Why do we need to know?

Actually Phil I was not objecting to anything you said. MM is not a proven theory, and no one is required to behave as if they believe it. Please feel free to restore your comments to their original color.

But it really does help to study it to the point of understanding if you want to talk about it. Especially if you disagree with one or more particular points. Many have raised one objection or another in the past only to find egg on their face the next day.

===

Mostly I was just confirming what you said for the benefit of others that might not be so sure of such things.


Regards,
LB

PhilJ,

BTW, the statement you quoted from jimiproton contains an error. If he replaces the word "matter" with the word "substance", it will be correct. Understanding why this makes a difference is important to anyone that wants to talk about MM, either to praise it or to damn it.

LB

Yes, Larry, I should correct myself;

matter: everything that is constituted of elementary fermions
substance: that element of an object without which it would not exist [quoted from wikipedia; don't have my books with me due to the endless travel).

This latter is a philosphical definition, and would still require "Form" in an Aristotelian construct, therefore I used "matter," to denote the observable substance.

Peter,

Please find a more appropriate forum for discussing non-science topics.

LB

Philj, thanks for your reply to my previous post.

DNA is certainly digital, as you say (just a base-2 and base-4 arithmetic). Then you said DNA is self-executing, which I'm attempting to viasualize. I'm getting stuck here, so I really hope you can clarify for me the actual process. Here's my previous question in another form.

Filaments have been seen in a cell nucleus just before mitosis (the separation of chromosomes before cell division) occurs. The filaments, connected to each chromosome and stretched towards either ends of the nucleus wall, pull the duplicated chromosomes apart. The separated chromosomes then forming twin cell neclei, then the filaments. My biology professor confessed that nobody knew how they moved, where they came from, or even what they were made of. His explaination was much like your own response to my question about the intra-cellular transportation mechanisms;

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The sequence for producing the right proteins at the right time and connecting them to form the right structure is all written in the DNA code.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Another question: what mechanism moves the Transfer-RNA from the cell nucleus to the cytoplasm, then back again once it has picked up and delivered its pre-programmed amino acid? Is it osmosis? Is it one of those filaments seen before mitosis?

I know an answer has already been given,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The sequence for producing the right proteins at the right time and connecting them to form the right structure is all written in the DNA code.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
but I was hoping for something moer specific.

Now, I know this is not what you'd really say. I'm just kidding [] But you may have read something in the recent academic papers that answers these questions, and just assumed it was widely known. So, if you do know what happens, by all means, don't keep it a secret from us.

About the other questions, I guess I have to say that we differ greatly (mainly the one that digital beats analog - no way, mate. no way).

Apologies! Correction to last post, 2nd paragraph should read,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Filaments have been seen in a cell nucleus just before mitosis (the separation of chromosomes before cell division) occurs. The filaments, connected to each chromosome and stretched towards either ends of the nucleus wall, pull the duplicated chromosomes apart. The separated chromosomes then form twin cell neclei, then the filaments <i>disappear</i>. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And I'm also sorry to you, Philj, for being vague in the last sentence. Here's briefly what we disagee on (I should call them merely "opportunities for understanding"):

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The brain is less well understood than DNA, relying on complex neuron connections. I am not certain if that isn’t at least partly analog.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I pointed to MM emphatically because, if we use it, then everything is assumed to be analog. A smallest unit of substance, if it exists, would of course put digital at the top (and analog a figment of our imagination). But, the burden of proof should not be placed on a negative position (eg. we have to prove that there is <i>not</i> a smallest unit of matter) That would be unreasonable, in fact, impossible. What we can repeatedly demonstrate, however, is that we are continually satisfied when we seek evidence for new substance at smaller and larger scales. I think of it as a hypotenuse that points to an analog nature to all things.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Even analog systems have limited sensitivity, repeatability, accuracy, etc. Anything they can do, a digital system can probably do better.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> If you're talking abour clocks or computers, I whole-heartedly agree. In music, I'd disagree, since digital can only attempt to approach the harmonic interactions of analog, but never reach them. Digital does not produce better results, but it does produce more controllable, more easily measurable results. The interpretation of results, through a necessary intermediary, can therefore be better.

So I think that the validity of a digital basis for substance lies in a limitation. Accept the limit as a premise, and you'd be right. I look at the digital world as a low-Earth orbit, never reaching escape velocity. An analog world is the Hubble Deep Field, continually revealing itself (more frightening, less controllable, but more liberating, grander, exhilarating).