Re: virus: Metasystem Transition

Dave Pape (
Tue, 4 Feb 1997 00:21:56 GMT

At 00:02 03/02/97 -0800, Dan wrote:
>At 09:49 PM 2/2/97 GMT, Dave Pape wrote:
>>At 15:58 31/01/97 -0800, Dan Plante wrote:
>>>The pattern I percieve, in every (logically consistant) transition
>>>postulated, is this:
>>>Start with a system of (usually but not neccessarily) identical, self-
>>>reproducible components. Observe that there are no higher levels of order
>>>(there are, as yet, no emergent properties related to the interaction of
>>>the components).

>> [CLIP]... do you really need the
>>self-reproducing condition?
>>I'd argue that atomic-scale interactors don't
>>self-reproduce, but interact to produce metasystems (such as molecules).

>I scratched my head over that one too for awhile, then realized I wasn't
>looking at the whole picture. I realized that I was picturing all these
>atomic interactions producing all these various and sundry chemical
>compounds in the context of only a few hundred million years, and only
>in some fictitious tidal pool on primordial earth, basking only in
>terrestrial energy levels. I thought "Well, hell, the system 'Terrestrial
>biota', for instance, may only be planetary in scope, but the system
>'atomic interaction' is /universal/ in scope. Seen in this light, the
>components that give rise to self-replicating molecular structures here
>on earth do, in a sense, reproduce. They're torn apart (die) in accretion
>disks around massive objects and other celestial sources of fission.
>They come together (are born) when pieces meet each other in gas and dust
>clouds, etc, and they change/evolve in stellar fusion and super-nova.
>Through this particular evolutionary process, accumulations of greater
>and greater numbers of atoms of higher and higher atomic masses continues
>until the components neccessary for a meta-system transition come
>together, on the third planet of a third generation star, that, by now,
>has enough concentrations of the right atoms, mostly hydrogen, oxygen
>and nitrogen, but especially carbon, which seems to have an almost
>limitless affinity for other atoms and can therefore more easily be the
>backbone of very complex molecules, like precursor-RNA and, well, you get
>the idea. So the "system", in this case, is a complex one, consisting of
>the hydrogen atom, and the physical laws that operate on it....
>....just a thought.

Erm... I'd say that working of subatomics into atomics was NOT
self-reproduction of atoms WITHIN THE ATOMIC SYSTEM, but emergence of an
atomic METAsystem from the interactions of a subatomic system.

PLUS I STILL don't think you need self-reproducing things because...

It's been shown that you can get long-chain carbon molecules forming in
conditions where there's lots of methane, sulphur and CO2 in the gas phase,
and plenty of water, phosphates and electrical discharge going on. None of
those molecules self-reproduces (ie, makes more of itself)... but I can see
that, out of interactions within this chemical system, a biological
metasystem (NOT controlling the chemical, but just interacting with it)
could emerge.

>Hmmmm. Infinite regression/progression of meta-system transitions?
>>>Any thoughts?
>>Well, you did ask:
>>How about the whole Omniverse (including things at the Initially...? and
>>And...? ends of your list) being explainable as computation of some
>>algorithm? And, one of the properties of that algorithm is that, as it
>>computes, it gives rise to new computational spaces for itself to be
>>computed in?

Could be!

>>So, if you look at the Omniverse as a grid, with the colour of each point in
>>the grid corresponding to how high the algorithm processing stack is at that
>>point, most points will be dark, because there's just little diddy particles
>>kicking around, but a few (proportionally) will be bright, because there's
>>subatomic, atomic, ecological, biological, organic (ie cells into
>>organisms), cognitive, and loads of layers of memetic processing going on
>>Huh? Huh? How about it?
>>Dave Pape
>Sorry, Dave. My head hurts and I'm going to bed ;-)
>Dan (yeah, RUN, ya coward!) Plante

Yes you can run. But I know your email address. And I know where you like to
hang out. So get fearing!

Dave Pape
The memetic equivalent of a G3 bullpup-design assault rifle blowing a full
clip at my opponent. (Alex Williams 1996)

Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1HN