What I came up with as a "Fundamental Theorem of Biology" is P = (n^a)*f, where:
P = probability of viable organisms
n = number of nested levels
a = acceleration factor
f = lowest probability of self-assembly of a fundamental element
Initially all I focused on was the 'f' factor.
Given a set of fundamental elements, S, what are the probabilities of self-assembly? For example, suppose S = <P,Q,R,S,T>. Further, suppose we define rules of the form, If C then PQ, meaning that if condition C is met, P and Q assemble (join together). If the rules can be expressed mathematically, the probability of any statement (e.g. If C then PQ) can be calculated.
Given the probabilities of all these statements, a Markov transition matrix can be created. A Markov transition matrix is just an eigenvalue problem, which means that for simple cases, we can derive closed form equations for the probabilities of self-assembly.
If we assume a simple rule such as for any list of fundamental elements, there are equal probabilities of assembling with the element preceding and following it in the list, the equation that results is: f = 1 / (2^(n-2) + sum{i=2,n}(2^(i-2))). Several cases like this can be solved. However, they quickly become so complex as to make closed form solutions impractical and numerical solutions become necessary.
One means of numerical solution is TAM (Tile Assembly Method). If one programs rules for Markov chains as described above, it can be quickly demonstrated that TAM correctly approximates the closed form cases.
... If I could, I'd give it up for life.
I would disagree about your statement that in nature random doesn't exist. On a quantum level there is no doubt that it does. Above that it is all statistics. Also even at the macro level there appears to be randomness. Chaos theory covers that. The universe appears to be not a wind up mechanism where perfect knowledge would allow a one hundred percent prediction of what will happen next.No don't give up speculating! Speculating is the life!
In nature, random doesn't exist, according to investigators. But the extent of complexity appears unpredictable. (This is a bit like equivocity of analogy and analogy of equivocity.)
Instead of worrying why we can't get to the ultimate, why not let's revel in the questions we can ask, the points others raise, and a perhaps more developed version of your equation, or several equations, as components in a starting point. Runners can't run unless they have a starting point. That's why I love these threads.
Although the same cannot be said of the plots of B-movies. (Just something I noticed while self-isolating on NetFlix and PrimeVideo)The universe appears to be not a wind up mechanism where perfect knowledge would allow a one hundred percent prediction of what will happen next.
Indeed, it seems I've done a poor job.
It would be easy to write a program where something evolves. It would be easy to write a program where nothing is created until an intelligent agent intervenes. Neither of those programs would mean anything. It begs the question to assume evolution or creation in the fundamentals. If the structure is to mean anything, it must be built from first principles that make no assumptions about the result.
Indeed. That is how I wanted to approach this - to show how it all developed. I didn't get a sense anyone had the patience to follow along, so I just plopped down a result. I'm not surprised it looks thin and meaningless.
But I'm at a loss how to proceed. I might suggest something like starting at the beginning and developing something together - something all participants can engage with - but ... meh ... I dunno. Sorry.
I would disagree about your statement that in nature random doesn't exist. On a quantum level there is no doubt that it does. Above that it is all statistics. Also even at the macro level there appears to be randomness. Chaos theory covers that. The universe appears to be not a wind up mechanism where perfect knowledge would allow a one hundred percent prediction of what will happen next.
If you are using him as a resource he is rather outdated. Once again, at the quantum level all of the evidence shows events to be statistical. Not predetermined.
If you are using him as a resource he is rather outdated. Once again, at the quantum level all of the evidence shows events to be statistical. Not predetermined.
Quantum indeterminacy - Wikipedia
Experimentation trumps philosophy.
A cautionary observation: the specific information used by the author of "The Secret Life of Plants" is fascinating and likely as accurate as any set of scientific data in a "frontier zone" of investigation. I find the equivocation of terms (memorize, communicate, etc.) in the link title troubling. It suggests an attempt to convince through rhetoric rather than evidence.Resha, I came across this, on the secret life of plants, from a contributor to the "Peirce List" the other day:
quote
In some theories of ontology, the focus on scientific principles tends to omit or downgrade the importance of goals, intentions, and feelings. Such issues are often deprecated as "anthropomorphic". Other systems, which emphasize neuroscience, downgrade any kind of memory or reasoning that is not based on neurons. Even the field of biosemiotics puts more emphasis on animals with brains than single-celled protozoa, which have no neurons. The semiotics of plants was usually ignored.
But in recent years, biologists have discovered the complex methods of communication, memory, and learning by plants. For a review of those methods, see "The secret life of plants: How they memorize, communicate, problem solve, and socialize": The Secret Life of Plants: How They Memorize, Communicate, Problem Solve and Socialize
These developments show the importance of broadening the foundations of ontology to include phytosemiotics as well as zoosemiotics. Those issues are fundamental to every aspect of life from bacteria on up. They cannot be dismissed as "unscientific".
unquote
A cautionary observation: ... I find the equivocation of terms (memorize, communicate, etc.) in the link title troubling. It suggests an attempt to convince through rhetoric rather than evidence.
My own view of intuition was arrived at independently of any formal research in the matter, is entirely based upon personal observation and consequently may be casually disregarded as anecdotal.Gary Klein in The Power Of Intuition (2004) explains how intuition is not airy-fairy but works powerfully hand in hand with logic.
... I would make sure I had studied all the relevant facts ...
I think this is as much a problem of definition and specific semantics as it is equivocation. We usually use terms like 'memorize' and 'communicate' to describe the activities of mammals (particularly humans), and so they come with implicit baggage of complex and sophisticated assumptions and associations, yet the words can be applied in far simpler contexts. When they're used for plants, that we are accustomed to think of passive and lacking complex & sophisticated behaviours, it doesn't feel right. Perhaps we need to qualify the words according to the context involved...A cautionary observation: the specific information used by the author of "The Secret Life of Plants" is fascinating and likely as accurate as any set of scientific data in a "frontier zone" of investigation. I find the equivocation of terms (memorize, communicate, etc.) in the link title troubling. It suggests an attempt to convince through rhetoric rather than evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?