Hi Jonathan and all
Jonathan:
> Time for a biology lesson Magnus. The 4 letter DNA code is provided by 2
> different purines and 2 different pyrimidines polymerized into long chains.
> The sequence is first transcribed from the genes into mass-produced shorter
> pieces of messenger RNA, that migrate into cellular soup, and then the
> messenger RNA is "translated" into proteins. The protein translation
> machinery is indeed a microprocessor. The system has molecules to recognize
> different triplets in the RNA, a system to bring one of 20 different amino
> acids corresponding to the specific triplet and then machinery to polymerize
> the amino acids in order to make a protein. It is proteins that catalyze the
> chemical reactions of life, controlling metabolism and causing cells to
> maintain and reproduce themselves.
Thanks Jonathan, I won't claim to be an expert on this in the future but at
least I know more than I did a few minutes ago.
> Let me remind everyone, however, that the naked DNA is meaningless without a
> living cellular machinery around it. It would be like having a CD of
> Microsoft Windows XP 200 years ago - potentially full of information, but
> meaningless.
Then I'd say that the information in our DNA is indeed intellectual patterns.
And it is written in the language of the cell microprocessor.
> > > MAGNUS:
> > > . . .the term 'quantum information' is a contradiction in terms in the
> MOQ.
>
> Magnus, I think you are being careless with your terminology here. Quantum
> theory starts with the premise that physical systems are "quantized" in
> distinct states. This is a prerequisite for any information system based on
> bits and bytes. A binary switch isn't much good if you don't have a clear
> on-state to contrast with a clear off-state.
I'm not saying that quantum patterns are not quantized. I'm saying that there's
no intellectual patterns there since I'm considering information to require
intellectual patterns.
What it boils down to is our different interpretations of the MoQ. You equals
quality to meaning which, I think, puts the first division of the MoQ between the
social and intellectual levels. I, on the other hand, think that meaning comes
from the social pattern we call 'language' and it's this language that is needed
to read the intellectual patterns in the underlying media (or inorganic pattern).
This, our difference, has almost always been the source of our disagreement but
I'm not sure I've been able to convey my interpretation to you. I would very much
appreciate if you could rephrase it back to me so I can verify that I'm
understood. Of course I'm also interested in why you think it's incorrect.
> But it is WE who compartmentalize the world into separate entities that
> interact and "decode" each other.
> I hope that I don't have to explain the significance of this in a forum
> devoted to Pirsig.
This also points at our difference of opinion. It is not only 'WE' that
'compartmentalize the world'. It is quality events at all levels that do.
> Magnus, I disagree. The utility of separating information and meaning is
> clear. By making this distinction, Shannon pushed communications engineering
> forward enormously. I also disagree with the statement "the only thing left
> is the inorganic pattern . ..".
> The "information" itself is an abstract pattern. It makes no difference
> whether it is inked letters on paper, holes in punch tape, magnetic fields
> on a disk, microscopic bubbles in the plastic of a compact disk, bumps in
> the groove of a gramaphone record or whatever. The only important thing is
> that there is some sort of material media to carry the message.
You say "abstract pattern" (and BTW invents a new type of pattern besides the
four in the MoQ) and I say intellectual pattern which is already in the MoQ.
Ok, Shannon separated information and meaning, but in MoQese it would translate
into inorganic patterns and intellectual patterns respectively. It was a good
separation but we disagree because of our same'ol difference.
> MAGNUS
> > And I don't think a quantum pattern *can* store information as we know it.
> It seems to require an inorganic quality event to
> > 'evaluate' or 'collapse' the quantum bit into an inorganic pattern. I just
> read about researchers at IBM that built a quantum
> > computer consisting of seven atoms. The main obstacle is to manipulate and
> read the state of the particles without affecting
> > them. There seems to be no direct entrance to the quantum world, you must
> always pass through the inorganic layer.
>
> Magnus, I think that you would have a hard time convincing any scientist
> that you understand the jargon you are using. Please explain to us what
> quantum patterns and why you think they are not bona fide inorganic
> patterns.
That's what I was doing on the MF this summer if I remember correctly, let's see...
Yes, we were discussing "Entropy, information and time" on:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/0106/date.html
Also, in the thread "Time: fixed vs. unfixed" I wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the quantum
world is so vastly different from the inorganic. I really think it's
just as different from the inorganic as the biological from the
inorganic. The laws of nature simply doesn't exist anymore, just as
the laws of biology simply doesn't exist in the inorganic world.
It's that simple.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps it won't convince many scientists but I would stand a better chance if
he/she understood the MoQ, do you happen to know any?
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST