My unrestrained thought.

Question in an Answer HM MOrris gave BSM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted by Brad McFall on October 10, 2002 at 09:30:07:I do not think that a gene as a logic circut makes sense becasue this would make it difficult to distinguish universality (I discussed this in terms of "logic carreriers" of evolution theory of Gottleib's d^2, h^2 and an array of environments) from my own notion inter alia is more related(connected) that the techonology that could be built while exporing the solar system in an alliance ship or not etc but Stephen Wolfram has provided "particles" to Science that enable the student to A VOID the debate morass of the older generation of "teachers" of 'evolution' and "debaters" of creation and so recieve a rebate by becoming MATHEMATICA programmers as a start to desgin intelligently the same arisen atomic terminology and union of atoms Gibbs' thought etc when for in biology considering rather than as Keller has asked from Harvard Press Dunn's "crossing over" as a network (not Jordan or the Red Sea in the beyond Hume philosophy) leaving this node OF Croizat to be defined in terms of the actual chemisty it actually is able to data base.I had asked HM Morris if CREATIONISTs' had had predicted the 'gaps' in the fossil record and now to begin a note and book on Wolfram's level of physical sophistication not only *may* this prediction become possible but the line between transmission and physiological genetics becomes UNBLURRED as PBS in a special on techonology and biology managed to if not occulded the NAIG crew some others. As ICR has said a THEOLOGY of ID IS NOT Required ONLY GOOD SCIENCE that they and I in what ever version have been calling back evolution chagers to stop posing the intuition as...There is much scholarly confusion(and I do not think Wolfram has writ the last history even on his own contribution for I have yet to find Pascal's distiction of the triangle and the combination while I see not ref to the Chienese etc) on CROIzat's use or claim to non-use of fossils in excavating thier relevance to explainations of distributions etc yet this question still may or may still invovlve Magnetic Dip or Variation within homogenous chemical equilibria dissipatiable per homogenous population under some even larger heterogenous equilibrium that provides a means to use baraminologically connections of clades that phylgenetics miss IF the molecuels are built with some use of Plank that Wolfram denied to be told to him for which I would be willing to speculate for the sake of geographic effect on the network due to species splitting but not yet multiplication but I have not thought how the assumed Muller/Plunket mutation notion is explict from the network that would be able to model the crossing over from potentially only statistitcally significant large numers onto the selective plan artifically AND then reasonded to any natural selection.It is clear that the older generation of biologists and theologians GAVE us students a war and not a machine able to succeed without some offly bloody re-writning of history which in the infromation age is getting difficult to put in or out below the radar screen and to hopefully everyone's consensus (even the alien's from california not mars etc that may seem indeed to exist) while the aliiannce dopes not.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Follow Ups:

Since this is the "Free For All" forum, I must say:"Oh my God! Things can get worse that Brad's 'restrained" thoughts?"Moose

This was some *very good* talk on GOOGLE GROUPS:Elmer Bataitis wrote in message news:<3DC0327F.26C9A99A@yahoo.com>...

​

> > diagrams resolved by different procedures.....
>
> Oh heck, I have too much to do to wade through this. Boy, a good
> editor or about 50 rewrites are in order to:
>
> 1) Explain the problem.
> 2) Explain how your ideas apply.
> 3) Explain how the problem is clarified.
>
> But #1 is the most important. If your reader does not understand the
> problem they won't read much further!
>
> **********************************************************
> Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
> Planetech Services -Hobbes
> 585-442-2884
> Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
> the straight jacket of conventional thought.
> **********************************************************

​

I have not dealt with matrix multiplication sufficiently but the problem seems to be some tension between macroecology and nanoecology. My ideas apply because I was trying to think in terms of energy while Wolfram has been building comp supp tools such that the axiomatic approach I took can with suitable programming effort speak to both kinds of rigor (mathematical and computational) for any creation in biology (modelable in theory). The problem is clarified by showing how randomness can be inherent in Croizat's method (on Wolfram's terms) which supports the "standard" New Zealand Panbiogeographic Interpretation of Biogeography by Spatial Analysis over the Explanation originating out of the American Museum of Natural History Discussions that honored the man Leon Croizat but as my abstract got longer instead of s------, let me go back to the drawing board. Thanks for wading in this far. I will address your up front questions next. Sincerely, Brad.

​

Humprhies has recently acknowledged (still havent found this ref)the continental level of informed character geography via cladisitic information and though it had been forever the desire of Platnick and Nelson or Nelson and Platnick to speak on the mechanics of branching diagrams resolved by different procedures that could plurivocalize any character geography on an area CJ Humphrie' work outputs or not {in the sense that biogeography (example Humphries2002) historically or not} is to have been more than a check list activity to keyed out and run down classifications and being so sired by some colony etc created caldograms "too fat" in a yielded pathwayTHROUGH a database modelling "the branches" with cell automata (a different procedure used here in(inter alia via disscussion of math support practical from pure Cantor volumes etc) than done otherwise by "traditional(Ian Ball criticized)" cladistic practioners when compared to turning MSTs or any other algorithms relying on geographic proximity [in whole or in part, then] a single angle could view that this living samness (and possible fossil as well) IS different at least between data division allometrically morphometrically per plane allometry able to perpendicularize when not dyad operate [(scalar, vector, or not) see how network curvature (nothing in panbiogeography but something in cladistics arguably) answers in here] between activity and growth (for any defintion of genotype and phenotype) this character geography (this that Humpries did or any that would "progress"(p417N&P) relevant to affect while IN effect changes to the total optimization, overall curvature, baraminology, after these kinds, theoretical formulation) BUT NOT TOPOLOGY reserving this displayable by some statistic to discuss Newton's OPTICKS(ref)' "different laws and shapes in different spaces "(as part of 'spatial evolution' one community per colony at a time regime) falsifies under "fully informed" condition the resultant clade knowledge (data) base and vindicates no matter the "need to know" per topographic DIFFERENCE (rooting vs polarity orientation depends tangentially (hence why not morphometrically allometrically in the first ordination per ordinal (or Wolfram on Cantor out a MATHEMATICA WORKED BIOLOGY IN UPDATE) depending on root (centric, central, vs internal not center of origin resorts FROM the forms not TO the forms formations until the genetics is better specified at most (relevance of mutation rate, if neophenogeneis exists, should punc eq be considered relevant in the praxis, doing a better job with the math of Wright etc) at least what either Croizat was not given credit for or his (NZ) inheritors were heard to enumerate (1) as a source of taxa for spatial analysis by way of minimum spanning trees, or (2) as a source of evidence for orientation, or rooting, of such structures is being considered to reduction in the new kind o f science based on computers Wolfram heraled (not terminal taxons only) This paper shows how different mechanical generators of randomness can splay repetition in rooting such functionality out to affordances functional VIA Meta Data to resourced taxa only if, geographic proximity be granted an a priori status (preliminarily) in which chance randomness is continually (in the model being resovlded in terms of determinate rules (at least in so far track +genoreitron = continuum (Croizat MANUAL OF PHYTOGEOGRAPHY) (cladists are free to argue with this plenum where dispersal and development are in the same trajectory)) that show clades have TOO MUCH information to reliably extract the kinematic (needed in evaluating Wolfram's principle of equilvalent sophistication NOT as Leibig's Law of Minimum (the desire)) and tend to be too universal while "true" for finding the physical continuty that links endemsism in a past time of deductive biogeography which finaly receives a lexicographic form without being tied to Simpson's "kinetic phylogeny". By using a Wolfram new kind of science it is shown that tracks can not be viewed formally in any way but the materiality of Leibig's Minimum Law not in the abduction as area cladograms unless the 1-D --2-D cell automata model is bridged (Wolfram's at large claim FROM computation TO Equivalence) and this can be done equally as well deductively if not merely by a calculation 1) if Wolfram is wrong and only nesting is in the total optimization analysis to have been the dimension of Cantor criticized as 'fractal' existing and/or 2) the line between transmssion and physiological genetics is better understood in terms of 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (for instance). Since neither of these conditions need be approached(same kind of issue in physics of turbulence vs particle physics methods to some same truth) to pursue the analog computations from MSTs and other geographic proximity use-topographies N&P's view is marginalized until some notion of Lerner's notion of location in population genetics occurs for Dobshansky's defintion of MESO Evolution(this may have already been indicted if Hardy-Weinberg MATHif is is already in the perception and analysis of Wolfram (unless mutation, migration and selection are in some colonies more important than MENDELS LAWS unhindged in a cellular automata evolution (neophenogenesis if canning Dawkins' position (not generally) could etc meme etc etc) binomial of Pascal scored in electromagnetism but perhaps is being rotating regardless the continuity (but not the discontinuity)...

Yes Moose, I entered with fear and trepidation.Brad.Is it possible that you try to push analogies too far? Gene networks most definitely are somewhat analgous to logic circuits. Perhpas you come to negative conclusions simply becasue you try to push such analogies too far? Or is that your analysis also (for some reason I couldn't decide)?

genes and logic circuits make NOT Sense to me but this is what Keller had said. I am assuming my analysis that Wolfram's inclination will help in the creating of designs in nanotechnology and I DID NOT KNOW that particle physicsts did not care about where the little buggers really go. A fire fly that wants to decieve a mate could really care to know how the photons move so I expect good creationist fruit to come of Wolfram's work once the confrontation with natural selection occurs and since I read just today/yesterday the letter of Galton to darwin on Pascal's triangle I have no doubt that the history writ by the likes of Provine and Mayr is off (in the same sense that I am writ off Cornell). Time will tell to what extent the disjoint nature of autoamata assist in resurecting Goldshimts position effect but i think the reading is actually simpler if one reads Galton in terms of physiological and not transmission genetics. I think Mendel will need some reinterpretaion in the F1 F2 reciprocal idea which is not better than Gartners that Mendel cites in harmony. I will probably plan some tetraploid day lily nonrandom (the question) crosses for Cayuga Daylylies this winter if things go as planned and I attend Wolfram's school next summer. I see I will need to be a little more clear but for me I have not started to write beyond the first "1" in the pascal triagle while Galton was likely already writing to Darwin with the induction to any binomial in mind. It seem possible that 3:1 could be (1:2):1 OR 1(:2:1) depending on ones view of the evolution of dominance but let me not speculate about what I really dont know. I need something larger than this and symmetrical to test this without data.

I have updated "my understanding" in the EVOLUTION thread topic list to reflect your Anlage of this position on LOGIC and GENES. I do not think it is correct (what you said) as I said in this Free For All Thread above because (I am quite certain that ERICK on true seekers rather is incorrect) the result seems to be Organicism for which one can have Mayr's understanding of Mendel without if indeed the PDE that Wolfram used MATHEMATICA to find can actualy discrimiate in an embryological model the DIFFERNCE of snake and lizard scales. I looked quite a long time at the pictures in herp books and it seems that the maximum values of the PDE that Wofram grahphed DO indeed show where herp ANLAGEN (not plants' same)occur. Quite instructive is the possibility that the "horns" of the horned toad (lizard) can verify that Wolfram could be correct that the to infinity fluctuations that he saw is actually a result only of his search procedure but indeed reflects an old idea in herpetology that temperature has some influence on the genetics of scale formation but because this sounded so much Lamarkian to some I could not get the expts at Tulane on this off the Leve. You are entitled to your position about genes and logic cirucits but what I think is happening is that rather than as Dunn suggested in his history of genetics that we need a molecular history as well (hence support of that for gene=and gate)what I think is that there is an expansion of the organic experimetation in biology IN PARALLEL with the changes Wolfram thinks he can provide to physics. (Euclidian geometry and NOn-eulidian or the RIcci tensor vs the Remianian being the grue glue not any philsophy of science etc.)

BradShouldn't we be discussiong enzyme and signalling pathways if we are trying to establish if genes are analgous in some sense or not to logic circuits?There are systems biology people documenting and simulating these systems to earn their keep. Using dirty old reductionsim. We should be qoting these guys to see what they have to say before we embark on holistic explanations?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]BradShouldn't we be discussiong enzyme and signalling pathways if we are trying to establish if genes are analgous in some sense or not to logic circuits? [/QUOTE][/B]
Do you think you can respond to Mayr's notion (in ONE LONG ARGUMENT) of the difference of a Somatic Program (the reason I do not think (but I do not know)Dawkins is correct)) and the Genotype Domain(s)? I am not sure such exists and it seems conciveable with a detalied enough Wolfram kind of science modeling in biology that one may answering without having to prima facie assert Mayr some propretairyness here. If you can give a resonable defintion of "program" based on sinal pathways and particular genes OK else I still prefer my pet ideas of/in biogeography to supply the needed data that in theory De Vries may have already thought. I am still only reading this mutationist third or second hand.

quote:

---

There are systems biology people documenting and simulating these systems to earn their keep. Using dirty old reductionsim. We should be qoting these guys to see what they have to say before we embark on holistic explanations?

---

I do not think that a lot of this stuff matters until after some adjudication of Wolfram's claim about universality in chemical rnxns and biochemistry is judged. I could be wrong but this below from NO ANSWERS IN GENESIS may help.>Miguel, thanks for responding. I doubt you very much care that I overheard Richard Boyd essentially USING an arguement I wrote up in a 400 level ecology class when the assignment was to answer the question "Is Evolution Progessive?" and yet he refuses to admit he had some part in my leaving CU.It is not that I do not think that evolution "does not exist" as you find it in one's ability to so state on the web. I want a theory of bio-change which doesnt simply have gradual change into millions of years as its rasion de etre. You are free to work from this notion to relate space and time but I think that something very bioloigcal and yet very mathematical is possible which is cautious about starting from the transformed body already in this time frame.When I first started out as a biologists I was not impressed with the relation of counting and math to the UNDERSTANDING of biology as a discipline but during the transition to college I cam to a consideration that indeed THIS is needed. I was taking a vector calculus class fully expecting after a little understanding of linear alegebra that this was the too I would NEED and USE. I easily decided it was not. This left me with little else as I then choose to take the 400 level class on Group Theory but because I could not distinguish the "blink" in my eye from the transition to a claim proof of the symbols written on the black board I wrote up a senior year proposal that I hoped would provide me the tools I needed to comprehend bio-change. I had not been satisfied with the Genetics 281 class and did not realize as I do today how Mendel related math to botany but my challenge was more De Vrieian that Mendelian as I was interested in the effect of biogeography (geographic distribution) genetics (not simply speciation).The possibility of understanding biological change based on information in topography is nearly now 20 years later almost within my grasp but it will require a method to construct "ratios" from something like the difficult process that Mayr balked about doing based on De Vriesian "pangens". It is my opnion that Wolfram's claim AGAINST natural selection if true amounts to Mayr's distinction of somatic program and geneotype domain is falascious and further IF the origin of this view of Mayr's is from Galton's letter to Darwin about the difference of organic unit and molecular unit if one found a way to replace the "plus sign" in Mendel's espression with a multiplication I think the work aside from Wofram's insistence that his work equally applies to biology is all but over.One did not have to assume millions of years here even if there could still be contra Wolfram a total optimization that I would be more on Mayr's side than anyway. It seems very possible to use Wolfram's tools and Penrose pie/5 (Mayr refused to think of irrational numbers when I suggested them to him)tiling to create a "somatic program" of echinoderm 5-fold symmetry as a Wolfram all is a computation simple program philosophy that one would test by OLD idea of phenotype and geneotype INTO Mayrs(sic) (CROIZAT vs Mayr rather) domain or unit to see but meanwhile without using millions of years and any punc eq I may be able to ekk out the math that can be used with Mendel as a part of the gentic picture that would nonetheless still be harmonious to Mendel's view of Phaseolus which WAS NOT morgans.The Model would provide the means to label parts of the somatic "program" for artifical selection (mass etc) which could the test the theory JUST AS MENDEL DID IT and I believe De Vries saw the NEed for an extension of which in the rush to DNA had been reduced from the endemism it biogeographically stills needs to be deduced OUT of (not in... to).If this still is "insane" then you simply can not tell creative biology from the biology of the creation etc.