’one’=1, is self belonging, (i.e.-a quality), to produce a volume (line *plane)= 1*1=1=’one’ that can be given as member of the set of numbers only on the condition that a form (e.g. egg constructed by this definition) has both conceptual and physical meaning.
It has to be concluded that this is the means of the being of the universe and can be no differently described from any perspective,, all else in description becomes redundant-i.e. total description of the universe is the set of unique and witnessed objects, or the closed set of open, non empty spaces. The postulation of empty spaces (i.e. the vacuum in the theory of relativity (16) might be supposed to be a consequence of reasoning to create objectivity for scientific definition. One cannot suppose though , as this view entails, (if one supposes the process of self avoidance to cause volume that an entity can be self avoiding to create space of itself to simultaneously effect its occupied space to be both within and beyond itself and to also possess verifiability) that conjectured exception, given in elaborated theory as a general case for the empirical world as the untestable element of its basic construction and to abandon logic in order to simultaneously account for the physical characteristics of existence with the simultaneous contrivance of both logical explanation and a vacuum in order to put concepts of simultaneity to mathematics, that the world is not illogical. It is left only to define the world as uniquely illogical, but that it is logical to expect that course and path which apriorily entail uniqueness must have logical definition in scientific pursuits. It becomes easy to conclude that the property of course/path, possessing logic interpretation, is the property uniqueness and identity, and that it renders an illogic if the whole universe and not it’s parts are considered. The property of path is also suggestive of the property of thought, memory, alludes to the string shape of DNA which might be conjectured to represent memory as a physical path that is the product of energy matter conversion, definable from the fast path of a radiation made to material existence. It must become the incentive of science not to attempt to construct whole conceptual enumerations of processes. As the course of daily experience exposes the individual to both logic and illogic it is necessary to consider that scholarship not only involves the course of things but the course of things pertinent to mankind, to witness; to consider not to construct notions that exceed this in quality as they necessarily surface in enumerations if not ultimately to strip them of logic. Not all of the events in ordinary experience are readable to logical understanding, are not reflexively expected to less one wishes to occupy his time pursuing witnessable evidence for concepts of low priority to survival that may exceed divisions established from survival learning. A desperation or greed similar to the slow loss of auxiliary brain function upon injury or starvation in order to preserve in the case when total functioning is threatened or lost would have to be claimed Thus, as in the course of decay of function upon injury, the ultimate serendipitous result for scientific pursuits is in the direction of a restoration of function rather than depletion of resources under conditions where directions and priorities are concealed and abstraction into the realms of the illogic can be pursued. It might be asked if adherence to illogically inclined abstraction in thinking habit cannot ubiquitously effect a conceptual if not ultimately medical blindness’s to causative environmental troubles. It is in this light, that an alternate perspective is offered in which description is given with respect to contained sets and the characteristics/qualities of members.
Consider the described Natures set again. Can it be applied without an absolute hierarchy, in the presence of blindness to whole totals? i.e. in any frame of reference, with appropriately labored topics, with a category that reflects uniqueness in quality as the primary descriptor at the top of the scheme, followed by qualities reflecting emergence, self avoidance etc. Can a test be found to yield positive paths of research efforts that reflect survival needs reflected from creatively constructed sets that reflect the universal set, to exclude simultaneously illogical abstraction at the same time with consideration to test the only set member that test true for self possession , in pursuit of that same and other elements in the test for the original asymmetry of trues and falses, rendering instead of empty abstracted corners an open trail of pursuits?
It is suggested that in the test for self belonging in all pursuits regardless of initial criteria, rather than the stated and easily construed quality of uniqueness, that any characteristic can be found and tested to it, or a new one made/invented that is instantiatable to the remaining elements . One can initially name this ‘pseudo’ set as the maximum incomplete set with the goal to demonstrate an element that bridges the conceptual and physical as if the world were constructed like a department store of square corners that are delineated uniquely in each department packed with goods into a building built of cubic blocks, the cube as both a geometrical form as a conceptual form and a material physical volume, a cube with specified contents that is instatiatable throughout. As a concept it can be made to be self belonging as the set ‘cubic set of cubes’, a cubic shaped lattice of cubes and as a physical element, the cubic volume.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Example
Consider the egg shape and egg. From a perspective of evolution and speciation it has recently been reported that subspecies of snakes (14) are dividable into either those that produce live births and those that are egg laying. This is a conflicting result as the physiological requirements for the two paths of reproduction are very different, yet are present in the same species. In order to restructure perceptions of evolution to account for this phenomenon, to test understanding, it is tenable to frame the topic of evolution with the term egg so that processes involving eggs and not the conceptual arrangement of the species in theories of evolution become both conceptual and physical structure. In the process of instantiating intercourse with eggs to all set members, a way might be found to incorporate species emergence that is headed with the delineator ‘ egg’ . If investigation also entails the laws of nature, as it must, intercourse ( as an adjective for natural relations) with eggs might suffice to encompass description. In this case a sacrifice to inquisition is made with respect to the quality of heterogeneity in which description ensues with the assumption of its’ (a heterogeneous egg’s) universal existence-a description in which logical rendition becomes second in priority to the artistic. The potential universal existence of illogic need not be excluded from the outset.
First, consider the set:
EGG[A, B,C]=
[Entities that have intercourse with eggs, Species (Egg), Type of birth (live or egg laying)].
To make entities that have intercourse with eggs test true for self belonging, eggs can be taken as both a conceptual shape and physical form, defined adjectively as that that has intercourse with eggs and divided according to the conceptual and physical that it possessed by it’s notion.
As a maximum complete set:
Universe(complete)=[unique and self belonging, unique self avoiding and non belonging, unique emerging and non self belonging, ….etc]
The set under test:
SPECIES [B,C]= [Evolution, Members of species, Type of birth]
As a maximum incomplete (complete?) set
Universe (incomplete?)=[intercoursing eggs -unique and self belonging, intercoursing physical eggs- unique self avoiding, and non self belonging, intercoursing eggs, unique, emerging and non self belonging)
In the test of set SPECIES [B,C] for self belonging, the set member ‘Members of the species’ is not a member of the species, and type of birth does not belong to itself as it is not a type of birth. Questions about evolution, as the top set member, with respect to self belonging and uniqueness are more difficult. Evolution maybe unique, but there are certainly many examples of parallel evolution, convergent evolution, return to preexisting traits, expression of developmental traits in some species as overt characteristics in others. As a unique tree like process , calling evolution unique is suspect to speculation. Evolution, as a set concept that contains itself in the same manner that the set of unique things is a unique thing, is difficult to conceive. It is this notion, of an evolved evolution of life that refers to concepts that in addition entail instances and particulars as necessary components and lead to abstractions about a beginning event, i.e. ”the birth of the universe,big bang’ which modernly assumes the assembly of matter from energy, preexisting particles evolved to form the atom, molecules and subsequently life. Evolution is more likely represented ubiquitously as the descriptive set member ‘emergence’, not emerging, it does not belong to itself. The set member ‘Evolution ‘ is not suited as a top category in classifications.
As a test, considering the set EGG(ABC), to arrive at Species as the second member the characteristic of having intercourse with eggs should instantiate to all set categories to make a pseudo complete set in which uniqueness is an instantiated member of the whole set; the construction a logical account of ‘intercourse with eggs’ as a basic principle for scientific investigation purposes entails the instantiation of ‘intercoursing eggs’ to all set members . Human sexual intercourse , the sexual intercourse of mammals, any actions resulting in reproduction and propagation of a species needs to entail a mating of eggs (individuals/entities) to produce more eggs (individuals/entities). The set member ‘unique’ becomes replaced by ‘intercourse with eggs,eggs, ’ emergence/and evolution replaced with birth (i.e. the process of egg laying verses live birth), self avoidance with natural laws that describe force, energy, mass, etc. The set members, species/individuals within a species, becomes equivalent with “Egg”. Whether one investigates live delivery or egg laying as a means of reproduction one must be able to account for all aspects as the intercourse of eggs. To do this one must be able to build natural law, around the interactions of eggs, not only, but needs to redefine what can be construed as an egg from what is construed as a live birth or layed egg, both means of reproduction as the heterogeneous product of mating ,fertilization and embryogenesis to produce viable organisms. Intuitively there are two important factors involved, the actual egg shape and the physical heterogeneity of eggs such that they can describe organisms that are heterogeneous. At the outset, the contrast of an abstracted geometrical form with a tangible facet of living processes, an abstraction as an ( instantiatable) tangible mass, a noun, is contradictory with the initial premise of the universal adjective “intercoursing egg “ that produces intercoursing eggs” ; explanation might not tolerate an undefined heterogeneity; i.e. the “ egg” referred to as a pure indivisible entity qualified by the adjective ‘intercoursing’, though it cannot be said what the (unwitnessible) shape of space is, space can be defined not only as egg shaped, but the egg shape of space given the quality of intercourse. It is not so difficult to conceive of space as intercoursing in which energy processes are envisioned to be the result of interactions, penetrations of proximal spaces, proximal heterogeneous egg shaped spaces such that the heterogeneity of spaces. An egg shape need not be a solid structure as one envisions eggs, but as discussed, if the possibility of empty space, the vacuum is excluded, an instantiatable conjecture remains to test the universe may be constructed of intercoursing egg shaped volumes, each of which, in order to conceive of a chain of cause and effect, has the quality of uniqueness and the quantitative property of force to penetrate other egg shaped spaces to birth the same.. From this perspective/ a open view of nature, a precipice is possible that differs exceptionally from standard notions; accounting for a ubiquitous heterogeneity in structure of all spaces; elaboration of the mechanics for the existence of heterogeneity is not necessary, it is born in as a rudimentary element, though its existence is intellectually perplexing and seductive, but as argued above , explanation in terms of sequences of cause and effect entailing beginning births, consistently result in logical contradictions and testable abstracted concepts that ultimately refer to all witnessing location-less /spaces.. It is the inappropriate intermixing of adjective and noun that results in the conception of irresolvable paradox that renders the struggle to resolve that which is innately illogical with mathematics; in the search to resolve witnessed heterogeneity, as in the case above of brain dysfunction, positive witness perspective might not be compromised to cause the pursuit of courses that result in premature death. The heterogeneous egg shaped space is conceptually no different in any parts of the problem.
Intuitively the new set does not seem to be distinct from natures set , and might be use to replace it. It might also be argued that it is itself a maximum complete set:
Complete set = [uniqueness or intercoursing egg shapes, species or egg, live verses egg laying birth] .
It might be extrapolated that any set possessing a descriptive element that can be determined common to all elements in a set not only always comprises a complete workable natural set, will test true for self belonging and loses this feature when the figurative/conceptual is substituted with the literal. If, on the other hand “intercoursing eggs” is not instantiatable ; i.e. the world is not normally thought to be composed in total of intercoursing eggs , speciation (species classification) would have to be deleted, no longer belonging to natures set to result in:
Set=[uniqueness, intercoursing living eggs, live verses egg laying birth]
As the maximum incomplete set:
Maximum incomplete set =[intercoursing living eggs, live verses egg laying birth, and natural law, a physical mechanism to differentiate the physiology and biochemistry of live verses egg laying birth-e.g. a body of coherent data resulting from a course of investigation to support a mechanism for species members or distinct subspecies to accommodate either type of birth].
By necessity a mechanism of alternative of live verse egg laying birth cannot involve a concept of speciation as an adjective for explanation , but only to claim exception for special cases, and retaining an unaltered general notion that looms and is continually maintained. In analogy with the discussed problems in the theory of relativity, general notions hold an ever present vacuum with the capacity to conceptually absorb whatever cannot be accounted for, and very efficiently provide motivation and impetus for the wasting of economic and scholastic resources to find explanation from a potentially open seeming but perhaps infinite time scale of pursuit. In this case It might not be surprising to find future convention that defines the volume of a vacuum, by necessity, as either finite or infinite with unsoundly reasoned qualifications based on application that is specific to the conditions for the definition of either constants or the aether, respectively; neither qualification admitting to the claim of a fixed point of reference to all locations or to the existence of an illogical universe.
The relationship of this model to best viable choices for experimental pursuit, relations within it, the challenge is always to find an instantiatable self belonging uniqueness as a feature with which to build question and pursuit; to place it in the highest category; reliance is more on imagination, than physical logic, to mirror whole perceptions such that experiment together with nature, can be unequivocally delineated from experiment to it.
DNA
A valid set test always has one true and the remainder false. If one adds other factors with which to involve mathematics (geometry-dimension-volume), understanding of natural processes to the set containing uniqueness (e.g. emergence, force of self avoidance or affinity, energy, mass etc.)-a complete set will reduce to only two members, beyond this number each will entail the other-
Natures’ set = [uniqueness,affinity]
extends across the divide from the natural sciences to the social sciences.
Natures set (biological sciences) = [eggs intercoursing with eggs, affinity(or force)]
Natures’ set physical sciences = [egg shaped space, affinity (or force]
In the example of linear coded DNA verses its‟ existence as a two dimensional entity, consider linearly structured DNA as a simple string, 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. DNA is none-the-less, a two dimensional emerged structure.. In can be viewed in the test processes of pluses and minuses from many angles to interpret from it a plurality of data - e.g. direction of reading , information in RNA translations, the absence of deoxyuridine, etc.. In the table of trues an falses in natures set, viewed as a linear code , it is positive with respect to uniqueness and self belonging:
Natures set [DNA or information strings] = [ information string, codons, proteins as strings of amno acids]
as a physical entity it tests false; Natures set (DNA) as given it is not valid as a natures set. A top heading is absent, if DNA is given as the information a string how does it instantiate to RNA? Consider the following two examples:
Natures set (DNA)= [information string or genetic code, gene sequence for enzyme A, amino acid sequence for enzyme A]
“Information string” (as unique and self belonging) is instantiatable throughout the set, gene sequence and amino acid sequence are information strings, neither a gene sequence for enzyme A nor an amino acid sequence for enzyme A are self belonging. Natures set (DNA), above tests valid as a Natures’ set.
If attempts are made to add a physical feature to natures set (DNA):
Natures set (DNA physical feature) = [Information string, physical feature (i.e. quadruped, egg laying)]
though DNA as an information string is self belonging and unique it is instantiatable only to physical features. that exist physically as linear strings(e.g. proteins,carbohydrates .and is not instantiatrable to. the set of quadrupeds or egg layers, the set of physical information strings is not quadruped or egg laying, both DNA and RNA are information strings but DNA is not RNA or protein , though any of these features may be conceived to belong to natures set, to be connected both conceptually and physically and are not self belonging.. There is a contradiction.
The set Nature(DNA physical feature) is described has a unique self belonging member in its’ highest category, and non self belonging in all of its’ other members but the quality of information string seems hardly applicable to instantiate to physical characteristics. Though the inheritance of physical characteristics might be viewed as string like, the notion, the description ‘physical characteristic’ implies physical proximity and the notion of inheritance implies temporal proximity. In order to connect the two it must be claimed that DNA, as a string of information is a string of temporal information that might be viewed as system states in analogy to descriptions of emergence in the physical sciences, each set of information temporally proceeding to and preceding from defined physical characteristics. The number of physical qualities far exceeds the number of DNA bases and codons; it might be claimed a connection of temporally transmitted information in strings is non verifiable; though the combination [number of validly sorted physical characteristics verses the extent of heterogeneity of volumes] emerge together as a unit . This might also prove true in some manner for the numbers of DNA/RNA and protein species and their basic physical heterogeneity.. the connection between physical trait and the characteristics of macromolecular genetic information remains more nebulous. It is most likely the case that the potential for diversity is strictly a matter of temporal propagation and proximity of a unit heterogeneity that is common in descent in all intercourses, and is both a conceptual form and physical property, literal and figurative that is self generated, self propagated and characteristics of to all intercoursing volumes, (see above discussion of emergence in number of spaces/entities). DNA viewed as a temporal string , might not be envisioned to belong to itself any more than time as possessing time and cannot be instantiated as a characteristic quality to sets of physical species. DNA as a string of information might not be viewed in any manner as a viable member of a Natures set that includes witnessible features. As a linear surface, the template role of DNA is most likely pertinent with respect to physical volumes that emerge in correspondence with linear sequence, as an inflated string; emerge from’ information that is strictly conceptual in nature. It may be viewed best as an example of a notion of a physical and temporally inherited conceptually defined heterogeneity whose relation to phenotypic traits, trait number, diversity and complexity, the energetic occupation of volume by life processes is not precisely sorted. At its’ core, the concept of molecular genetic processes, mistaken in topic as an example of information processing, as qualitative in description, is a quantitative enumeration of the quality of affinity, itself possessing no temporal nature but a transverse, more to the present, relation of (emerged) proximities that modulate forces of attraction. Though providing a better understanding of humanity and inheritance ,as a universal instantiatable element, the concept of DNA as a source of relevant information to be applied scientifically to the practical facets of survival and world planning, is strictly the consequence of unresolved conceptual paradox. It can be conjectured that investigation must be guided by whole perceivable to unaided witness, and reflectively sorted characteristics employing the criteria elucidated for Natures set.
The egg
Figure 1 shows a plot from an equation involving sines and cosines that yields a replica of an egg. On inspection one might consider that it reflects a naturally found egg. Its’ surface is constructed from a line
(2 cos (θ) +sin θ) ); at each point along the line a value for 2 cos(Ф) is calculated to form the surface. Cos(θ) is meant to represent a distance corresponding to the change in the velocity of light to yield mass in a gravitational field , sin(θ) the velocity of motion of a mass from which radiation is emitted; from the equation:
Energy / Mass = Δ Velocity (of a mass)^2/2 + Δ Velocity (of light) ^2
Figure 1 Mathematical representation of an egg
This equation depicts a plot path that renders a surface generated from a line and resembles an egg. In natures set it is a 2-Dimensional structure from a line and may be viewed to be no more than a series of points, string of information. The egg produced is of a physical verses temporal nature, as a conceptual surface and not a string it can be inserted as a universal into natures set. The egg form itself, existing either transparently or apparently involves (temporally) longitudinal and transverse description as the potential shape of volumes of space and the shape of eggs. It is possible that the folded shape of DNA is suitable, in direct analogy, as a similar universal that it may fit enumeration with the same kind of equation or relation, or is egg shaped.
The final product of an egg shape from this equation, very symmetrical, may be only a net product and says nothing about its’ course of emergence; though a familiarly existing egg shape is generated, the layout and proximity of plot points reflect only affinities/forces that may exist in real spaces, in potential analytical application need to sorted accordingly as either transverse temporal sections that maybe lesser in conceptual hierarchy than the more far reaching longitudinal in nature. However it is conjecturable that strictly and universally , without exception, the existence of a whole account will be definable to any witnessible instance employing this scheme. A mathematically rendered reverse path from actual form in nature to the mathematical logic of assembly created from imagination is not reflected to exist; an illogical universe that embodies logic at the first perspective sometimes and not at others, some logics more enduring temporarily than others, renders mathematically generated models themselves illogical as representations that strictly result with directly witnessible physical meaning , though a description of space composed of a temporally rendered plane from a temporally rendered line (slow motion along a line and planar fast radiation from it ), to depict motion/change, render form seems logically suitable as a valid standard assumption, schematic guide for the sorting of the layout of entities under study, advance planning of experimental questions and appropriate lines to yield more applicable volumes harvested of pursuits.
,
.