What is life and how does it work? - with Philip Ball
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- Discover a leading-edge new vision of biology that will revise our concept of what life itself is, and how to enhance it.
Sign up as a member to watch the Q&A for this talk, and get early ad-free access to all our talks: • Q&A: What is life and ...
Buy Philip's book here: geni.us/HWnEn8V
00:00 Intro - what is the secret of life?
04:09 Is the human genome a blueprint or a musical score?
7:58 Crick's central dogma of biology
12:03 What scientists got wrong about genes and proteins
18:50 Why evolution chose disordered proteins
22:27 The process of gene regulation
27:03 Why life doesn't work like clockwork
30:29 The growth of intestinal villi
32:18 Why do we have five fingers?
34:55 Causal emergence
38:09 Do all parts of us have their own agency?
42:46 How does this affect genetic approaches to medicine?
48:09 Why do organisms exist at all?
Philip Ball explores the new biology, revealing life to be a far richer, more ingenious affair than we had guessed. There is no unique place to look for an answer to this question: life is a system of many levels-genes, proteins, cells, tissues, and body modules such as the immune system and the nervous system-each with its own rules and principles.
In this talk, discover why some researchers believe that, thanks to incredible scientific advancements, we will be able to regenerate limbs and organs, and perhaps even create new life forms that evolution has never imagined.
Philip Ball is a freelance writer and broadcaster, and was an editor at Nature for more than twenty years. He writes regularly in the scientific and popular media and has written many books on the interactions of the sciences, the arts, and wider culture, including 'H2O: A Biography of Water', 'Bright Earth: The Invention of Colour', 'The Music Instinct', and 'Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything'.
Philip's book 'Critical Mass' won the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books. He is also a presenter of Science Stories, the BBC Radio 4 series on the history of science. He trained as a chemist at the University of Oxford and as a physicist at the University of Bristol. He is the author of 'The Modern Myths' and lives in London.
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Donate to the RI and help us bring you more lectures: www.rigb.org/support-us/donat...
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - Věda a technologie
If you liked this one you can watch more of Philip's talks on our channel here
- What is a mind? czcams.com/video/uKZWF5amZMg/video.html
- Is it time to kill Schrödinger's Cat? czcams.com/video/UBI7u4frhak/video.html
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I’m painting 20 hours a day seven days a week and this is the purpose of my life by the wheel of God so I believe Well in my high school. I had this kind of teachers in art and in general and also also political leaders who were telling me yes just imagine you are 15 years old and adults. Yes, very powerful and influential people are telling you you were born to do something great so my art teachers were telling me God will punish me if I will not fulfill my destiny and it looks like my destiny is to be an artist because I always persisted in painting and drawing creating sculptures as well, and I disregarded my education Friendships or any kind of relationships because I don’t care I care only to create. I can speak about creation as a dance as a joke like a theater show like Shakespeare said the world is the stage. Yes that’s what he said. The world is by the stage, but in Hinduism, the universe is a dance of Krishna. Do you understand the concept? It’s a 7000 year-old concept that the universe is not a material solid item like a thing you can hold in your hand. No, the universe is a process, so everything I speak and everything you think and do is a process but at the same token the car you’re driving is also a process. The guy is a process solar system is a process. Milky Way galaxy is a process everything around you is a process but definition of a process it’s a vibration, I recently came across the concept the universe all the matter is made out of light so it’s a different vibration yes quantum physics nonexistence of subatomic particles. They are just vibrations so the atom is made out of vibrations so you and I do a bunch of vibrations like music like radio waves I think it’s very funny, I can’t get over that. I don’t exist here. I am talking to you, but I don’t really exist. I think it freaks me out.
😅
I'm so grateful to have access to free education like this
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
@@hyperduality2838 some of those things were words, I suppose.
Free Education in this case is "merely" poetry. Just sit back, loosen the brain cells with some alcohol, and enjoy! ...& don't forget to feed the algorithm.
@@hyperduality2838 Sir this is a Wendy's
What a perfect model of a scientist: Floral shirt, tweed vest, mismatched jacket, unruly hair, loose glasses, impeccable language. Love it.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
and the unmissable solo earrings...just to break the impeccable symmetry.
Stop looking at exterior and listen 🧠
No. He is just a typical badly dressed English.
Amazing speaker, what a joy to listen to him
Philip Ball is remarkably clear thinking and well spoken, in an engaging and sometimes funny way. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and learned a lot!
Good that you feel that way. Now you too can wax poetic during a small gathering!
His book 'designing the molecular world' published in 1990s was my favorite popular science book. It captured excitement in chemistry during that time. Many topics have gone on to get recognition by the nobel committee.
Like so many great RI lectures, rather than trying to answer the big question, the speaker probes at why we need to ask it.
Many of the subjects raised here are new to me but I feel as though this talk was aimed at me. Brilliant.
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Not mentioned in the description is a very educational book he wrote called "Designing the Molecular World" (or "Designing for the Molecular World" I don't recall offhand), but I learned more about actual chemistry and how things work at the nanoscale enough to get a visceral intuition for it. Yes, I HIGHLY recommend it.
Thanks :-)
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
@@hyperduality2838
Stop spamming this. What even is the point of all that gibberish? Probably nothing....
@@kindlin Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Your mind is syntropic as you make predictions to track targets, goals and objectives.
From a convergent, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Convex is dual to concave -- mirrors, lenses.
Duality means that there is a 4th law of thermodynamics!
Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
"The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
You are built from DNA which is based upon a language or code -- Duality!
Male is dual to female synthesizes children or offspring.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the Krebs energy cycle.
Mammals are dual to trees, plants -- the Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The duality of the Krebs energy cycle (via the Hegel dialectic) is why mammals and higher life forms exist.
You are a product of duality! -- It is hardwired into the physics and biology.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy (negative curvature) is dual to dark matter (positive curvature).
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
@@kindlin Natural selection is based upon random mutations or entropy -- Darwinism.
The concept of randomness requires its opposite or opposame to exist.
Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung.
If you accept randomness or Darwinism as true then you are unconsciously using duality according to Carl Jung as randomness is dual to order.
Order, structure or patterns (syntropy) in biology (DNA) are a product conserving duality -- DNA or the code of life is therefore dual as energy is dual, and you are built out of energy.
Everything in physics is built out of energy (duality).
And this is how a "watchmaker's argument" crumbles... Wonderful talk. Thank you Royal Institution! Sharing knowledge is simply wonderful and I'm so happy I can watch a lecture over a thousand kilometers away almost instantly. What an amazing time we live in 😏
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
What a fantastic lecture!! I shared it with many people 😊
Am so glad for my membership that I can watch this, and other presentations of the RI.Thanks so much xo
We're so glad you're enjoying your membership - thanks for supporting us!
Im not a member?
@@Ripen3prove it
@@Ripen3that’s why you are seeing it now.
@@Ripen3 Members get early access without ads to all our lectures, as well as exclusive access to the lecture Q&As, and help to support our charitable mission.
A fascinating, absorbing, brilliantly presented lecture! Thank you for sharing.
This talk was amazing. Thank you!
Terrific lecture. One of the best on YT.
Depends on your needs. Adding to superficiality, absolutely feels good and gets clix (ad revenue). Trying to learn about biology? One of the worst, most mis-leading on any platform.
@@OlehenryIt was mostly beyond me, but I have literally just finished reading The Selfish Gene which this guy referenced and claimed Dawkins was affronted by the idea that we can act against selfish genes, which is just categorically not true at all. First of all Dawkins celebrates that we can, and that it’s good, and separately makes the point that it’s as if genes have handed over the reigns to brains as they have foresight and adaptability.
Then he name drops Dawkins again at the end, giving the impression (to me at least) that Dawkins was confounded by the paradox of the organism before quote-mining from the intro of a paper that then goes on to explain how it’s not a paradox, with the answer/clue coming from how parasites work, and the idea of the extended phenotype.
It feels a bit dishonest to me.
@@EeekiE Ball & Dawkins are in the same business, and both feel compelled to straw-man simplistic arguments in order to bolster "his" mysterious hypotheses. I find Ball to be utterly romantic & superficial WRT his understanding of biology, eg: the immune system. Whereas Dawkins has a far stronger grasp of biology & computation, eg, his writings displaying integration of these fields without constantly hand-waving away interesting but confusing outcomes and defaulting to "see, see? that's gotta be agency!". While I am always saddened when Dawkins does anthropomorphize (to gain clicks/views/book sales?), Ball is far worse and this talk clarifies that he thrives on knocking over hastily-constructed straw clowns.
Keep reading & thinking, & best in your journey!
My favourite lecture of all time. Thank you
Wow...such an amazing lecture. Thank you Ri for uploading this❤
Brilliant exposition of a complex subject.
Beautifully said! THANK YOU!
Excellent!
I love this guy
Just awesome! Magnificent talk, and an exquisite book from a brave brave scientist!
Thank you Philip, Thank you Ri!
A Stimulating lecture 💯
Wonderful talk, very clear explanations of some of the biggest conundrums in biology and thoughtful proposals on solutions to them.
It's easy to see why so many people out there might be completely overwhelmed with the mind boggling complexity of life and then just resign themselves to the impossibility of it all occurring through through a set of very distinct elements and their properties and just saying "god did it" .But then of course you'd have to honestly ask an even more impossible thing and that is of course well then where di "he" come from ? and just like that, I know which one is more plausible. (Apart from all the other obvious stuff of course). It's like opening the back of your phone or computer and you just say "good grief !!! what the...."
Very good, thank you
Malleable. An adaptable system.
I was waiting for this talk from Philip Ball. Brilliant! Thank you so much for downloading it.
Brilliant lecture... 👏
amazing and eyes opening lecture
❤❤❤ what an amazing lecture, so inspiring! Incredible speaker. I’m a huge fan of this channel, thank you so much for sharing these brilliant lectures with us. Forever grateful…
Great lecture, worth repeating it. Plenty of insights to ponder about.
Great, amazing lecture!!!
Amazing - I thought the image at 10:33 was just Philip playing the oldies, a picture from David Goodsell's wonderful book. David did well.
Thanks Phil. I wonder what you did with your proto brains? The image of the cell was mind blowing. Enjoyed and educated!
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
I have concluded that quantum physics is for those who find biology too strange.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Thanks!
That was a fascinating illustration how design looks that is not teleologic
Love it! I'm sure there's a good answer but he didn't mention it: Why don't we have villi everywhere?
If there is a Q&A can you attach a link in the description. TYVM.
causal spreading and causal emergence. mind blown!
What an enjoyable talk. I loved the joke with the Holy Roman Empire. Never thought of that before.😂
"What is life" is easy, if you're only asking for a set of criteria that distinguish life from non-life. We can look at life, and describe it at a level that simplifies and generalizes enough to generate a set of criteria. The hard question is why meeting that set of criteria actually enables a system to be _life,_ in the sense of all the nifty stuff about life that make it worth distinguishing from non-life. The important thing about the simple set of criteria is that it does enable something to be life.
Something is life if (and only if) it's a chemical system (so a computer simulation is a simulation _of_ life, rather actually than being life, even if it does all the interesting stuff) with a genetics that can support its metabolism, and a metabolism that can support its genetics.
Metabolism and genetics are two different forms of information-processing. A bunch of DNA by itself, that just stores information isn't a genetics. To be a genetics, a bunch of molecules need to include some that store information, some that copy information, and some that connect information to something else. Likewise, a network of chemical reactions isn't a metabolism if they just either happen unconditionally, or unconditionally don't happen, with catalysts (enzymes) for each reaction just either being present or absent. Metabolism is a set of reactions where catalysts are active or inactive, present or absent, conditionally. Such conditionality is a form of information processing, just as much as replicating, transcribing, and translating genetic information is.
When both forms of information processing are present, it becomes possible for them to interact in amazing ways that enable the higher levels of what makes life _life._
Outstanding lecture.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
What year was this talk given?
the answer to the question why the small cannot describe the e complex is the phenomenon of aquired trait. at a certain level of complexity and size new traits appear which cannot be forseen by just studying at a given level. of discipline categories seems to arbitrary but the boundaries happen to be at the inflexion point where these new traits emerge in the e system: quantum physics, physics, chemistry, biochemistry , molecular biology .... psychology, social behaviour
At 19:25 while talking about non-coding Genes making intrinsically disordered proteins, he states this process is not a mistake; it's something "evolution has... chosen... in order to make more complex organisms." I'm having lots of trouble wrapping my head around that statement. Seems he's given almost divine power to the process of Natural Selection.
Because he's a poet, not a teacher/mentor for understanding the subject matter.
@@Olehenry He seems like a smart guy, though. But, I think he took a tooth-fairy type jump over discussing why most of our genome is made up of non-coding genes
@@MrCampfires Agreed w/ both thoughts. Why does he make use of the tooth-fairy throughout? I was always puzzled by analogies from smart people in grad school -- we don't want analogies, we want the facts & best hypotheses! (Well, I did anyways). 🧚🏼
Working in origin of life and getting to the bottom of this issue, it’s frustrating and sad to see that the naive (perhaps even stupid) mistakes in thinking about life talked about here run in full force, even celebrated…
Little if any people here seem to understand that the task at hand is to understand how does living organization emerge, accrue, and keep going all the way to now… where that very organization is what is enabling us to look back at itself.
Thank you for having this talk published. I needed to have this enter my ears from *not me* yelling at the wall in frustration because all I hear around me is an impressively vacuous desire to “find a self replicating moleucle”. How is it not manifestly obvious that no such thing exists? And if it does;it ain’t relevant to life. You, dear reader, are not your mother’s “copy”. It’s as if Xerox machines managed to spin up a cult.
Life is actually very easy to define… Alexander Pope did it in a snippet of a poem:
“not chaos like together, crushed and bruised;
But as the world; harmoniously confused.
**Where order in variety we see;
And where, though all things differ, all agree.**”
Fascinating! Wish kids would study this instead of playing combat videos all day
Pink was an interesting color choice for the graph at 37:00
Early in the lecture, his black box is missing two inputs and two outputs. He needs energy and materials as inputs, and waste energy and materials as outputs. Later he says that gene control is both digital and analog. But he kept using the word "fuzzy" which makes me wonder if fuzzy logic is a better way to think about it.
This idea of "floppy proteins" is new to me, but I can see where it would be useful, in the way it is able to interact with a wider number of "targets". Proteins generally are thought of as having a "tertiary structure" that is, the way the fold up on themselves and adopt a certain shape, or 3D structure, for example enzyme lock and key theory. All the amino acids that they are built from have electronics charges on parts of the molecules that causes them to bond (eg. hydrogen bonds) in specific ways
Philip Ball knocked it out of the park with this presentation. I had no idea a human cell is that complex. "Horrendously complicated" sure sums it up. AI is gonna turbo charge human understanding in biology.😃
This guy is an f'ing riot!
The link to the book is not working
any mention of Rosalind Franklin?
I believe it was Douglas Hofstadter who said something along the lines of: there is so much structure inside a genome, that it only makes sense inside of and hence implies the existence of a cell. From that point of view, the gene-centric view of life / evolution can still make sense. Natural selection operates on units of information afterall, and genes are the main thing passed on from generation to generation (putting aside cultural transfer).
The environment has very much to do with how genes take effect and can affect the DNA that is inherited. The environment has very much more to do with traits than just cultural transfer. Evolution still makes sense in terms of reproduction because without successful reproduction the species dies out. At the same time, development of the brain and cognitive capacity for the need to reproduce can be useful for things besides reproduction.
In brief, the streetlight effect caught the scientists again!
Really beautiful and profound overview of modern biology that navigates away from the old and machinelike models of explanation. Scientific and hopeful!
Sorry for the suggestion: "Scientific sounding..." and hopeful. Absolutely optimisitic!
@@Olehenry Scientific means for me at Bottom: in service of truth and wisdom. Some scientist don't meet this standard. Vice versa I am allergic of people misusing scientific jargon to dress up, an intuition, feeling or hope. I didn't get my allergy from this talk!
@@Afrika_Percussie Agreed, Ball does not misuse technical terms to dress up his intuitions. This was pure poetry, anthropomorphic (humanized, from a Philip Ball perspective at age 65?), which indeed navigated away from mechanistic "it is what it is" and toward "surely there's a purpose in there". But why re-define science? You can have *both* useful science and simply, emotionally-satisfying poetry. I won't take his poetry to a call for funding, and you find little satisfaction in reading from a published, peer-reviewed journal article. Both personal preferences.
But the intentions of any person can/should? be divorced from the outcomes of hir work. Otherwise you're leading anyone so enamored by wisdeom argued from authority, which is a road always paved with good intentions.
Hope that is food for thought. Peace.
@@Olehenry I think you can't make the distinction between science and imagination (or poetry) as clean-cut as you it to be. Thinking is neccesarily also driven by values. Good thinking acknowledges this fact.
@@Afrika_Percussie Agreed that humans are inherently unable to carve a fine line between science and imagination (or poetry) during thinking, and thus the details (of a proposal for funding, eg.) are vitally important. Also agreed as to the impossibility of separating values from the thinking, post-thought analysis, and future planning. Introspective thought of a previous thought (eg: reviewing Ball's claims) can reveal misleading statements, and in this regard, good thinkers acknowledge this and act on it. Which I have done. Why? I predict that young budding thinkers of scientific quality will be confused, slowed unnecessarily, and probably become lazy in understanding mechanism of action because Ball confuses his intuitive make-believe with what we call scientific laws, mechanisms of action, ie Physics & Chemistry. His weaknesses at these levels are bleeding through in his effort to motivate and educate, to a young person's detriment. IMO. Maybe you are pleased by the poetry because your work will not stand on the scientific shoulders, nor contribute to the body of biological knowledge. So by all means, continue to cheer. But please consider the unintentional harms to a young mind when an authority figure is confounding hir misunderstanding of principles with narrow (Ball's perspective), vague (make-believe), and sweeping generalizations (spirituality?) about these biological phenomena. (It happens a lot at the elementary, middle-, and high-school levels, then continues at the university level, undergrad up through grad school. And it's confusing our young people.)
My answer to the 'paradox of the organism' is as follows. Just as there is such a thing in nature as conservation of momentum, so there is such a thing as conservation of structure. The structure I have in mind is DNA. An organism is DNA's way of conserving itself.
Google “the paradox of the organism” and you’ll find the paper written by Richard Dawkins that coined it. It’s called: Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism
It’s freely viewable online.
This chap quote-mined part of the introduction, giving the impression that it was some unanswered paradox that confused Richard, which this guy just so happens to have the answer to, but the entire point of that very same paper is that it’s only an *apparent* paradox, and it then goes on to explain why it isn’t one. It’s really disingenuous.
He did exactly the same thing when he said Dawkins was ‘affronted’ by the idea that brains could defy selfish genes, but The Selfish Gene book he’s referencing makes the point that it’s a *good* thing, and that genes seem to be increasingly handing over control of the organism to brains which have foresight and adaptability in a way baked in genetic instructions can’t.
This guys great insight to what ‘affronted’ Dawkins is exactly what Dawkins himself said in the very same book this guy is referencing. Super disingenuous.
4:28 "Well, some people have questioned whether this blueprint or instruction booklet metaphor is really the right way to think about the genome." The best understood parts of the genome are the protein-coding parts, or the exomes. Perhaps that part is more like the Bill of Materials for the protein components of life. Other pats of the genome are important for gene regulatory networks (or condensates), but I don't think you can read off the details of gene regulation from the 30 billion CGAT data. If people ever figure out how gene regulation works, epigenomically exposing different exomes in every cell type, that might be akin to the software the makes the protein and non-protein hardware operational. At best the genome might contain something like a manual for (part of?) the programming language. It contains all the keywords and constructs, but not the variable names or data structures.
So the genome doesn't seem to be like an orchestral score either, which is like a comprehensive description of what final output is to be performed. It might be like a store of the notes and symbols that metabolism can use to fill up an empty staff. How exactly the score gets assembled by genome, epigenome, transcriptome, translatome, etc. into functional proteomics, gene regulatory networks and metabolism is still unclear.
the central point of the central dogma is that the information encoded in the DNA is not changed by downward flowing information, eg. proteins do not change nucleotide sequence.
Nice move, but we all know what really matters sits outside of the technically true but not that meaningful "central point of the central dogma", ie the assumption that information only flows one way, which has had huge implications for our understanding of life in the last half a century, in short genetic reductionism and genetic determinism, precisely the positions Ball is arguing against here
@@marcodallolio9746 genes alone obviously don't determine every trait/behavior. genes + environment do, though, exhaustively. no one controls either. both just happen, unfolding either completely deterministically, or mostly deterministically with occasional randomness, ie. unexplained/unexplainable occurrences.
the obvious falsity of simplistic genetic determinism isn't that much of a shocker. it was mostly motivated by sinister fascistic politics anyway, it was always without a well thought-through empirical basis.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
at 50:30 What is the biggest unsolved problem in Physics? Perhaps, posing the wrong questions...and solving them precisely.
It's amazing that when it all comes down to it, we just heard an engrossing presentation by someone whose distant relative was a rock. So if he came from a rock that must mean that rocks have agency? Something for you to think about!!
I do hate how Rosalind Franklin is barely ever mentioned when talking about watson and crick.
Male is dual to female.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
I already know how life works, I wake up in the morning, I do stuff during the day, then I go to sleep at night.
It works???
Interesting. The idea of cognition is fine because that relates to recognizing structure and change. The idea of agency is OK because we separate ourselves from the environment and interact with the environment. However, I don't see any objective evidence or reason for those things to have been self-directed from a free will sense. The free will was just wishful thinking. I can only think it was slipped in from a desire to have some inexplicable autonomy over our lives.
Neoronautics is his calling
What if the answer is simple though and it’s circumstance
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Oh dear, I'm thinking of the pre-conditions of AI at this moment.
Always makes me feel annoyed when someone praises Watson & Crick, at least he mentioned Watson had no problem lying about the history about the discovery.
...and sidelining Franklin.
Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
What doth life, life, life...
Life I.S. Information system, informing you to lecture at the royal Institute.
“In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins sounds almost affronted that our behaviour sometimes seems to go against what a selfish gene picture should make us expect”
Having just finished this book a few days ago, it doesn’t seem at all the impression I got. He never seemed affronted or even confused by it. Richard celebrates that brains can “rebel” against genes, and says that genes have in a lot of ways handed off control to brains that have foresight and adaptability.
This guy needs to re-read it, as the point he made after that quote is pretty much exactly what Richard said, and celebrated, back in the 1970’s.
And then at the end he again quote Dawkins in reference to “The Paradox of the Organism”, before again implying Dawkins didn’t understand it or was flabbergasted by it, before offering his own take. But the quote is lifted from a paper freely available online that introduces the apparent paradox as a means of explaining why it isn’t.
Read it for yourself by searching: Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism
Forget selfish genes, it seems the only reason this guy is name dropping and quote-mining for the purpose of straw-manning Dawkins twice is to elevate his own profile.
Read The Selfish Gene and see what it says about selfish genes building brains. Read that paper and see what it says about the *apparent* paradox of the organism.
This guy is a bit disingenuous, or at least weirdly hostile to someone that isn’t making the points he’s claiming they are. Very bizarre.
This lecture is outstanding and has implications to AI aka Artificial Intelligence or as Dr Harari calls it, Alien Intelligence. If our biology has agency, will AI have that capability?
Any object or concept is composed of an infinite number of partial descriptions (truths) (perspectives). So to try to sum something up with one perspective is foolish. The best that you can do is give a list of partial perspectives (descriptions) truths). The worst that you can do is be completely wrong. You can never be totally right. This applies to defining life.
*That's because of the Presence of DOUBLE LOGIC in the human GENOME !*
Sounds like someone read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
Excellent job walking through sort of a replay of the last few hundred years of the narrative at the heart of biology, and then coming to brilliantly look forward into the next leg of the journey…I think.
At 13:31 or so, we see that the guys are still working without actual measurements. Reminds me of the state of astrology just before Newton replaced those huge piles of magical speculation, wholesale, with a telescope. I’m surely not qualified to ask the question…BUT: Why is a molecule-appropriate “telescope” not the entire objective of the science community unless and until we have one?!
At 22:09 we find we’re attending a “complex daahns” with some intimidating but again fairly useless post-modern pollack paintings… Music? Ballroom dancing? How about weather? Anybody up for a “maelstrom?” I take deductions from baseline credibility by counting up the number of words that still use “ae” in the spelling…
At 32:26 “mechanical…” Now we’re getting somewhere! My kingdom for an appropriate telescope-thing!😢
And yet, this also feels like we’re tiptoeing up to math similar to the astrophysical “three body problem” for water, CO2, and …magnesium something, isn’t it?
Feels like we are tantalizingly close to an unforeseen breakthrough. I sincerely hope…
needs to credit the woman for x-ray crystallography
Sorry but these were all examples, I didn't see any attempts to answer the question.
I understand that Crick and Watson used abductive reasoning when working out the double-helical structure of DNA. Why does Philip Ball say they deduced it?"
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Because no one cares about the strict definition of words when speaking colloquially.
While this lecture brings up a number of interesting and critical elements of biology that help explain how life really works, it introduces misconceptions about evolution and I worry therefore that on balance the audience is no more well informed in general than when the lecture began. This is funny because the initial thesis of the lecture is that the story of life that lay people receive is woefully under detailed. How unexpected that while illuminating fascinating facts about the operation of genetics and cellular behaviors the lecture would commit the same sorts of explanatory sins that it bemoans with regard to the evolutionary process by misrepresenting its core tenants. Evolution has no wants and it does not choose. Those features that arrive by random chance that result in increased offspring production persist and proliferate. From an evolutionary perspective we can understand that there is no plan. We can further see that the chaotic nature of biology is exactly what we would expect. If a gene exists in an organism that is useful, it is useful because it provides some predictable or consistent process. By mutation an existing gene may be incorporated in some other aspect of the organism. If this incorporation happens to improve reproductive success this change will also persist and proliferate. Perhaps like quantum measurements if we want to explain genetics we must sacrifice evolutionary accuracy and vice versa. I would like to think not, but this lecture seems to suggest that I'm wrong.
He doesn't address the problem of what life is. It's not a substance, a force and certainly not a magic black box. It's a process if it exists at all: a relatively simple one in viruses and a highly complex one in plants and animals.
He's a poet, not a mentor/teacher. Living in an analogy....
Life is too complicated to be described by so called DNA and proteins etc with all my due respect to doctors and biochemists …. We all need to step back and think together how to reconcile the big picture of societies, history, science biochemistry etc and philosophy the latter is really the starting point
Perhaps we are electric. That is life and being alive.
This should be titled, "Blathering Tea-bag gives boring slideshow".
12:00 that doesn't make much sense. A banana isn't an organism. It's part of a larger organism.
Isn't that a bit like cutting someone's finger off & then implying the genes in the finger only grow the finger & nothing else?
A banana is more like a sperm I think. Maybe.
That doesn't make much sense. The same DNA (hence the same genes) are located all throughout the organism, be it a human or banana tree
Imagine being given the opportunity to give a lecture on such a fascinating topic and managing to be so dull.
Awesome lecture! I'm also really happy to hear someone intelligently knock Richard Dawkins of his high horse.
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA.
All languages (messages) are dual.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding.
A is dual to T.
C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs.
Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle.
The Krebs energy cycle is dual.
The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual.
The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
He really didn't. In fact, in The Extended Phenotype Richard Dawkins already decades ago pre-emptively refuted the type of bad argument Philip Ball makes here. This bad argument here is framing the selfish gene view has one that has to find "ways to think about this paradox", the paradox of the organism that is. Richard clearly explained why that is simply missing the point of the selfish gene view, since the conclusion is that the organism is not only NOT a paradox, but actually an inevitable result of genes acting selfishly. More generally, the point of the selfish gene is not that higher levels than the genes don't exist nor have causality, but that one DOES have to go to that REAL lower level of selfish genes that still does exist in conjunction to that higher level, in order to be able to explain the phenomenon of life fully. In order words, appreciate the impact of BOTH the lower and higher levels, and their roles in the full complexity of life.
Really, if anyone is taking a high horse view here it's Philip Ball and incidentally you as well. Dawkins's whole point is simply that the selfish gene view is one that must be acknowledged and used in conjunction with others, whereas you and Philip Ball are the one who are taking that condescending "no mine is the only one, mine is the better view" attitude.
@@2CSST2glad I’m not the only one that noticed the two strawman quote-mined segments of this talk. I’m far from a Dawkins fanboy but having just read The Selfish Gene a few days ago in no way whatsoever was Dawkins ‘affronted’ by the idea of brains defying the selfish gene’s programming. It’s the clear opposite of that. Dawkins also pointed out that genes handing over the reigns to brains with a general ‘instruction’ to do whatever you think is best is superior as it’s adaptable and brains can have foresight.
Then when there was yet another Dawkins dig at the end about The Paradox of the Organism it made me suspicious, so I found the source of the quote, and the *entire* point of that paper is that it is only an apparent paradox, and it actually makes sense when you understand parasitism and that the phenotype of a gene doesn’t have to occur in the host organism’s body.
I get why people want to knock Dawkins down a peg or two, but you don’t do it by being disingenuous and attacking a strawman version of him.
آفرین و براوو👏👏
خودت که داری میگی
مناول فیلم نوشتم 🙏👍👍💜💜💜🥇
Get rid of the phony Tester ads, PLEASE!
باور میکنید از دو پست قبل تا این
اصلا نمیدونستم روی چه بحثهایی تمرکز وجود داره
ولی برای همشون دقیقا مرتبط و مکمل نوشتم و حتی بخش گربه شرودنگر را اصلا ندیده بودم به شرایط محیط✋️✋️✋️✋️✋️😳🙉و جالب بود در نوع خودش🙏😁
There is multiple human manuals which many millions refer to. You've just chosen to ignore them.
Not quite. Speaker too is a poet, waxing as one w/ *pseudo-scientific* frame-of-mind. Different from your reference "manuals", which are primarily *make-believe*, not even close to pseudo-science; take heart -- some of your supernatural dreams are referenced here to support a "unifying spirit" or "greater purpose" so to spit/speak. Sheesh -- join the masses and partake a sip of wine (helps dull the unsettling feeling of ignorance), sit back a bit, and enjoy the modern poetry! 🥂
The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities:
1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity
Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions:
Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab)
Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab.
Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes.
2. Pluriversal Superpositions
We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations:
|Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c)
Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn.
The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution.
3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities
The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations:
(a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn
Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations.
4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting
The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes:
Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)]
Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration.
In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering:
1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions
2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations
3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings
4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings
By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.
Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox?
A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions.
Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity?
A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality.
Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia?
A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer.
Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.?
A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism.
Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc?
A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start.
Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc?
A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality.
By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.
The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include:
1. Theories of Quantum Gravity
A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs.
For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny:
ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy
Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy)
Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy.
2. Foundations of Mathematics
It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks.
For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations:
⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N}
Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc.
3. Unification of Physics
An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements:
Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ]
Tμν = Σab Γab,μν
Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...)
Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν.
The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts.
Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry:
1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes
Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions
dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi
Pref(R/S) = f(Φn)
Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness.
2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics
Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries
dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals)
κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities)
Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals.
3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes
Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Pluralistic Quantum Superposition
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives)
Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties)
Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms.
4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes
Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies
d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics)
LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits.
The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales.
Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry:
5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter
Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations
|Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p)
Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p)
Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads.
6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Complementary Pluriverse Observables
Δx Δp ≥ h/4π
Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles)
xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x)
Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity.
7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond
Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations
Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions)
|Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states)
Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations.
8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow
Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically.
Non-Contradictory Possibility:
Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics
S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn)
pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies)
dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization)
Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms.
In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.
What???
@20:30 just as the speaker tends to load his presentations with analogies because he too has been (mis-)led by sh(eye)t analogies all of his life.
Bro hacked my brain
ژنها و کل فعالیتهایشان به دو مسئله و اصل دیگر نیز مبتنی و کاملا مرتبط هستند به جز رنگ و چگالی و نرمی انها
که خیلی عجیبتر است ✋️✋️😁💙💙
life is positive energy . Its invisible clear energy, Its life energy. ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY. that's all it is. Its conscience energy too, like God . The creator of everything and everyone everywhere.
What is life? baby don't hurt me..
No more
'Stop_Sc_Trollogy?'
*You need to DISCOVER, and Understand The DIFFERENCE, between the human body and LIFE ! The human body is NOT LIFE ! Period... Examine any part of your human anatomy including your brain, to see IF it is "AWARE" of anything ??? For example hold your hand out in front of you and examine it carefully to see IF it is "AWARE" of itself or anything else ??? That's right it doesn't even know it exists ! The Only thing that is "AWARE" of Anything is "AWARENESS" which is Non-Dimensional and is NOT a human Component... IF "AWARENESS" did NOT First exist you would NOT be able to be "AWARE" of Consciousness, which is The "LINK" that LINKS "AWARENESS" to the human brain ! "AWARENESS" is "LIFE The Real Self" !*