True story about snow

Partition coefficient

Posted on: March 25, 2010

What is the smallest level of self-preservation? Does information like to continue to exist? I like ways to transmit information, DNA, prions, bits. What is the best (most efficient, most varied but robust) number of bits for encryption?

Advertisements

3 Responses to "Partition coefficient"

Depending on your standards w/r/t what constitutes form or not, a single bit is infinitely self-preserved, or binary-ness. Before asking what the smallest -thing- that self-preserves -is- you need to really fix your definition of -thing-.

This may seem like a pedantic criticism, but it seems pretty clear to me that at this level of discourse it’s important to resolve such questions. For instance, is a city a form? Is “redness” a form? Concepts? Memes? Or are we restricting discourse only to the “physical?” I think that such a restriction is unwarranted/impossible given that there is nothing if we do not allow some concept into the mix. Even you are just atoms without pattern if that pattern is not known, if time doesn’t move, etc.

Getting down to brass tacks here.

Yes, the ol’ Defining Terms. Still rough, but something about information (i.e., translatable pattern) wrt TIME and INVARIANCE. Especially genetic types of information, where some built-in flexibility for mistakes over all time enables change, but careful spell check needed for persistence. Is four nucleotide bases the ideal smallest unit for living things? (ideal balances dynamics and stability). Prions are transferrable through generations, and their instructions are based in three-dimensional shape.

The vague paranoia that comes with realizing evolution favors what gets laid, not what is necessarily better, leading to wondering at the independent motivation (hard to not anthropomorphize) of patterns to keep being patterns, (…GATCTA…)and the parenthetical substantiality of snails and bears.

But like totally, the color red, the idea of a hamburger or the transcontinental railroad, all these arranged little ideas, I’d believe in the possibility that they fight for self-preservation just as hard as we do. After all, life’s struggle to keep existing is essentially a struggle to carry on a particular pattern.

And also better strategies to store information synthetically–ones and zeros? Shape?

Why are brass tacks so famous?

Yeah, there’s good reason to despise the desire to define terms: define “define.” Define “desire.” Define “reason.” Bleh, etc., and so on.

But I wonder, anyway, if these things “fight” or “struggle” to survive anymore than a feather “fights” to get to earth. Maybe we’re all trapped in a march, hemmed in on either side, and some of us make it to the party, and some of us just marching out into our dying fields. Maybe information is just our footprints as we march, ha!

I mean, my point here is that there are so-called “Classical Perspectives” on information which I think are fairly deeply fundamentally flawed and maybe it’s best to look at really revolutionary or different/difficult possibilities.

Like – what’s a pattern, REALLY. Deep down at the heart of it? Doesn’t it require a observer – someone to say “this, THIS is a PATTERN”? Maybe there aren’t any patterns at all? Why would there be? Because everywhere is fundamentally the same? Atoms here = atoms there? But why would that be? If the world is running as a program then why do we feel anything? Why wouldn’t it just be a list of states?

This topic is so impossible, agh. It’s really frustrating. I’ve been thinking about it for literally YEARS (I know, long, huh?) and haven’t hit any sort of intellectual berock, argh!

Maybe if we both list our assumptions out and then take the intersection of our lists we’ll fine the kernel we can use to explore this space. But if it’s not big enough then surely we will fail, but at least we’ll

know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


  • None
  • and/but: Yeah, there's good reason to despise the desire to define terms: define "define." Define "desire." Define "reason." Bleh, etc., and so on. But I wond
  • Wonder: So I wonder why you cross lines between all levels of abstraction so swiftly and I wonder whether you even notice. I wonder to what degree these c
  • realsnowfake: omg I bring I back from he dead just for you, zombie blooooog

Categories

%d bloggers like this: