> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> One critical fact that is “the elephant in the room” is the intrinsic >> asymmetry of nearly all biomolecules. Life Itself depends on the asymmetries >> entailed from parent to offspring and the offsprings capacity to reproduce >> these quantum asymmetries through the energetic casual electric field >> relations among discrete molecules. (This is the well-established quantum >> physics of optical isomers, of the handedness of biophilic and biogenic >> hyle.) >> > > > Could you expand on this?
In the simplest possible cases, the magnitude of the handedness of a biophilic molecule is a function of five mathematical objects, all of which must be different from the other four. No group operation is possible on the order of the five different objects of a handed biophilic / biogenic component of the anatomy of the identity. BTW, this argument (expansion) is part of a manuscript recently submitted for publication. As you may recall, the paper on the perplex number system was published several years ago. It has taken me more than 15 years to unentangle the connections between CSP logical reference system for assertions (perhaps syllogisms?) that illate legisigns for handedness to one another via the atomic numbers. Cheers Jerry > Even without adopting something like string theory why couldn’t this be > explained by early symmetry breaking and the usual weak anthropic reasoning? > i.e. we need an universe where life was possible to make the argument about > which symmetries matter. The universes with different symmetries couldn’t > produce people to make that argument. > > I recognize there’s a certain similarity between weakly anthropic reasoning > and the problems of string theory. The difference is that there seems to be > far more evidence for symmetry breaking in the early universe and > thermodynamic arguments for the same. (Even if supersymmetry seems to have > been falsified by recent collider data) > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
