>Ccogan: Finally, I may as well point out that, if you understood the
literally *infinite* richness that derives mathematically from the principle
of repeated, cumulative variational branching, it's doubtful that you would
claim that the theory is "simplistic."
> DNAunion: That is incorrect: there is not *literally infinite* richness
produced by repeated cumulative variational branching. Had you said
"infinite", in double quotes to indicate the word should not be taken
literally, then your comment could be considered correct. But had you even
said simply infinite, without double quotes, your statement would be wrong.
And it is clearly wrong since you prefaced the word infinite with the word
LITERALLY. Simple refutation. There are 20 amino acids. If they are peptide
bonded
into a 10,000 amino acid protein, then there are 20^10,000 possible unique
arrangements of symbols (i.e., amino acids). This is many orders of
magnitude larger than the estimated number of fundamental particles in the
universe.
>FMAJ: So far so good but what are you trying to show here? Repeated
cumulative variational branching?
DNAunion: That even this one finite set of possibilities that I thought up
cannot be exhaustively searched by "cumulative variational branching" even if
the universe were trillions of years old. If "cumulative variational
braching" cannot fully sample a finite set, then it absolutely cannot fully
sample an infinite set composed of the same symbols: simple math.
>DNAunion: But then there are 20 times MORE unique combinations that are
have just one more amino acid in the chain. Then there are another 20 times
MORE than that one when another single amino acid is added, and so on, and
so on, and so on. All the possible unique combinations have not been hit, and
never
will, even if the universe gets to be trillions of trillions of trillions of
trillions … [you get the idea] years old.
>FMAJ: Mathematically the possibilities are infinite. You are confusing
forms of infinite here it seems.
DNAunion: No, I am using infinite as it should be: you two are conflating
INFINITE with something like VASTLY MANY. There is your error.
>Ccogan: Is it possible that it's your *understanding* of it that is
"simplistic"?
> DNAunion: That might be the pot calling the kettle black.
>FMAJ: We shall see.
DNAunion: All the evidence is in. "Cumulative variational branching" cannot
search the full richness of an infinite set as it cannot even search through
all of one of the finite sets I provided (and there are many, many, many,
many more such sets, none of which "cumulative variational branching" could
run through completely).
There is another possibility: that instead of saying that "CVB" could search
through an infinite set, saying that "CVB" could create an infinite set. But
this too in faulty: in both instances, "CVB" has full access only to finite
sets. Either way, the use of the phrase "literally *infinite*" was incorrect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 08 2000 - 20:04:35 EDT