metatron

No, this is something I need much more work on. Forumulas are not my strong suit.

Quote; How is this different from standard reductionism? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- These physics, biologists, and mathematicians deal in a systematic view of the world as patterns of relationships, rather than the traditional approach of reductionism. This type of ''systems view'' sees the world as patterns that contain information which can be utilized to see more patterns in a framework of connections that can be used as models. This type of science to me, represents an advanced perspective. A paradigm based not in the old hunter gatherer mentality, but on the predilection to see the universe as a network of cooperative functions, rather than unrelated parts to be collected and dispatched into categories. Thank's for the feedback

It such a ubiquitous process we use in language, math and communication technology we forget nature invented this process first by creating cells . I see this process as a collapse of information into a point, as the system at large reaches a threshold of complexity. This point is then kept stable by its surrounding parent matrix. Once these systems become self-replicating as in biological systems it can continue drawing additional information from these outer matrices. This is the purpose of why living systems behave in this way. This instability enables the system to collect information in mathematical process {Algorithmic iteration} therefore the system builds more and more internal complexity , patterned after its surrounding matrices, or Environment. Conciseness is merely another information gathering system that has been compressed from the biological system that surrounds it. Communication technology is yet another compression point by our cognitive systems. System emerge from within systems, and they all compress information from waves. That’s what life is doing capturing information at large. Waves in the form of light and sound and compressing it into the quantum level.

I'm not sure I understand the question in terms of "effect"

The point about biological systems being irreducible complex is that in cannot be built bit by bit. The separate parts have no function outside the contex of the whole. What Kauffman is saying is that the basic biochemical system can form all at once though the spontaneous order of self-organized systems (autocatalytic sets). What my discovery shows is the same process on the level of complex animal life during the cambrian explosion. In other words the same process that catalized the chemistry to make the first simple cells. Brought the cells together to form complex life forms. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SYSTEMS THEORY: Systems theory or systems science argues that however complex or diverse the world that we experience, we will always find different types of organization in it, and such organization can be described by principles which are independent from the specific domain at which we are looking. Hence, if we would uncover those general laws, we would be able to analyze and solve problems in any domain, pertaining to any type of system. (Principia Cybernetica) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________________

Quote Originally Posted by Mokele;You have not shown didly squat about your "fossil", only claimed it, and sheathed those claims in technobabble. Explain what a dissipative structure is, explain what an oolithic sphere is. YOU are the one presenting, and you are presenting to an audience (so far as I can tell, though I can speak only for myself) of biologists who don't know squat about systems theory.Quote Look it up. http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution9.html

Quote;Most importantly: Where is a single scrap of proof that this phenomenon even exists, and where is the empirical evidence for these "pulses of genetic information"?Quote Quote;No, it is not. There is no cyclical regularity to PE, only correlation with environmental change. There is no sudden, instant pulse of genetic information that makes a new species, just good old natural selection.Quote "March 11, 2005 news releases | receive our news releases by email | science beat Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes Contact: Lynn Yarris (510) 486-5375, lcyarris@lbl.gov BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent. “What we’re seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it,” said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, and UC Berkeley’s Physics Department. “While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the entire post, context of information, and being honest can be helpfull in these discusions, and would save time and alot of bandwidth, Here is the post in question that I believe reflects current evolutionary theory. What is known about evolution, is that life changes over time. What is not thoroughly understood is how life accumulates this information. We can see by the fossil record that their is not only a pattern of change but also a morphological mean or stasis over long periods. We have stated that the controlling factor in this pattern can be traced to random mutation and natural selection. However current models do not reflect the fossil record. If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. {punctuated equilibrium } Some in the scientific community have acknowledged this gradual process of natural selection and mutation, may not account for the stability and sudden change in morphology, Also there exist a major disparity in the appearance of these original phyla level body plans. According to the fossil record, they have no record to the past, and intermediary’s between each other. Simply put we understand evolution about as well as gravity, electromagnetism or quantum mechanics. No matter what anyone says, their still exist in science today a major disparity between our map of the evolution and the actual territory of the fossil record.

Chemical responses emerge up from a layered hierarchal domain of genome, cell, organs. What I am postulating is there exist a non-chemical link in this biofeedback system. One made of sine waves emanating from the heart. The cognitive system compress information via the Neural-net into signal, this signal induces subtle changes in the tension of the heart muscle. These subtle changes cause the heart to create a particular set wave patterns that resonate this hierarchal structure resulting in a cascade of biochemical responses. As for artificial hearts, I do not know enough to comment on what kind of changes take place in recipients. I’ m have trouble finding how long patients live and what complications they have. I do know it is a temporary device. Intended for transplant recipients.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, lets see the unedited version of that post; Quote; If natural selection and mutation has such an effect on morphology, why then does in remain so perfectly stable then suddenly take such leaps. {punctuated equilibrium } Quote http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11177 post 55 & 56 You should be ashamed.... ............. ........ ......... ............... .......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- why did you edit out the part {punctuated equilibrium} and then state; "you did not understand or possibly even know of PE" -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote So far, all you've done is gibber about your personal God of "systems theory", without giving any sort of concise explanation of why it's even needed. Occam's razor, the least complicated explanation should be preferred. Given that I had to explain punctuated equilibrium to you in another post, I sincerely doubt you know enough to actually make a convincing case.Quote Show me were you explained puctuated equilibrium to me. quote;You're attempting to construct an entire theory that's not needed, not supported by empirical evidence, and based on a rock from your driveway.quote Show me were I said it was from a drive way. Truth is what science is about mokele. You cannot advise me on a model based on a science you have not studied.

"There is geometry in the humming of the strings... there is music in the spacing of the spheres". Pythagoras

First you will need to study systems theory, so then you will be able to understand and recognize a model based on this framework of information. Then you will have acquired the ability to criticize it on its merits. But for now lets just forget my model and concentrate on my initial query. Let me ask again, because I sincerely am seeking an answer to this question. Are these scientist that I posted considered suedoscientist?

Welcome, Punumbra Heres My systems veiw on how galaxies form. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11027 What does Penumbra mean?