The Emergent System - The key to reality's most vexing mysteries

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by RobertPaulsim
In my opinion emergent systems [of evolution] are part of a collaboration towards unity.

Look at this (Heliosphere):
en.wikipedia.org...

how a star (dumbest ever entity of the cosmos) produces litterally a shield to prevent
frequent changes in DNA to enable stability to form higher sentient beings with evolution?

Its like the cosmos know things in advance.... IMHO intelligent design.

my 2 cents

edit on 17-2-2013 by RobertPaulsim because: (no reason given)


Do you have a link to the reference that suggests that this heliosphere isolates the entire region around the star to the extent of shielding potential DNA contamination? I'd be interested in reading that, as some of my work involves the establishment of examples (at many levels) of default Masculine and Feminine survival imperative expressions, and this seems like a classic Masculine survival imperative expression (Isolation). You'd be amazed at how redundant all of this stuff actually is, and at all levels. Not much of anything is truly original, but that's why it all works as well as it does. Only when you start getting into emergent sapience do you start seeing true originality and actual expressions of chaos. Beneath that - even in the most relatively original emergences - the basics are rigidly maintained and aggressively promoted. I'd be really curious concerning this heliosphere and what it blocks out, as well as what it restricts from freely escaping. Every holon has its "membrane", and I should think that a solar system would be no different.

Thanks for the heads up.



What is your theory on masculine and feminine? Do you think you had a choice to be male or a female chooses to be female? If you had a million incarnations as a human would you at all be tempted to ever be a female on earth? I personally think being female is the much more difficult task, simply because giving birth is one of the most gruesome and crazy things I can think of, having a being grow inside you for 9 months that is and then pushing it out your..... So if you think about it, imagine being a pure non sexed essence/spirit/soul/energy and zipping around the universe, you are unbiased towards matter and energy and physics and nature...and you come across earth.. of course being male has its certain advantages, men pretty much rule the world, and i think have been able to evolve intellectually and physically partly because of the females role in child bearing, that is obviously not to say females can not be smart and invent things (of course they can, and I keep in mind the repression of females until recently)... but why would any pure unbiased, form of essence or energy, want to incarnate as a female? I guess I answer my own question, in that... from natures unbiased point of view, there is potentially very little difference from being male or female. Nature does not demand females play with barbies, be ditsy girlie girls etc. Look at the lioness for example, look at female weightlifters and athletes. In the natural world the female is pretty close to equal with the male, just a different aspect of the same thing, the + to the -...

Also I personally dont think im sexist, I love and worship the female and fall in love daily. This is just me trying to analyze le sexes.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I saw a thread about goats that yell like humans, and that one was kicking total ass. There was a G-spot locator device thread too (I can't remember exactly where than one was) and it was totally ruling the traffic counts on the site where it sat.

Very important subjects and threads, and no I am not joking they have more then one implications. I seemed to have missed them, however will probably be looking them up one of these days on ATS. The one about goats that yell like humans sounds really interesting.


I'm pretty hip to who the popular kids are wherever I am at the moment, and I'm pretty much okay with my relative slot in whatever hierarchy I'm engaging. I don't often let that affect my own interests.

Nor should you or anybody else really, everything that emerges soon submerges. In all there just tides on the beach turning the rocks to sand. But you know what? I think I better read this thread.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster



Reductionism This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.




Of course emergent systems are more then the sum of their parts. The sun is mainly hydrogen and helium atoms ( I just reduced the emergent phenomenon star, into parts), but knowing that hydrogen and helium parts make up the emergent sun, is not enough information to fully understand the system. Because there are complex qualitative details which go into allowing parts, to do more then be themselves, when interacting with other parts, under circumstances. What im saying is, emergent systems are more then the sum of their parts, because the parts can escape their simpler descriptions and nature while interacting in an emergent system. This does not mean, in my mind, that emergent systems are beyond understanding, and it does not mean that reducing emergent systems to their parts is not one good idea to understanding them.

The human mind is the interesting example, because although we dont know all of fundamental nature, we can use parts of nature to create emergent phenomena. Things which would not exist if the human mind did not make them exist. We can affect the smallest parts of nature to make more complex macro phenomena, we can take more macro phenomena and use them to build with other macro phenomena, we can take macro phenomena and break them down to their parts, and use those parts in different ways.

The thing about traffic, we can diagnose the problem, if it is one. Because we know what causes traffic, we can tamper with the event to change its nature. Build more roads, roundabouts, traffic lights, stop signs. Because we understand the parts that go into creating traffic, we can eliminate the emergence if we wanted to. (thats not to say by knowing the parts of the sun we could eliminate the sun, or the galaxy or universe
) ( but I think we could eliminate the mob too/are aware of why it exists, how it exists, potentially where and when it exists, and because of these things it can potentially be stopped)
edit on 17-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster


Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists. String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research. Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.



Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a post in this thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.

Oh and when I say the word universe, I mean the system we know made of matter and energy, particles and atoms, galaxies and space... that is thought to have had a beginning 14 billion years ago or so ( im not so sure about that). Do you think this universe had a beginning, and if so was it that recent? Do you think this universe (galaxies made of stars and planets and space) is the only one that exists? Do you think your idea of a ancient reality template, created this universe?

When I say the word reality, I mean this universe, and the potential for anything to exist beyond it (meaning this universe might not be the only system to exist in some grander ultimate reality).

edit on 17-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Infinity is a singularity. Any singularity cannot share existence with any other singularity (so forget multiple infinities) since the existence of (at least) two "singularities" produces a duality of singularities. Bang - that notion is dead on arrival.

By it's very nature, an Infinity would include all possibilities, no rules, no definitions, therefor multiple singularities would be able to exist simultaneously as part of all possible possibilities.

Putting rule and limits on an unlimited state/existence .... pointless.


The mainstream media is just plain stupid, and the tech press is no better than any of the rest of it.

That's digressing and has nothing to do with anything. The MSM picks up on, and simplifies, what some very smart heads are in collaboration on discovering. Just because MSM picks up a story, doesn't make it BS ....so it's a moot point.


Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists

Seriously? Shannon, Tyson De Grass, Bostrom have everything to do with Hawking, Einstein o& others all of who are taken super seriously.


String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research.

You said this like 2 years ago on a post, and string theory is still around. In fact I'm going to see if I can find it. In the mean time, I can't take that quote serious until I see for myself that the majority of Academia is in agreement that its BS. Hasn't happened yet.


Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.

YEah OK. It is taken very seriously by various branches of Academia and I propose within a little while it will be common fact.
Our Universe at Home within a Larger Universe
So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research.

They have ways to quantify Multi-verses as factual. It's on the way. I also Love how the Buddhists actually Numbered the amount of Universes within the Singularity. More and more science is getting into alignment with Mysticism.



It's just bar talk for people who don't care about sports, cars, women, or politics. I don't have the time or interest in that tired voodoo metaphysics sh*t.

HA, I Love it!!!! I pull out all the recent findings and discoveries in science that Threaten your Emergent Systems God as the end all be all, and what do you do? You stoop down to name calling "cartoon physicists, not taken serious, or not legit because its on youtube or MSM."

Ohhhhhhh kaaayyyyyyyy.
Looks like you've entered the Religion and Apologetics of Emergent Systems. Anything that threatens it, is of the devil(cartoons, MSM, Youtube, etc)

Time to add you to the list of "ATS'ers to not take serious."

Peace in the Middle East. Have fun with all that dogma


In Reply to Imafungi:


Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.

It ain't worth it brother. If it doesn't resonate with Emergent Systems, or threatens it, he will bash it. I've gotten him a few times and it results in comedic dogma. Not worth it. Just stay flexible with what science finds.

As long as we are like water, we're fine. Like Bruce Lee said, be like water.
edit on 17-2-2013 by dominicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NorEaster


Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists. String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research. Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.



Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.


The possibility of multiple universes within one reality confine isn't multiverse theory. Multiverse theory involves multiple versions of this universe, which is a completely different notion altogether.


Oh and when I say the word universe, I mean the system we know made of matter and energy, particles and atoms, galaxies and space... that is thought to have had a beginning 14 billion years ago or so ( im not so sure about that). Do you think this universe had a beginning, and if so was it that recent? Do you think this universe (galaxies made of stars and planets and space) is the only one that exists? Do you think your idea of a ancient reality template, created this universe?


I know what you mean by universe. They say it's 13.5 billions years old, and I don't know how old it is. I doubt that this is even the only universe that exists within this one reality confine, but to be honest, I wouldn't know how to delineate one universe from another. What "makes" a universe hasn't really been completely determined, and even the definition of the term isn't actually nailed down yet. I don't have any delusion that I'm going to settle that issue here.


When I say the word reality, I mean this universe, and the potential for anything to exist beyond it (meaning this universe might not be the only system to exist in some grander ultimate reality).


When I use the term reality, I feel the need to qualify it further, since there are many levels of reality, and even sub-realities within larger "parent" realities. A sub-reality's existence is dependent on the properties of a "parent" reality confine. The Foundational Reality - to my own understanding - is the initial and permanently existent relative state that came about when the first ever physically existent "thing" came into existence, and created the first ever juxtaposition between "it" and that which wasn't it. That 1st ever reality (establishing the Relative Being State as existent) is the contextual relationship between all that exists - including all subsequent reality confines. Our universe is inside all of that, somewhere, along with a lot more stuff that exists and persists, along with all the information concerning the whole of it all as well as the minute specifics concerning every speck of it.

We're used to relating all of this to space or territory or even the time it takes to transverse from here to there, but I doubt that what I'm referring to is quantifiable in those terms. Like I said, it's about relational context. Relative and historical. When you slide beneath the material realm, it gets a little abstract, even if it's no less real than the screen you're looking at right now. Some people make the mistake of dismissing it all as intellectual musings, but that's a serious mistake to make if you're working toward a TOE.


edit on 2/17/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Infinity is a singularity. Any singularity cannot share existence with any other singularity (so forget multiple infinities) since the existence of (at least) two "singularities" produces a duality of singularities. Bang - that notion is dead on arrival.

By it's very nature, an Infinity would include all possibilities, no rules, no definitions, therefor multiple singularities would be able to exist simultaneously as part of all possible possibilities.

Putting rule and limits on an unlimited state/existence .... pointless.


Singularity means only one. Multiple singularities is like Jumbo Shrimp. An oxymoron.




String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research.

You said this like 2 years ago on a post, and string theory is still around. In fact I'm going to see if I can find it. In the mean time, I can't take that quote serious until I see for myself that the majority of Academia is in agreement that its BS. Hasn't happened yet.


"Demons" are still around too. So what.




Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.

YEah OK. It is taken very seriously by various branches of Academia and I propose within a little while it will be common fact.
Our Universe at Home within a Larger Universe
So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research.


Wormholes?
Damn. That stuff's just plain silly.


They have ways to quantify Multi-verses as factual. It's on the way. I also Love how the Buddhists actually Numbered the amount of Universes within the Singularity. More and more science is getting into alignment with Mysticism.


I'm sorry, but that's just foolishness. There's no way to quantify emerging alternate versions of this universe and everything contained with it. That's ridiculous. And Buddhists can count all they want, whatever they want to count, but it doesn't mean anything. It's not real. As far as science aligning with mysticism, that doesn't mean that mysticism (or science) is any closer to getting to the bottom of anything. In fact, it indicates exactly the opposite. Science has been based on collective dogma as well, and advanced technology is debunking it, and some idiots are reaching for mysticism for answers. Other idiots are reacting in other ways to this crisis.




It's just bar talk for people who don't care about sports, cars, women, or politics. I don't have the time or interest in that tired voodoo metaphysics sh*t.

HA, I Love it!!!! I pull out all the recent findings and discoveries in science that Threaten your Emergent Systems God as the end all be all, and what do you do? You stoop down to name calling "cartoon physicists, not taken serious, or not legit because its on youtube or MSM."

Ohhhhhhh kaaayyyyyyyy.
Looks like you've entered the Religion and Apologetics of Emergent Systems. Anything that threatens it, is of the devil(cartoons, MSM, Youtube, etc)

Time to add you to the list of "ATS'ers to not take serious."

Peace in the Middle East. Have fun with all that dogma


I wasn't concerned about convincing you of anything. This isn't our first encounter. I knew how it would play out before I responded to your post. No big deal.



In Reply to Imafungi:


Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.

It ain't worth it brother. If it doesn't resonate with Emergent Systems, or threatens it, he will bash it. I've gotten him a few times and it results in comedic dogma. Not worth it. Just stay flexible with what science finds.


And, like I said, this exchange collapse isn't anything new. You Namaste guys have a tipping point where you start getting childish and abusive. Your enlightened calm cuts out on you, and you get pissy. No surprise.

I write what I write for the lurkers. I just appreciate your helping extend this thread a little. Enjoy your Sunday evening.
edit on 2/17/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Singularity means only one. Multiple singularities is like Jumbo Shrimp. An oxymoron.

words are not the same as the actual. You really truly have no way to fathom at this point, that which is beyond your ability to conceptualize or experience. There could exist a Universe where only Oxymorons exist, as the only reality.


"Demons" are still around too. So what.

??What?? I don't even ......???? Context?


Wormholes? Damn. That stuff's just plain silly.

YEa, about as silly as getting the images off the huble telescope that show black holes, all the math around them, all the branches of academia that revolve entirely around all the mechanics of what black holes consist of and how they operate. Sure ...silly!!!! ....this is exactly what I mean. Something that is standard knowledge in the academic world, with math and telescopes behind it, just silly to you.



I'm sorry, but that's just foolishness. There's no way to quantify emerging alternate versions of this universe and everything contained with it. That's ridiculous. And Buddhists can count all they want, whatever they want to count, but it doesn't mean anything. It's not real. As far as science aligning with mysticism, that doesn't mean that mysticism (or science) is any closer to getting to the bottom of anything. In fact, it indicates exactly the opposite. Science has been based on collective dogma as well, and advanced technology is debunking it, and some idiots are reaching for mysticism for answers. Other idiots are reacting in other ways to this crisis.

Honestly, I can't take none of the above serious anymore. You've pigeonholed yourself into your own systematic dogma, and everything else on all ends of the spectrum is "idiotic." Your own bias has blinded you.


And, like I said, this exchange collapse isn't anything new. You Namaste guys have a tipping point where you start getting childish and abusive. Your enlightened calm cuts out on you, and you get pissy. No surprise.

YEah all words and labels, none of which are reality. You should know that.

Anyway, gettig back to reality: to completely dismiss outright scientific knowledge is just childish. You live in your own subjective bias bubble, which doesn't allow for other views. I'm completely open to being completely wrong about everything I ever experienced and all I know. We may discover a Universe/Dimension where everything is opposite of here, or some scientific finding that will require us to rewrite everything we ever knew, shattering even emergent systems into a trillion pieces of frozen elephant dung.


I write what I write for the lurkers. I just appreciate your helping extend this thread a little. Enjoy your Sunday evening.

Well, I am whatever you say I am ...so lurk I will. Likewise enjoy your weekend.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.


Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?


Bacteria is a good example. Cells are a good example. Plant systems are a good example.


Uh oh. Looks like you haven't been keeping up. FYI - I got to epigenetics via my research into prions (an epigenetic mechanism), but all the cutting edge stuff in epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics etc. is multi-disciplinary.



In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics.

It refers to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are DNA methylation and histone modification, both of which serve to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.



Paramutations represent heritable epigenetic alterations that cause departures from Mendelian inheritance. ...

...It appears that paramutations represent a type of emergent system wherein genomic context and maintenance of chromatin states interact to facilitate meiotically heritable epigenetic variation.



Sorry - keep losing text. Quitting. But keep up the good work.



edit on 17/2/13 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.


Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?


Bacteria is a good example. Cells are a good example. Plant systems are a good example.


Uh oh. Looks like you haven't been keeping up. FYI - I got to epigenetics via my research into prions (an epigenetic mechanism), but all the cutting edge stuff in epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics etc. is multi-disciplinary.



In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics.

It refers to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are DNA methylation and histone modification, both of which serve to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.



Paramutations represent heritable epigenetic alterations that cause departures from Mendelian inheritance. ...

...It appears that paramutations represent a type of emergent system wherein genomic context and maintenance of chromatin states interact to facilitate meiotically heritable epigenetic variation.



Sorry - keep losing text. Quitting. But keep up the good work.



edit on 17/2/13 by soficrow because: (no reason given)


I've read about prions, but I'm not exactly convinced about the entire picture that is presented there. Besides, there comes a point when digression becomes a distraction, and you asked for examples of DNA-directed biological emergence systems. Right? Prions aren't DNA-directed, or so it would seem to be the case if the available research is the entire story behind them.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Anyway, getting back to reality: to completely dismiss outright scientific knowledge is just childish. You live in your own subjective bias bubble, which doesn't allow for other views. I'm completely open to being completely wrong about everything I ever experienced and all I know. We may discover a Universe/Dimension where everything is opposite of here, or some scientific finding that will require us to rewrite everything we ever knew, shattering even emergent systems into a trillion pieces of frozen elephant dung.


Wormholes aren't scientific knowledge. They are noting more than an imaginary solution to the problem of interstellar space travel, and the impossible nature of "hyper-speed" when one considers the random space junk (asteroids, debris, and what-have-you) and the intersecting trajectories that would have to be properly calculated beforehand to prevent obliteration mid-flight. They created "wormholes" out of whole cloth to rationalize the possibility of space travel to other galaxies. Science fiction, with no empirical or data indications at all.

Black holes are points of gravity that are so intense that photons can't even escape their influence - not passageways to other sides of this universe...and certainly not passageways to other alternate universes.

The only place where an "opposite world" can exist is in the universe of the human imagination. And the reason is because progressive development (which is the only way that anything ever comes into existence) is a process that is pulled forward (like a rope) and never pushed forward by sheer possibility. Requirement is always part of the equation, and an "opposites" world simply doesn't satisfy any primordial requirement, and neither does the mulitverse theory of infinite numbers of universes launching into existence as a result of every single "road not taken" by every single thing presented with a choice as soon as the choice is made, with each new universe featuring the very same capacity to launch innumerable alternate universes as soon as its own choice-laden inhabitants make their choices from instant to instant. No primordial requirement is served there.

The only requirement that such a waste of....well....everything, satisfies is the requirement that some physicist has for a career change, from serious research (or teaching) to niche author and radio talk show circuit staple. Not that this isn't a requirement for such a person, but reality doesn't upend its basic structure simply due to ancillary requirements. If so, I wouldve been able to snap up a Mustang pony when I was 10 yrs old, because I desperately required one, let me tell you.

You can proclaim whatever makes you feel good proclaiming, but reality is what it is. Possibilities don't drive development. Requirement does. Possibilities are like the openings in the wall that requirement is reaching through to drag development forward. By the time requirement has grabbed onto development, the pathway forward is fixed and well established as a default precedent. It's only our own relative ignorance that makes any of it seem novel to us.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There is no "you" consciously making decisions.

It is done.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
"There is no "you" consciously making decisions."

There is nothing left to worry about when this is realized, just watch it happen.

There is a fascinating video called 'Who is driving the dreambus?'

Here is the trailer:
youtu.be...

Witness the unfolding.
edit on 18-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I've read about prions, but I'm not exactly convinced about the entire picture that is presented there.


Prions are shown to be one mechanism involved in epigenetic processes - epigenetics (not genetics) being a good example of an emergent system.



Besides, there comes a point when digression becomes a distraction


Neither digression nor distraction - I am making the point that epigenetics (not genetics) is the multi-disciplinary study of an emergent system in biology (one which in fact, includes physics).



you asked for examples of DNA-directed biological emergence systems. Right?


You made the claim that "There (are) types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives." My point is that NO biological systems "work solely on DNA information directives" - ALL respond to changing environments via epigenetic processes. Adaptation and evolution begin with the epigenetic response, which is the "emergent system."



Prions aren't DNA-directed,


Correct. Like other epigenetic processes, prions override DNA directives and thus, unlike DNA, can be seen as agents of the emergent system.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Out of all the things the fundamental reality could have created, in all the different ways it could have done so, why did it create this universe, the way it did, the materials and laws in which it did it, endowing it with the possibilities it possesses. And you think this universe is the only type of system the fundamental reality can produce? do you think it is the only universe that exists right in this moment? Do you think this universe can be a contained finite in extent system? If so, there could be other contained finite systems beyond this universe (multi-verse theory)? This is like why Einstein asked "did god have a choice to make this universe, the way it was made or not".. like do humans have a choice to make TVs and computers anyway they want, or does some fundamental overriding limitations force them into a limited path of choices... Anything that exists is equally bizzare, but the fact we are part of this exact universe that exists, and we exist because of it and its capabilties, and are made of what we are made of, and it is made of what it is made of, it is very bizzare to think about, what it actually is.. and why it is made of these things, and what these things fundamentally can be, where they can come from, where the ultimate reality got these ideas or urges to create with, and did it have a choice what to use to create? Is the ultimate reality fated to only use one style of material, or is it possible to be a part of a system and make something foundationally and fundamentally different from the system you exist in and as. My guess is no you cant, but that any system that appears foundationally and fundamentally and isolatedly different from the foundational reality creating it, must be done through contrivance and illusion. Everything that ever exists from a particle of dust to life on other planets to other universe to gods to universes that exist infinite light millennia ago to other dimensions to other realms, literally anything that is, has been, and will be, is fated to be related to one another, because they are all equally a part of the totality of all things. They all share the characteristic of existence in some form or another. That on touchable, unknowable, ultimate timescale of all events that have ever happened, are happening, and will happen, in this universe and every, Is what the word "infinity" attempts to point at.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There is no "you" consciously making decisions.

It is done.


Well, then, whomever it is that's making decisions for me has decided that I won't engage with you in this thread. No offense, but we both know that there's no there that exists where such an exchange would take either of us to. Or even toward.

Namaste.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I know about emergent systems from biology and think you are right on track here. Sorry if I distracted - just read your post but did not read the book review. Sounds like the kind of book I would find quite valuable.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Out of all the things the fundamental reality could have created, in all the different ways it could have done so, why did it create this universe, the way it did, the materials and laws in which it did it, endowing it with the possibilities it possesses.


I would be stunned if you actually believed that I could answer such a question. Seriously.


And you think this universe is the only type of system the fundamental reality can produce? do you think it is the only universe that exists right in this moment? Do you think this universe can be a contained finite in extent system? If so, there could be other contained finite systems beyond this universe (multi-verse theory)?


Again, I must be making a hell of an impression on you if you think I have these answers. Well, except for the "mulitverse theory" question. I already addressed that one above, though. More universes,...? Certainly possible. The multiverse theory as plausible...? No.


This is like why Einstein asked "did god have a choice to make this universe, the way it was made or not"..


I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)



like do humans have a choice to make TVs and computers anyway they want, or does some fundamental overriding limitations force them into a limited path of choices... Anything that exists is equally bizzare, but the fact we are part of this exact universe that exists, and we exist because of it and its capabilties, and are made of what we are made of, and it is made of what it is made of, it is very bizzare to think about, what it actually is.. and why it is made of these things, and what these things fundamentally can be, where they can come from, where the ultimate reality got these ideas or urges to create with, and did it have a choice what to use to create?


I guess I don't really focus on these sorts of questions. I see reality as being very different than you might think. To me, it's no more than events and information masses, with the only concern being survival of all identifiable holons through integral association with larger, more sophisticated (and therefore, longer lasting) holons as these holons establish their own place within a larger in-kind identity structure. Basically, this is what reality is, with residual information establishing the existential "yes" by way of default success precedent. Pretty simple, but if you sketch it all the way out, the resulting intricacies - one ramification after another - can get amazingly dense.


Is the ultimate reality fated to only use one style of material, or is it possible to be a part of a system and make something foundationally and fundamentally different from the system you exist in and as. My guess is no you cant, but that any system that appears foundationally and fundamentally and isolatedly different from the foundational reality creating it, must be done through contrivance and illusion. Everything that ever exists from a particle of dust to life on other planets to other universe to gods to universes that exist infinite light millennia ago to other dimensions to other realms, literally anything that is, has been, and will be, is fated to be related to one another, because they are all equally a part of the totality of all things. They all share the characteristic of existence in some form or another. That on touchable, unknowable, ultimate timescale of all events that have ever happened, are happening, and will happen, in this universe and every, Is what the word "infinity" attempts to point at.


This is pretty good, except make the fundamentals themselves extremely primitive. These fundamentals are threaded throughout everything that exists, and they do tie it all together. And you already know what these fundamentals are even if you've been taught to see them as concepts and not real "agents" of development. The "truth" is startlingly familiar. Just as you'd expect it to be. The only mystical or miraculous things that exist, exist within the imaginations of human beings.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
edit on 18-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
I wonder why!


Krishna only knows.
edit on 2/18/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join