[Fis] Dualist Manifest . . .

[Louis Kauffman]

Dear Marcus,
I am interested in thinking about “DNA Code”. 
Here we have a pattern in nature that can be agreed upon — we have knowledge about how the sequencing of the bases in DNA is used in the operation of
cells and their replication.

DNA does not appear to be “code” in the sense that we use the term for coding a message where there is an alternation between meaning and syntax. If you see that 22 has two two’s in it you are examining the syntactical level of 22 and writing out its meaning; you are making an observation about the string 22. 

This sort of translation to a description (and back if we write 22 as an encoding of 22 — I am referring to things like 3#4* as an encoding of ###****) 
is not what we see in our observation of the DNA/RNA cellular workings. 
What we see is much more tied to contiguity of interaction of the molecules. 
We observe already developed molecular machinery doing a variety of jobs. 
There is no syntax < —> meaning  loop there. 
We as observers find ourselves in those loops as we do the science.

One can look for simple recursions that only involve contiguity and yet perform some complex task. 
For example, suppose we consider strings involving entities I denote  by star, left paren and right paren.

*             {                }

Suppose that in the single dimension of the line they interact as follows (one dimensional “particle interactions”)
**  becomes {*} and
}{ cancels to nothing.

Take that as our universe with its particle interactions.
I will use —> for “becomes”.
Then
** —> {*}
*** —>  {*}*
****  —> {*}** —> {*}{*}  —> {* *} —> {{*}}
***** —> {*}(*}* —> {**}* —> {{*}}*
****** —> {*}(*}** —> {*}{*}{*} —> {* *}{*} —> {***} —> {{*}*}*

If you play with this and if YOU interpret a row of stars as a number so that * is 1, ** is 2, *** is 3 and so on
then you can prove that {X} corresponds to multiplying X by two (as above {{*}} corresponds to 2 x 2 x 1) and that 
a string of stars will reduce to a “coded” version of its form in the binary system!
WE see all that as particle theorists about this small world.

The little world with its particles *,},{ does not “know” any of this.
It just operates by the interaction rules
** —> {*}
}{ —> 

The same thing seems to be the case for the complexity of the DNA/RNA system. 
So we see coding in the sense of syntax//meaning, while the system operates according to specific and complex patterns.

It is useful for us to think of coding, but we do not know how the rules and structures in the molecular biology actually evolved.
In that question lies one future for this kind of science.
Best,
Lou

 P.S. If you play with the little world of * and { and } you will realize that in one dimension you want to allow AB = BA when A and B are legally parenthesized expressions.
Thus {*}*{*} should be allowed to become {*}{*}* —> {**}* —> {{*}}*.
This would, in one dimension, require a lot of rules. 
For that reason I would reformulate the small particle world into a two dimensional
world where {*} would be an enclosure of * by a closed curve (say a circle). 

Then “objects” can move around in the two dimensions and interact. 
AB can float about and turn into BA by the B going off the line and floating over the A and landing on the other side of the A. 
Apparent complexities are accomplished by more geometry. 
Three dimensional space is enough for many purposes.
Any graphical network can be embedded in three dimensional space.

PP.S. There is coding in the sense of cryptography and 
coding in the sense of computer programming. 
You will notice that we are playing here with the relationships of these two meanings of coding.

> On Oct 6, 2021, at 7:57 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The discussion on code I found interesting, but I did not see enough specificity for it to lead me anywhere useful. For example, how exactly is code constructed (what are its 'universals' or 'primitives')?, who is constructing it?, who is interpreting it?, and to what end exactly? These seem like basic issues I did not see named (did I miss it?)
> 
> The discussion on duality I have a similar reaction, interesting, but where is it headed?, what are key dualist constituents (primitives)?, are we speaking of simple binary (1,0) ways of thinking, or? The problem with any dualist view I have seen is that they are not innately creative – it is 'input' and 'output' thinking (in a most general sense), it cannot get to 'input', 'processing', and 'output' needed for creativity. This dates way back to Pre-Socratic dialectic logic . . .  It is for this reason that I have always had problems with Joe's LIR (Logic in Reality) – last I checked it was STILL an essentially dualist model . . . and then 'processing' often becomes a challenging Black Box.
> 
> I posted a dualist-triune approach that does cover creativity, and which has abundant evidence. For those interested, it is covered in my IS4SI talk, which can be viewed here: 
> https://youtu.be/2rS9uT08YP8 <https://youtu.be/2rS9uT08YP8>
> A cursory companion paper (5.5 pages) can be found here (sans references):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VoNCuIE2KcDWRV92iKFR4zevIcTQcQmP/view?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VoNCuIE2KcDWRV92iKFR4zevIcTQcQmP/view?usp=sharing>
> A more detailed companion paper (10 pages) can be found here (with references):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1eGAe_1lkXPGbS2cVoja4n6CyGtzVlW/view?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1eGAe_1lkXPGbS2cVoja4n6CyGtzVlW/view?usp=sharing>
> 
> I look forward to further thoughts on dualist thinking and hope this material somehow adds to the dialogue.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Marcus Abundis
> about.me/marcus.abundis
> 
>  <http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig> 				
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
> 
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20211006/2a9dfbb0/attachment-0001.html>