Brent Meeker wrote:
> > That notion may fit comfortably with your presumptive
> > ideas about 'memory' -- computer stored, special-neuron
> > stored, and similar. But the universe IS ITSELF 'memory
> > storage' from the start. Operational rules of performance
> > -- the laws of nature, so to speak -- are 'memory', and
> > inform EVERY organization of action-appropriateness. Its
> > 'memory' of the longest-term kind actually.
>
> Assuming there is no inherent randomness. Even in MWI of QM, you can't recover
> the past from the present, except in a coarse-grained approximation. So you may
> say the universe has 'memory' and even 'is conscious' but that's stretching the
> common meaning of the words beyond recognition.
Your comments are exactly on target Brent, because I am
doing exactly that - stretching the 'common meanings' of
this and several other concepts. Not to take them beyond
'recognition', but definitely beyond the conventional.
Because the conventional notions are narrow and too
presumptive (by familiarity, and unexplored assumptions).
When you mentioned MWI and 'randomness', my first thought
was of Andre Linde and alternative universes defined not
as variables of -this universe- but as alternatives of
the universal constants - where different values of force
and field strength and assignment - vary. Eg, where the
fine structure constant is not (approx) 1/137, but maybe
1/143.9.
Even those 'possible universes' would be functionally-pinned
to certain values and not others. Where again - the value-states
would be the 'primal memory' of -that- specific universe.
Actions that happen 'because of' or 'conditional on' some
temporally "previous" information (aka 'instructions', guide
data, etc) are what you seem to associate as 'memory driven'
behaviors. Where we have a current notion of 'stable, recallable
information', and by experience that kind of information seems
to be N (data) that is 'stored and later accessible' when/as
needed. So with that kind of -general notion- I began to think
about 'general conditions' and where functional instructive
information -could- be held for -any system's- general draw.
Memory as resource. Well, it just seems to make sense to
first look at relationships that fill that definition, not
the mechanisms we are aware of that match the relationship.
"Memory" of 'how' to perform. Irrespective and indifferent to
'mechanisms'. Whether it provides 'choice' or not "to" perform.
The universal constants and similar invariant relations-of-systems
must be includable as a form-of-"memory".
Which in the long run is much much better for our intuitive
notions of existence, life and being. Life for example, may
be a special existential state, but its a lot more spectrally
consistent to think of sentience being wholly present, but in
precursive primary forms, and then in refined, improved capacity
forms later on, than to say that this massively important
quality flat-out has no familially related qualia, and then
suddenly does.
We already see other aspects that show the spectral notion
to exist. For example there are power laws and wave function
-laws- that are seen in the QM realm and macro/complex systems
- like animal speciation/ditribution studies; relation for relation.
Even though the 'qualia' that display the rules, laws and relations
are quite quite different. Where there is more going on than
scaling differences to account for those mappings.
The example I use often is the QM "defined" electron 'shells'
of atoms. The interesting thing about them - especially the
valence group - is that electrons of the approprotiate energies
can fill or vacate those QM regions. No big thing, you might
remark. Very calculable. Great for building molecules we
might want; understanding physics event and chemistry.
Right. But there's more.
A qualia currently not defined.
And it goes like this: certain respiring animals
use materially identifiable organs called 'lungs',
to capture gas and release gas. They take certain
energy/configuration molecules and exude other
energy/configuration molecules. Plants are complementary
and do the opposite exchange.
But both kinds of organisms 'breath' in some fashion,
through some 'physical' organs or organelles.
So lets look at valence shells of electron. There
is no cognition or 'intentional' or survival-related
necessity to hold/release electrons. An atom or molecule
won't 'cease to exist' if the activity of filling/emptying
valence states of an electron doesn't take place (as part
of some larger/extended metabolic sequence of electron
transferring) - but - a living organism -would- die if
atoms didn't functionally 'breathe'.
The valence shells of atoms are their defacto 'functional'
"lungs" even if they don't exist in/as a 'physical'
manifestation of -material- operant organelle.
I am NOT imposing a biology model on to physics.
I AM citing that primitive precursive BEHAVIOR
CAPACITIES exist from the outset of existential
living system - within the formative first
systems of organization that the universe
exists as.
If we intuit that the whole of existence is
a unitary (witness the strong belief in a
unified field theory or a TOE) then rationality
informs us to look for performance connections
from scale to scale of organization - as per
Colin's post recently.
Current paradigms can't bridge the gap between
non-living and living. Mainly because the better
categorizing is Pre-animate vs Animate.
Jamie
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Dec 18 2006 - 01:23:18 PST