Conversations On-Line
Ad Hoc List   open forum

19

                Subject: Roland Cook on Bohm                 Date: 02/06/97 

'.. not "linear", not "non-linear".. MULTIPLEX .. several simultaneously'

Roland Cook wrote on 2/6/97

>>(JR) Y'know, I did write you about one of your abridged Bohm quote's. No rejoinder?

>(RC) I got it. You were emphasizing that Bohm's thoughts and yours were somehow parallel. I did not get the point...
>Roland

[JNR] No you didn't. No I wasn't. I was emphasizing the recognition that when a given set of parameters is established in order to evaluate a system, one ends up with a specificly denotable "information set". That "i.s." changes drastically when the parameters change ... as when taking into consideration potential expanded environments and new relationships (new information) stemming from that enlargement of frame-of-reference.

Godel's Theorems are not just a warning sign that "restrictions and limitations exist re 'information'", they are notification that we might be able to accomodate that technicality, and surmount it if we ammend our mathematics structure.

No information-set stays static and fixed. DNA/RNA does *not* harbor ALL the information for the developmental production of organisms. It codes for the production of certain proteins and molecular structures. New relationships (new
information, activity patterns) arise and get enacted; displaying the next order of templated "information". That sets up the conditions and environment for subsequent dynamic orders.

Recent anatomical evaluations of Australopithecine Gracile and Robustus subspecies showed that they deviated in the vascular flow of blood draining from the brain. One had a straight drop back down through the cranial opening to the spine. The other showed a wide looped turn inside the skull before exiting downward.

The differences represented a drastic adjustment in differential development of related brain formations in those regions - affecting the posture differences of the two sub-species, and allowing expansion of certain cerebral regions in one, restricting enlargement in the other.

There is no DNA variation which coded for "go straight" or "make a loop".

The DNA most likely coded for a particular hormone production. In one it coded to shut early, in the other, a delayed stop-codon. A local cerebral site was hormonally encouraged to keep growing, competing with the simultaneous competitive intrusion of circulatory tissue, into the region.

An anatomical change was forced. The impacts affected many systems, and eventually the speciation of a life form. One branch being able to cope better with its environment (the world at large) than the other. Interactive survival at the gross physiologic scale favoring the species with the random codon change.

It is *wrong* to look at convenient simplistic reductionistic evaluations - even and especially in the debates of QM, classical mechanics, guages and fields, non-locality et al. You *cannot* isolate a phenomenon from its environment and ever hope to establish an accurate picture of events. I believe in this so much that I take it to its most conceptual extreme: you *should not* evaluate a mathematical formulation without taking into account *its* environment also.  Other informational impacts reside there.