Title: Symmetry in botany, DNA and evolution Post by: gamma on May 30, 2009, 04:31:51 PM "If a natural object or organism demonstrates consistency of form [...], such symmetry is the consequence of Something rather than Nothing."
Adrian D. Bell http://algorithmicbotany.org I disagree, because symmetry is equivalence and that is less than anything else in addition to the original. Presumably, replication across space and time is closely related. Replication is preservation of the same. Over time new detail is added, proving once again you don't need something more to get something from fundamental principles that are emergent. The chance insertion of random data is sufficient. Title: Re: Symmetry in botany, DNA and evolution Post by: Nahee_Enterprises on May 31, 2009, 10:16:31 AM Interesting points of view, from both sides. ;)
I will have to think on this for a while to see where I stand on the subject. Title: Re: Symmetry in botany, DNA and evolution Post by: jehovajah on September 23, 2009, 01:55:09 AM Something? Nothing? This seems to be part of the ongoing creationist evolutionist debate, the intelligent design proposition. I have no axe to grind or points to score or persons to persuade. For me every possibility exists as a potential, what probability space i inhabit is down to my acceptance of models i have created or received or modified in my experiential continuum. One thing that is fundamental to all things is that we do not have a concept of nothing that i not a product of our own iterative deductive processes culturally. Every culture i have examined except this late western european culture has no absolute nothing because it is not an experiential consequence: it has not and cannot be observed. It is an abstraction. As a consequence many useless debates have arisen around it and many other abstractions. I welcome abstractions, but they have no more significance than anything else, in fact since they are devoid of so much that is of significance it is arguable that they have less significance. The other fundamental process to all things is iteration. AS far as i can perceive all similarities and congruences are to be expected in a possibility space that is iterative in action. Whereas i do not pretend to understand the argumentation in string theory it is reasonably clear to me that if we replace the time dimension of so called space time by iteration steps we can expect the same sorts of results but no need to be hindered by so called time constraints. The movement of space is so fundamental that i failed to notice it due to cultural conditioning. Also the fact that space can only be something is not the basis of thought in the west and so leads to a lack of coherence. Whatever cultural paradigm one wants to use to refer to this experiential continuum it is evident that i must keep interacting, searching , using the iterative scientific method using whatever premises i choose culturally, to construct a deeper ,richer,wider experiential continuum for myself, or stagnate and become obsolete, out of touch and increasingly dysfunctional. |