> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com >> <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com >>> <mailto: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. > > But isn’t the particular handedness itself a result of symmetry breaking? > (I’ll confess I’m completely ignorant of this chemistry) That is to get an > asymmetry presupposes something first broke a symmetry. > >
Clark, please read more carefully what I wrote. Obviously, atoms are presupposed logically to be symmetric in order to derive QM eqn for spectra. But, this belief is mathematically grounded on the notion that the nucleus of an atom resides at a stationary point which coincides with the point [0,0,0] in the Cartesian co-ordinate system and that the electrons “orbit" the nucleus, the shape and the forms of these orbits be dependent on the atomic number and the immediate source of the spectra. This is the Schrodinger hypothesis and its extensions. You aware of that, I presume. Perhaps your question is simply a question of mathematical logic? Perhaps you are over-looking the mathematical fact that the axioms of group theory are an antecedent algebraic theory that can generate geometric physical consequences when one applies to use physical variables? Perhaps you are not aware that a single chemical atom, the name of a chemical element represents a logical constant, not a logical variable? I am curious, which of these three speculative conjectures reflects your motivations for framing such a strange question? Cheers Jerry > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
