Prev: Why does the L-function converge absolutely for Re(s) > 3/2?
Next: Is a gram a unit of measure of pressure?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 1 Aug 2010 12:51


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

>
> It is never repugnant to give a precision definition of something--
> anything and raise it out
> of the quagmire of obfuscation. It is never repugnant to have well
> defined concepts. What is
> repugnant is to leave ill-defined objects and concepts laying about.
> It is repugnant that everyone has their own self prescribed definition
> that they make up in their minds what finite number versus infinite
> number means. And to expect all these self
> prescribed definitions to chime in harmony when asked on a survey.
>
>
> > Is the concept of the Metagalactic Scale "atom" undergoing a
> > catastrophic nuclear decay event causing complete ionization of the
> > "atomic" structure not a good enough model for the Big Bang? It is the
> > local [observable universe] that went Bang, not the global [Universe],
> > which is infinite and eternal.
> >
> > RLO
> > www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
>
> So if we define Infinity as 10^500 or larger, then in the Atom
> Totality theory, would the universe
> tend towards and reach a 10^500 Atom Totality structure? Or, would it
> just recycle back and forth from element 114 back to hydrogen and so
> on and so forth.
>
> Now thanks, Robert, because I never went down this path before.
> Perhaps the Universe need not go out beyond say Element 114 Atom
> Totality. Perhaps the Cosmos recycles back to a Hydrogen or Helium
> Atom Totality after 114. So is there something in QM of a recycling
> mode that matches that scenario?
> A universal cycling mode? Is not that what the laws of Thermodynamics
> tend for? Is not the
> 2nd law a universal recycling mode? That there is no recycling mode in
> fractals, when there should be a recycling mode.
> Maybe that is the deepest and profoundest meaning of the universe---
> constant recycling. Maybe that is the ultimate truth that philosophers
> seek-- recycling. We recycle plastics and paper, and there is a water
> cycle and a oxygen to carbon dioxide recycling, so why not have a
> recycling of the Universe? Is there anything other than atoms that are
> recycleable on a cosmic scale?
>
> I don't notice the Maxwell Equations as a recycleable scheme. Of
> course the wave in particle
> wave duality is a recycling scheme. And so is Thermodynamics the
> recycling unit of physics.
>

I am comfortable with having well-defined, precision defined finite-
number versus
infinite-number and how this amply corrects mathematics and makes the
old-math
obsolete. It will be some time before others catch up and accept these
ideas.

So let me move on and what better place than to well define, precision
define a much
tougher concept. And this concept has never really been given a
acceptable definition
for we see strife within biology as to whether viruses are living or
nonliving. So the concept
of life versus nonlife is what I am aiming at for the moment. Whether
I achieve any sort
of progress or success will remain to be seen. I always go into these
projects with a gloomy
success forecast, but seem to always emerge with some sort of victory.

Let me see if I can precision define Life versus NonLife. What gives
me some advantage
over all past such projects is that I have the Atom Totality theory
with the latest in
quantum-mechanics.

Let me just dive into the middle of the problem.

Imagine three reproduction chambers as three separate experiments. In
one chamber is
of course one celled living creatures and multicelled creatures
reproducing to make more
new life. In the second chamber is atoms of physics that are bombarded
with energy and also
chemical solutions in vats where chemicals are added and reactions
take place. In the third chamber are all sorts of computers and
artists drawing fractals, making small fractals larger or some making
small fractals even smaller and all sorts of different shaped
fractals.

Now the reason I have these three chambers is to refer to them to
guide me on as to whether
I am making a precision definition of Live vs. Nonlife.

Now if my memory is correct, the very best that the biology community
can come up with on
a precision definition of Life vs. Nonlife is that it embodies four
main aspects:
(a) is a closed geometrical shaped object
(b) takes in energy from outside of its body
(c) reproduces itself
(d) has motion

Now it would be nice if there was only one distinction between life
and nonlife rather than
requiring four distinctions that separates whether something is alive
or nonliving.

Now let me briefly check how much a fractal from the fractal chamber
follows those four
requirements: It surely is a closed geometrical shaped object because
the artist when finishing one fractal moves to the same one that is
larger or smaller version of itself. It surely takes in energy from
the environment as the artist or computer is required to draw the next
fractal. But fails for self reproduction because it needs the artist
or computer aids and also
has no motion.

Now the atom chamber or chemical mixing chamber fails at reproducing
itself. But fails by
not very much of a failing. I mean that we can construe a experiment
where we have
hydrogen atoms bombarded with some energy and for which some of that
energy converts
into more hydrogen atoms so we have an increase in hydrogen atoms
overall, due to the
energy bombardment from the outside. So in a sense, a real sense, it
is going to be extremely
difficult to say those hydrogen atoms are nonliving.

Now there is one idea that may help at this juncture. A feature about
life that is very difficult to
realize in any sort of nonliving system. I speak of the idea that all
life on Earth was like a baton carried back through time of a
continuous path of living creatures in order for each and every one of
us to be alive today. Let me call it a chain of continuity of life.
Where I can trace back my cells that only stops when I reach some
ancient primitive first cells on Earth.

This chain of continuity cannot be existing in the fractal chamber.
Can this chain of continuity
be somehow existing in the atom or chemical chamber? Now if the atom
chamber had elements of bismuth, and all those bismuth atoms were
built step by step adding protons to initial hydrogen atoms, and if we
take one bismuth atom we can make a chain of continuity of each of
those 83 protons having so to speak ancestors of an aufbau principle
buildup, much like each one of us can trace our history back to the
first living organisms on Earth.

But the chain of continuity is choppy in the atom chamber. The chain
of continuity is very much continuous in the life-chamber. And this is
where, also, we finally iron out the question of viruses. Because in
the Chain of Continuity of life, as we go back in time we also
encounter the first virus of a specific virus and thus viruses are
part and parcel of that same
chain of continuity. Thus, viruses are alive.

Not bad progress for the first stab attempt. I feel that the essential
ingredient of whether something is alive or not-alive is that it is a
member of a Chain of Continuity. But the distinction is not a very
sharp distinction over atoms bombarded with energy.

What I am doing is fishing for the key defining concept. It looks as
though the idea of
continuity is essential, and a long history or long chain of
continuity. Because one can say that starting with a single hydrogen
atom and bombarding it with energy so that it grows into
become a bismuth atom in the end, that one can say it was a chain of
continuity. But a difference here with life is that when I place
another bismuth atom alongside the "grown bismuth atom" that they have
no past history in common. Whereas if I put a person alongside
a sea anemone, that if I go back far enough in past history they are
ancestors of one another and are thus linked. It is called a web of
life. So maybe the important key concept that distinguishes living
from nonliving, is that if you go back far enough in time the living
is still
linked to other bodies but the nonliving had been severed of any
links.

Now of course, in the Atom Totality, the above would be in trouble
because the present day Plutonium Atom Totality has links all the way
back to the beginning whether it is 14 billion years ago or 200
billion years ago as each Atom Totality was created by a former Atom
Totality. So this precision definition already is far more difficult
than anyone could first imagine. So are we to say that life is not
confined to biology but that physical objects such as
atoms are living entities? It may just well turn out that living is a
duality to nonliving and so we
can never have a precision definition but only state that living is
dual to nonliving.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Why does the L-function converge absolutely for Re(s) > 3/2?
Next: Is a gram a unit of measure of pressure?