Why God Has Not Spoken — Yet

Some day I do in fact expect what has been called in a similar context, “First Contact.”  What we have been given so far (What the light of nature teaches) amounts to some interesting facts, especially when we fill out their implicates with a few interesting facts and propositions of our own to provide a better way of understanding nature’s light, as it comes to bear on the topic of God speaking.

First of all, we deny that God did any speaking in the creative acts necessary to get us here in the first place, since 1. There was no audience  2. He did not need to speak to create (an act of divine volition suffices), so that Ockham’s razor bids us to shave off this part of the explanation of the creation event.

Second, our blessed and most wise Creator gave us as “general revelation” what was nonverbal, proving He is able quite well to convey to us what we need WITHOUT WORDS.  Since we still have that light and wisdom from nature, and God’s plan cannot be thwarted, we still do not need divine speech.

The third fact, is, however, likely to shove something of a stick into the wheels of the progress of this argument.  God has given language and writing systems to us to make us wiser.  Our “speaking platforms” (language and writing systems) make us far, FAR wiser than we were without them.  This means that we will continue to progress in our ability to grow more diligently and flourish more brilliantly in the wisdom of nature’s light in the future.

This suggests, that, combined with the law of progress in the light of nature, that God intends to speak to us in the future, but that we must first progress much more “fluently” in the wisdom of nature.  We are not yet wise enough.

Recall the principle from the wisdom traditions we already know: “Do not speak to a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips.”  Would this prevent God from choosing to speak to us?  “The secret of the Lord is with the just.” And again, “Do not give to the dogs what is holy, neither cast your pearls to the pigs.”

Here are a few other points to consider in pondering this question.  God only gives his very best.  This means that if He were to speak to us, He would need to await our construction a language thoroughly and accurately constructed upon the principles of the wisdom of the light of nature — else He could not give us His very best in a badly faulty tongue.

Inference: God is waiting.   He intends to speak to a council of our very wisest when, and only when, we have created the nearly perfect language, having founded it carefully and accurately upon the principles of nature he has given us as wisdom.  The Wise language – the tongue of “pure monotheism,” is the only one He speaks (the very best), and we do not yet have it.

Inference: We should get busy about our Father’s business.  It would appear that this business includes diligent and faithful (did I mention critical) studies in the philosophy of language in light of what we know about ideal language and pure (limited) monotheism.

First contact may not be too far off.  Just remember — WE are the aliens.

And now for a brief postscript.  If God speaks (verbally, as opposed to the nonverbal LON), He will speak only in the ideal language, that language constructed accurately and solely upon the principles of the light of nature.   By learning that the myth of the infinite God teaches that we have been praying all these years to a wantonly falsely-portrayed God, we should rightly think that only in this generation are we beginning to love God aright.

It should astonish us that it has taken this long just to learn to BEGIN to love our Creator rightly.  We have been reckless and foolish in our approach to Him, but no longer.   Now we can begin to work together to construct just that most ideal language, that when we have it promises to reshape our minds and our whole person(s), making us suitable (over time) to God’s true friendship/ fellowship for the first time.

The quest for wisdom necessarily, eventually, leads one into God’s presence.  But we must first learn to speak his language.  And then we must rehearse our speech in that tongue carefully in advance, practicing it in our discourse for some time before one with another that we may prove proficient in it when talking to God, first in prayer. Eventually, when He wants — He will answer.

I would expect that when we first ask Him for wisdom in His native tongue, that we shall have all we desire and more.  Wisdom, and the fellowship and favor of the Most Wise, is the prize.

Advertisements

How Did We Get It So Badly Wrong for All These Years? Finite V. Infinite

Someone has to be holding this cosmos together, or the WHOLE place would turn into New Jersey.  But here is a thought worthy of consideration. What would the human consequences be for our conceptual errors regarding the most important VIP in the universe?

First, it is well to recall that God judges reflexively.  Two, Greater to the lesser, if we judge God to be his opposite (Infinite, instead of finite), we should expect that He would judge the creation in like manner as its opposite.  This would have people and places over time transforming into their opposites, or complements.  This would make the world seem “upside down and backwards.”

Because finite-wisdom monotheism represents a first in human history, this gives today’s generation a unique opportunity to “reset the (historically-inverted) applecart” that seems to have everything “turned upside down.”

Another worthwhile consideration aims at reminding us that on the practical level, a finite God of so extraordinary wisdom and power as the One that created and sustains this universe — as vast and impressive as it is — would not differ much in our experience from what we might think of as an “infinite God” — whatever that might mean.   The practical difference is negligible in terms of an explanation needed to account  for the cosmos, its mysteries, and its wisdom.

In principle, the infinite and finite diverge to an incomprehensible degree.  But in practice, the Cosmic creator-sustainer, as our teacher and king, differs very little from what we thought of as his (ancient) counterpart.  I plan to write, and have much more to say, on this topic later.

New Adventures in Reseearch: Is God Infinite, or Else Finite

In 1897, Charles Hartshorne was born in Kittaning, PA, just a mile or so short of Wyomissing.  After a professorship at the University of Chicago, he pioneered — somewhat following A.N. Whitehead — a new understanding of God as a kind of divide between his actual and potential attributes, where according to the potential, He remains infinite, but according to the actual, just the complement — he remains finite in all is attributes. The key word was “Process.”

Panentheism, or “process theology,” as his views (collectively) came to be called, first pioneered in human history an attempt to maintain a real (pure) MONOtheism with the notion of a finite deity.  In all the ancient pantheons (Sumerian, Egyptian, Roman), the gods were many, and had a very bad habit of doing the kinds of things that today would drive up insurance rates with a vengeance.  Zeus could be especially naughty.

The efforts of Hartshorne (and then of John Cobb) were far more serious than the storytelling episodes of Jason and the Argonauts — my parody of the ancient (somewhat silly and all-too-human) deities of the ancients.  Only the Hebrews made a serious attempt at monotheism, but ended up quite implausibly maintaining that their nomadic and tribal deity was in fact THE INFINITE Creator of all — together with his unique plan of a kosher diet for everyone — eatest thou no crickets.

The combination of finite and monotheism (non-anthropomorphic) represented by H. and Cobb genuinely represents to my mind a human first.  And they were largely correct, on my view, with some modifications.

Why finite monotheism?  I shall begin my answer with the lesson of the circle.  In math, the circle is said to exhibit a unique geometric form — it can either be said to possess zero sides, or else and infinite number of sides.  Let us assume the latter for the sake of argument.  Here, the number of sides, being infinite, will yield the same number of sides for an arc that makes up exactly one half the circle; again, the same results obtain for a sample of the arc that makes up one half the semicircle (arc), meaning a one-quarter circle arc.

In each case, the number of sides remains infinite, even down to a single 1/100 of an inch of the circles circumference.  Thus, a certain equivalence (congruence) has to obtain between the disparate lengths of the circle.  This, I believe, suffices to show THE IMPOSSIBILITY of the infinite.

Many other examples obtain that accomplish the same, from Zeno’s paradox, to the Higgs boson (the “point” in geometry), to the argument from virtue. Philosophers and theologians of “theology proper,” as it was dubbed in old time — a critical study where God and His nature are the primary subjects of scrutiny — often regard God as the supreme representation of virtue and wisdom, in much the way that Plato held to a “highest form.”

The problem for the “infinite” salesmen remains that such virtues as wisdom, discretion, justice, kindness, and the like — and the principles of the light of nature that construct these — all ride on the credibility established by their abilities to set and require strategic LIMITS.  No limits, no justice — just nihilism and anarchy.

Knowledge and education proceed in the same manner: the limits set by the rules, laws, theorems, ratios, principles, axioms, formulas, and the like, in history, economics and the sciences  — do in fact set just those limits necessary (wisely) to impose order to bring order out of chaos, manage our environment, add value to real estate, create jobs, invest well, learn more accurately why things work as they do, or to improve technology.

The whole project of wisdom, knowledge and learning rides on setting limits, abiding by limits, imposing limits and studying those limits, more carefully to apply them, and to understand them more accurately (better).

Bottom line?  God is wisdom and wisdom necessarily and inherently rides on limits.  Therefore, God is limited just as wisdom, justice and mercy are limited.  To “unlimit” them in lobbying for the infinite is to destroy them in favor of nihilism and anarchy, which know no limits, and offer no standards or criteria.  Hartshorne and Cobb were right about the divine “actuality,” but not about his potential.  Both remain finite, but not because God suffers from some sort of deficiency: rather, this is so because it can be no other way.  The concept of the infinite suffers from the internal and fatal conflicts of conceptual errors more broadly.  Nothing ever has been or can be infinite.  This is just that things really are.  The concept of the infinite has no real referent, just like “zero.”

God, it turns out, is not the MAXIMAL God of Christianity, but the OPTIMAL God of creation and wisdom, limits and all.  Those who favor pure monotheism, the finite-Wisdom monotheist, will glory in those limits. These make wisdom what it is.

God Language, Naming and the Problem of Polytheism

Assigning a name to a person assumes that others of the same kind exist, making it necessary to distinguish the one from the others.  The first two humans did not need names until many others came along.  This means that assigning a name to God implies polytheism, the chief error of the bible.

The only missing premiss here stems from the principle of economy, or Ockhams razor — if you do not need one, assign no name to the Person in question. Sophic Creationists readily accept this principle and scientists often a employ it.  Thus we will need to describe our beloved and all-wise Creator in terms of His great and virtuous deeds, wisdom, and behaviors or habits and traits — without falsely assigning to Him a name, as though the homeric deities exist alongside Him.

I plan to blog at greater length on this topic as opportunity affords.

God Language and the Problem of “the Greater to the Lesser”

Our beloved and unfathomably-wise Maker displays the beauty of his Majesty throughout all the creation, including the brilliance of the night sky in the country.   Anyone who owns a pick-up truck with a tailgate knows this.  The wisdom of this light of nature shows up with humans in a very special way — the use of language.   But strangely, just this also often exhibits our folly.  Clearly, this is unfitting.  Our wisdom is a source of our folly.  The sophisticated use of our languages — even technical ones like computer languages — shows off our intelligence, while our sometimes belligerent, threating, cursing, or otherwise mischievous  abuse of such languages showcases our (ahem) “Monday-morning commute skills,” complete with higher-than-average insurance rates.

In a way, the universe focuses on language.  It is highly unique, powerful, capable of great wisdom, or great damage.  It can move the world, and by some, can make a pen mightier than a sword. Here is my startling suggestion, then, about language, in propositional format:

  1. God is greater than all than all things in so many ways, one can scarcely begin to count them.
  2. If language (the way it naturally orients toward God) about God turns out to be abusive (even accidentally through carelessness), then it will in all the rest of its features wax abusive.
  3. This follows from the greater to the lesser.
  4. Conclusion: if our language gets it wrong in speaking of the divine, it is wrong-headed in all places, from this (the top), all the way down to its least descriptors, syntax rules, grammar, time-references, etc.

And now for the sorry report I must offer:  Every human language, including the very best Greek, waxes very abusive in both what it does, and supremely, in what it does not, say about God.  Even the title, “God” is wrong.  This means human language, through folly and recklessness, has been the source of extraordinary problems since the dawn of history, and continues so to be until this day.

How do we fix the problem?  Carefully, systematically, and philosophically, analyze and report carefully on what we ought to say, and ought to avoid saying about God.  In principle, to restore and create proper God-language to the human race, for the very first time, is to win at all.  This must take up our first priority among Sophic Creationists at the World Peace Conference.

Already I have identified such problems as empty reference (alpha-privatives, etc), infinitives, verbs of being, conceptual muddlings and the like.  We must remove these from our God-language, carefully establish their discreet counterparts (with all due reverence, wisdom and love), and publish a philosophical dictionary of “the Creator: His Wisdom and Most Excellent Virtues.”    This brief, Hellenistic Greek dictionary begins the source from which we should create our “Rehearsed Speech Unit” cards.

Consider this: Since God has never spoken anything like what we find in the Bible, all the Bible represents the lengthiest and most abusive language text ever written. In its own metaphoric symbology, this would make the Great Lie that God sends them that they should be taken of the Great Delusion.   Most ironically, it is fairly a great delusion.

Contrariwise, the philosophical-analytical dictionary of God-language promoted just above begins the repair of human language, and thus of the human race, and of all things over which the Creator has set us.  What are we that He has been mindful of us? and yet He has crowned us with many high privileges.

Greek, “Humanity,” and the Central Language Problem Of Our Self-Concept

The Greek word for “Human,” “Humanity,” “Humane,” and other similar words, derive from the word “Anthropos,” where we get the word “anthropology.”   The reasons I have brought this point to your attention amount to a very important refutation of our current (collective) self-concept.

Our collective self-concept, how we see ourselves, remains extremely important for at least two reasons:

It determines our destiny (future prospects and welfare) as we conform ourselves to it progressively over time; and, our beloved and most-wise Creator, uses our estimate of ourselves as a starting point in judging us reflexively (as just judgment requires).

Because the Most High King begins with our own self-concept in assessing our condition, what we say of ourselves (and one another) must be accurate, but it must also be charitable, and carefully avoid sweeping condemnations or harsh judgments.  I believe this makes “Calvinism” in particular, and Christianity more generally, with its doctrine of “total depravity,” or the “fallenness” of all mankind, especially dangerous to our better welfare.

This blog post then would lobby for new ways to speak of ourselves, instead of the more traditional Greek words.  “AN- thropos” seems to pair up the alpha-privative (A-, or -AN, meaning “NOT”) with “thropos,” probably a contraction (shortened version) of “thaerion” (Animal, or beast, here refered to as either a ground-dweller or underground dweller).  Remember, in a civilization where things often revert to their opposites — following our linguistic abuses of antonyms paired with their antagonistic counterparts (hot v. cold, fast v. slow, etc) — this misnomer would tend to lead us into the ground (six feet under, even) over time.

The word Anthropos essentially means “not from the ground” (dwellers?).  Instead, the Latin version of “extremely wise” one (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) aims much closer to what we ought to use for ourselves, with great confidence in the unfathomable kindness and wisdom of our Creator.  The Greek for this would read something like “Hupersunesoi,” those of great understanding.

Likewise, we will need to reshape our labels for other aspects of our world central to our self-concept and destiny.  One lie, the “atom,” (meaning “indivisible” particle) should bear the designation, “Stoichon,” a Greek short-version of “the elemental particle,” the one which makes up the table of elements.  Likewise, our smallest quantum, the Higgs-Boson, we should name the “Prostoichon,” meaning the atom for the atom, or the Atom squared — the “pre-elemental particle” (foundation) for the elemental particle.

We should likewise consider the labels used for other VIP persons and aspects of our culture and its future.   Please ponder these things.

Rebuilding Math Again

I have recently encountered something in my researches I never expected — the number series:

2, 4, 5, 6, 8, which I now regard as the mathematical transcendental.  In brief, what I mean is that I here supply something important left unattended by Kant’s studies.  What happened to the odd numbers?  The very same thing that happened to the non-positivies (zero and the negative number line) earlier.  Why the odd numbers deleted, and why the lone exception of 5?

  1. Every one of the prime numbers (irreducibles) displays an odd, never an even, numeral.
  2. Even numbers can easily derive odds (10  divided by 2 = 5), but the reverse does not always follow (5 divided by 2 = 2.5, not an even (whole) number.  Odd numbers often divide their products into fractions and other strange numbers — hence “Odd” numbers.  These may often (not always) yield REAL numbers, but they do not yield NATURAL numbers.
  3.  DNA provides the divine pattern of life, and it uses 2, 4, 6, 8 — Our beloved and unfathomably wise Creator prefers even numbers.  5 remains the lone exception at your fingertips (and toes).
  4. I have added 5 as a key natural (as in light of nature) because of the obviously handy character of it — environmental control requires it. Necessity reigns here.
  5. It is the very oddness of odd numbers that renders them other than UNIFORM, NECCESSARY and practical (i.e. other than prudent).  22/ 7 yields an imaginary number that must be rounded to make it practical.

Further studies on these points will challenge the notions of eternity and infinity, since the “mythical highest number” does not exist, so far as I can tell, and probably cannot exist.  Strangely, the circle, a geometric shape, either having zero sides, or else an infinite number, might provide a counterinstance to the claim that the infinite necessarily exceeds our cognitive grasp.

Conclusion: we should follow the natural numbers, rounding (by rules) when necessary, following the divine pattern of all life — it is divine in its origin, and was given immediately by God at its creation-event. Given advances in information theory and what we know of both DNA and numbers, it is possible to begin a wisdom tradition (written) with DIVINE information from the sciences of life — not some arbitrary and contradictory “Qur’an” for westerners beginning with Genesis (rather than our “Genetics”).

The quantity transcendental bears great import for my reconstructing of the Greek language (Which progress continues, and I have many a blog-post ready to print by way of updating everyone on its advances.   Note: DNA has 64 letters, and the language I am working on should be understood in terms of (Sculpted by) the quantity transcendental.   This is a game-changer.  The natural numbers of DNA (and 5) [Light-of-nature math] forms the new basis for further advances here. It may be that the only words we are to use are ones that employ the # of syllables indicated by a DNA natural #.

I continue to regard the Geometric shapes as our proper numerals, not the Arabic numerals. This, natural math, remains both the math of life, and of wisdom.  It is why we are vegans and vegetarians.  We add differently already, COUNTING animals as persons of value to our most excellent and unfathomably wise King.

Computers emnegatploy (at present) all zeros and ones, while we regard neither of these.  This implies new computer technology rooted in the light of nature.  Stay tuned for later posts on this topic — I.e. “Dolphin Technology Systems?”

P.S. My nearly scientific postscript for today is that using the DNA naturals (rounded when needed) will average out over time (that is, stochastically) in terms of economic management of monetary value – currency and coins.

PPS.  Sociocultural reflections happen.  I have come to believe that the zero and negatives arose from just such a prior mathematical abuse, as what they reflect.  If true, its “socio-cultural” cause would have to display a set of numbers as extensive as the non-pos. #’s.  The positive-odd number set fits the bill neatly.  This would mean that the rejection of the exclusive use of the naturals implies the denial of the exclusive use of the reals.  From (UN) natural to (UN) real, describes the abusive-math trajectory I have in mind.

This means the set of negative numbers  did not arise in a cultural vacuum, but as a response over time to a like quantity abuse with a set of numbers just as extensive.

And another thing … [Ideal] DNA does not subtract.  With Ideal DNA, All cell losses are replaced and edited according to the blueprint. Here, DNA math divides, multiplies and adds.  In other words, its math only moves forward, not backward.  Written out, it is linear and progressive (Growth-oriented).   It would render negative numbers not merely unreal, but (after a fashion) doubly-unnatural.  We must ponder these things.

Stuff I found that I am working on — Editing later

follow us on Facebookfollow us on Twitter from cosmicfingerprints.com/mathematics-of-dna/

The Mathematics of DNA

Imagine that someone gives you a mystery novel with an entire page ripped out.page_ripped_out2

And let’s suppose someone else comes up with a computer program that reconstructs the missing page, by assembling sentences and paragraphs lifted from other places in the book.

Imagine that this computer program does such a beautiful job that most people can’t tell the page was ever missing.

DNA does that.

In the 1940’s, the eminent scientist Barbara McClintock damaged parts of the DNA in corn maize. To her amazement,

the plants could reconstruct the damaged section. They did so by copying other parts of the DNA strand, then pasting them into the damaged area.

This discovery was so radical at the time, hardly anyone believed her reports. (40 years later she won the Nobel Prize for this work.)

And we still wonder: How does a tiny cell possibly know how to do…. that???

A French HIV researcher and computer scientist has now found part of the answer. Hint: The instructions in DNA are not only linguistic, they’re beautifully mathematical. There is an Evolutionary Matrix that governs the structure of DNA.

Computers use something called a “checksum” to detect data errors. It turns out DNA uses checksums too. But DNA’s checksum is not only able to detect missing data; sometimes it can even calculate what’s missing. Here’s how it works.

In English, the letter E appears 12.7% of the time. The letter Z appears 0.7% of the time. The other letters fall somewhere in between. So it’s possible to detect data errors in English just by counting letters.

In DNA, some letters also appear a lot more often (like E in English) and some much less often. But… unlike English, how often each letters appears in DNA is controlled by an exact mathematical formula that is hidden within the genetic code table.

When cells replicate, they count the total number of letters in the DNA strand of the daughter cell. If the letter counts don’t match certain exact ratios, the cell knows that an error has been made. So it abandons the operation and kills the new cell.

Failure of this checksum mechanism causes birth defects and cancer.

Dr. Jean-Claude Perez started counting letters in DNA. He discovered that these ratios are highly mathematical and based on “Phi”, the Golden Ratio 1.618. This is a very special number, sort of like Pi. Perez’ discovery was published in the scientific journal Interdisciplinary Sciences / Computational Life Sciences in September 2010.

Jean-Claude Perez discovered an evolutionary mathematical matrix in DNA, based on the Golden Ratio 1.618

Jean-Claude Perez discovered an evolutionary mathematical matrix in DNA, based on the Golden Ratio 1.618

Before I tell you about it, allow me to explain just a little bit about the genetic code.

DNA has four symbols, T, C, A and G. These symbols are grouped into letters made from combinations of 3 symbols, called triplets.  There are 4x4x4=64 possible combinations.

So the genetic alphabet has 64 letters. The 64 letters are used to write the instructions that make amino acids and proteins.

Perez somehow figured out that if he arranged the letters in DNA according to a T-C-A-G table, an interesting pattern appeared when he counted the letters.

He divided the table in half as you see below. He took single stranded DNA of the human genome, which has 1 billion triplets. He counted the population of each triplet in the DNA and put the total in each slot:

tcag_symmetry1
When he added up the letters, the ratio of total white letters to black letters was 1:1. And this turned out to not just be roughly true. It was exactly true, to better than one part in one thousand, i.e. 1.000:1.000.

Then Perez divided the table this way:

tcag_symmetry2
Perez discovered that the ratio of white letters to black letters is exactly 0.690983, which is (3-Phi)/2. Phi is the number 1.618, the “Golden Ratio.”

He also discovered the exact same ratio, 0.690983, when he divided the table the following two alternative ways:

tcag_symmetry3
tcag_symmetry4
Again, the total number of white letters divided by the total number of black letters is 0.6909, to a precision of better than one part in 1,000.

Perez discovered two more symmetries:

tcag_symmetry5Above: Total ratio of white:black letters = 1:1
tcag_symmetry6Again, total ratio of white:black letters = 1:1

So for three ways of dividing the table, the ratio of white to black is 1.000:1.000.

And for the other three ways of dividing it, the ratio is 0.690983 or (3-Phi)/2.

When you overlay these 6 symmetries on top of each other, you get a set of mathematical stairs with 32 golden steps. Then an absolutely fascinating geometrical pattern emerges: The “Dragon Curve” which is well known in fractal geometry. Here it is, labeled with DNA letters in descending frequency:

dragoncurve

300px-dragon_curve_animation

Animated Dragon Curve

You can see other non-DNA, computer generated versions of this same curve here.

Other interesting facts:

  • Similar patterns with variations on these same rules are seen across a range of 20 different species. From the AIDS virus to bacteria, primates and humans
  • Each character in DNA occurs a precise number of times, and each has a twin. TTT and AAA are twins and appear the most often; they’re the DNA equivalent of the letter E.
  • This pattern creates a stair step of 32 frequencies, a specific frequency for each pair.
  • The number of triplets that begin with a T is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with A (to within 0.1%).
  • The number of triplets that begin with a C is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with G.
  • The genetic code table is fractal – the same pattern repeats itself at every level. The micro scale controls conversion of triplets to amino acids, and it’s in every biology book. The macro scale, newly discovered by Dr. Perez, checks the integrity of the entire organism.
  • Perez is also discovering additional patterns within the pattern.

I am only giving you the tip of the iceberg. There are other rules and layers of detail that I’m omitting for simplicity. Perez presses forward with his research; more papers are in the works, and if you’re able to read French, I recommend his book “Codex Biogenesis” and his French website. Here is an English translation.

(By the way, he found some of his most interesting data in what used to be called “Junk DNA.” It turns out to not be junk at all.)

OK, so what does all this mean?

  • Copying errors cannot be the source of evolutionary progress, because if that were true, eventually all the letters would be equally probable.
  • This proves that useful evolutionary mutations are not random. Instead, they are controlled by a precise Evolutionary Matrix to within 0.1%
  • When organisms exchange DNA with each other through Horizontal Gene Transfer, the end result still obeys specific mathematical patterns
  • DNA is able to re-create destroyed data by computing checksums in reverse – like calculating the missing contents of a page ripped out of a novel.

No man-made language has this kind of precise mathematical structure. DNA is a tightly woven, highly efficient language that follows extremely specific rules. Its alphabet, grammar and overall structure are ordered by a beautiful set of mathematical functions.

More interesting factoids:

The most common pair of letters (TTT and AAA) appears exactly 1/13X as often as all the letters combined – consistently, the genomes of humans and chimpanzees.

If you put the 32 most common triplets in Group 1 and the 32 least common triplets in Group 2, the ratio of letters in Group1:Group2 is exactly 2:1. And since triplet counts occur in symmetrical pairs (TTT-AAA, TAT-ATA, etc), you can group them into four groups of 16.

When you put those four triplet populations on a graph, you get the peace symbol:

dna_peace_symbol

Does this precise set of rules and symmetries appear random or accidental to you?

My friend, this is how it is possible for DNA to be a code that is self-repairing, self-correcting, self-re-writing and self-evolving. It reveals a level of engineering and sophistication that human engineers could only dream of. Most of all, it’s elegant.

Cancer has sometimes been described as “evolution run amok.” Dr. Perez has noted interesting distortions of this matrix in cancer cells. I strongly suspect that new breakthroughs in cancer research are hidden in this matrix.

I submit to you that the most productive research that can possibly be conducted in medicine and computer science is intensive study of the DNA Evolution Matrix. Like I said, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is so much more here to discover!

When we develop computer languages based on DNA language, they will be capable of extreme data compression, error correction, and yes, self-evolution. Imagine: Computer programs that add features and improve with time. All by themselves.

What would that be like?

Perry Marshall

P.S.: Dr. Perez and I are friends. Perez worked on HIV research with the man who originally discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier. Perez also worked in biomathematics and Artificial Intelligence at IBM. I’m familiar with this work because last spring I had the privilege of helping him translate his groundbreaking research paper about this into English.

You can read it here: “Codon Populations in Single-stranded Whole Human Genome DNA Are Fractal and Fine-tuned by the Golden Ratio 1.618”

Click here for a more in-depth PDF version of this report.

39 Responses

  1. Old Git Tom says:

    Mr Marshall,
    many thanks for that – it’s absolutely astonishing. OGT

  2. DDD says:

    Perry,
    I enjoy your site. I do however have a problem with some of the math–
    “Perez discovered that the ratio of white letters to black letters is exactly 0.690983, which is (3-Phi)/2. Phi is the number 1.618, the “Golden Ratio.”
    He also discovered the exact same ratio, 0.690983, when he divided the table the following two alternative ways:”
    Right below this is a table 1st letter T –White, next first letter C is black, next first letter A is white, next first G is Black
    White / Black = Sum T+ Sum A / Sum C + Sum G =0.690983
    Later in another matrix it is stated “There are two more symmetries that Perez discovered: and that matrix has the White/Black reversed
    Sum C + Sum G /Sum T+ Sum A = 1 to 1
    Simplifying T+A / C +G = 0.690983 and C+G / T+A =1 I don’t believe math works that way unless you are changing the inputs and not calling them out.
    or am I missing something here?

    • The 2nd matrix does not reverse the black/white, there are a total of 6 distinct matrices, 3 are 1:1 and 3 are 0.69. Perez’s paper makes this clear. If I’ve made an error in representing Perez’s paper I’m open to having that pointed out.

      • EHMAI justin says:

        I ask you this Mr marshal..no insult…but I see you as an intellectual being would you open your ear to me knowing how to construct God’s dna…I will show you but it is complicated and your mind has to be open on different ssubjects

  3. NoMoreGames says:

    Very interesting article, but being biologically educated, I have a few comments.

    Junk DNA has long been believed to have some sort of function, we are just unsure of what that function is (most likely regulatory). The term “junk” has just stuck around from an older time.

    “Copying errors cannot be the source of evolutionary progress, because if that were true, eventually all the letters would be equally probable. This proves that useful evolutionary mutations are not random. Instead, they are controlled by a precise Evolutionary Matrix to within 0.1%”

    Considering there are about 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, that would still allow for some 3 million bases to not be controlled by this matrix, essentially offering counter evidence for your first example. That’s a lost of potential random mutations. Please correct me if I interpreted this data incorrectly.

    I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I’m wondering if his paper mentioned if he factored the highly variable and repeating telomeres into his matrices?

    Thank you for your input!

    • If the Evolution Matrix controls codon populations to 0.1% then that means that copying errors cannot account for more than 0.1% of the difference between, say, bacteria and humans. It means that 99.9% comes from processes that obey the rules of the matrix.

      I’m sure there is some teeny tiny percentage of random mutations that have turned out to be beneficial. But then saying that random mutations are therefore the source of evolutionary progress is a complete non-sequitur. It’s sort of like a story I remember hearing somewhere, where a guy had some kind of physical problem and he was struck by lightning and it went away. It could be true, and freak accidents do happen, but nobody I know is volunteering to get struck by lightning. Science is not about freak accidents, it’s about systematic explanations.

      Evolution is driven by transposition, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, symbiogenesis and genome doubling. All of those things are very well documented, all are systematic processes, and they obey the rules of the matrix. Random Mutation doesn’t obey the matrix and is dead last in the lineup of beneficial evolutionary mechanisms.

      I’m not sure about your last question. I’ll forward it to Dr. Perez.

      BTW The term “junk DNA” needs to be discarded. As does other derisive terms like “degenerate code” which is a misnomer for a brilliant error minimization scheme.

      (Or maybe we need to keep the term ‘junk DNA’ around as a reminder of how much damage atheism has done to the study of biology and the practice of science.)

  4. tetrahedral says:

    Languages may be as precisely tuned re the Golden Ratio as DNA. There is a doctoral student at UArizona doing his thesis on Phi in phrase and clause structure. Others have shown strong typological relations between prosody type and syllable type, between numbers of features in phonemes and total average sentence length, etc. And language types tend to be highly coherent, re word order and other factors between heads and dependents. It just hasn’t been looked at through the window of fractals, the Golden Ratio, etc. Since languages change these things cyclically, and pack/unpack the individual feature bundles into new configurations, linguists specializing in one aspect or another can’t help but fail to see the larger picture.

    There are also many strong parallel analogical relations between linguistic and genomic structure. Languages can separate basic meaning bearing units, adjoin them, or overlap them. Same thing happens with genomes, in terms of protein coding sequences. Meaning bearing units can bootstrap their forms from their underlying sequence (sound symbolism) or get them imposed from above. Generally the relative importance of these two extrema depends on how elaborated morphosyntax is, or how often used. There is evidence of the same thing in the genome.

    Finally, re ‘junk’, it has been shown that in eukaryotic organisms the more junk, generally, the more environmental context sensitivity is present for determining the right time to become sexually mature- they wait for optimal conditions. They also tend to have larger, less complex cells, less internally ramified or externally connected. or overlapping organs. Those with reduced junk tend to have smaller more specialized cells, often mixed in organs (sometimes from separate origins). They ignore the resource environment and are instead ‘on the clock’ for maturation, so that the process is more or less in synch with the seasons, the day/night cycle, etc.- automated. Also earlier life stages tend to be de-emphasized or reduced. Thus metamorphoses- in plants and animals.

    Junk cumulates either by wholesale duplications or from inputs from outside the organism (viruses). And it can be lost as well. Constant updating. Old viruses get defanged by breaking up genes into fragments, etc. And there is exchange between the junk and the split gene system.

    Same thing happens in languages. But I’ll leave off here unless there is more interest.

    As for Phi in nature, in the past year I discovered a link between the Periodic Table and Pascal’s Triangle, and Fibonacci and related sequences. Just for one example if one divides Fib numbers into triplets (two odds, one even- that is, an even number of odds vs. an odd number of evens), and maps them AS atomic numbers in the periodic system, then within known elements ALL the odd Fib numbers map to leftmost positions in the table where there is one electron in one new orbital lobe: s1,p1,d1,f1. But orbitals are split in two, the left/first half with singlet electrons in lobes, and the second/right half with two per lobe. Within the known elements ALL the EVEN Fib numbers map to the leftmost positions in the second half of the orbital, where the first doublet electron is in one lobe.

    The related Lucas number map instead to RIGHTMOST positions within the orbitals, with half or completely filled status- where there are exceptions, the electron configurations or the behaviors of the elements themselves are altered to better fit the Lucas trend (ex. 29Cu and 47Ag steal an electron from a filled s to donate it internally to make a full d. Half s is just as ‘Lucas’ a thus also as an “Eternal Food” for all truth-seeking brains, souls and minds (John 6/27-40)

    • Paradise Holding says:

      Recently it seems the gospel of St. John wasn’t written by John at all but Mary Magdalene. God isn’t in the material word but Spirit world. These thoughts go back to Aristotle 329BCE and the Gospel according to Thomas. They weren’t included in the cannon of scripture never the less were written.

  5. helixbender says:

    Perry do you even have an idea of what Barbara McClintock discovered? Look up class II Transposons read about them what the do and how they work. See Genes IX page 538.

  6. helixbender says:

    I not sure I get what you mean when you try to explain McClintock’s experiments. It doesn’t match what I’ve seen in the literature about class II transposons. I’ve never seen a paper talking about fixing the ‘damaged’ gene using ‘other parts of the DNA strand’. Could you give me the reference for this?

  7. MikeFromOhio says:

    I believe Perry is correct when he says that mutations are not strictly random and can involve Transposition, Epigenetics etc.

    However evolution happens at many levels. It’s possible that the genome matrix has evolved in a coupled manner to the cells that it represents. This is typically referred to as “the evolution of evolvability”.

    As I said elsewhere, we need to work out a prototype with Genetic Programming and *try* to evolve a simple design/code and see what happens. Doing such an experiment might add weight to Perry’s argument, or it might prove otherwise. Either way we would learn more.

    In other words, saying that evolution is mutation/random based and that its not very powerful, is like saying that a car with 1.5 wheels won’t get you very far so why believe in cars.

    Evolution = Variation In Population + Phenotype Selection + Time
    Evolution Random Mutation

    Perry, your TextMutator is very much the car with 1.5 wheels. It does not use a population and only looks at the ge

  8. Old Git Tom says:

    http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm

    This site may be of interest. It mainly concerns the radical findings of Russian scientist Garjajev, or Garaiaiev (?). Ie., DNA is stored information, a language, & a communications medium. DNA (allegedly) also formed the template of the original grammar of all languages – much sought after by linguists of the Chomsky school.

    I’m scientifically ignorant, so can’t comment, beyond saying that it supports Perry Marshall (et al) in rejecting the idea of ‘junk’ DNA, & the materialist dogma that DNA is ‘dumb’ chemical matter. OGT

  9. […] the process – that all this, could just happen, from the beauty of the oceans and mountains, to the perfection of dna. To decide this happened by accident and not plan, is in itself pretty unrealistic to me. To […]

  10. Xiao-Jun Yang says:

    Local fractional functional analysis, gradually conquering one stronghold after another, may become a nearly new universal mathematical doctrine, not merely a new area of mathematics, but a new mathematical world view. Its appearance was the inevitable consequence of the evolution of all of twenty-once-century mathematics, in particular analysis and mathematical physics in fractional-dimension spaces. Its original basis is formed by theory of sets from Cantor sets to fractional sets. Its existence will answer the question of how to state general principles of a broadly interpreting fractal mathematics and fractal engineering.

    http://www.nonlinearscience.com/downloads/toc-yang.pdf

  11. Xiao-Jun Yang says:

    Local fractional Fourier analysis, Advances in Mechanical Engineering and its Applications, 1(1) (2012)12-16

    Local fractional calculus (LFC) deals with everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable functions in fractal space. In this letter we point out local fractional Fourier analysis in generalized Hilbert space. We first investigate the local fractional calculus and complex number of fractional-order based on the complex Mittag-Leffler function in fractal space. Then we study the local fractional Fourier analysis from the theory of local fractional functional analysis point of view. We finally propose the fractional-order trigonometric and complex Mittag-Leffler functions expressions of local fractional Fourier series.

    http://www.worldsciencepublisher.org/journals/index.php/AMEA/article/view/264

  12. Old Git Tom says:

    Xiao-Jun Yang,
    mathematics; yes, super stuff, but what exactly are you stating? In ordinary language, if possible, please? Thanks, OGT

  13. Xiao-Jun Yang says:

    In this paper we point out the interpretations of local fractional derivative and local fractional integration from the fractal geometry point of view. From Cantor set to fractional set, local fractional derivative and local fractional integration are investigated in detail, and some applications are given to elaborate the local fractional Fourier series, the Yang-Fourier transform, the Yang-Laplace transform, the local fractional short time transform, the local fractional wavelet transform in fractal space.
    Cited from: Local fractional calculus and its applications, FDA 2012, http://em.hhu.edu.cn/fda12/index.html

  14. Xiao-Jun Yang says:

    You need to obtain the orginal paper, and find these results. I look forword to hearing from you, and thank you very much.

  15. Old Git Tom says:

    Xiao-Jun Yang,

    your post writes about some kinds of higher mathematics – a closed book to me, so I fear the original paper would be even less comprehensible! But thanks anyhow. OGT

  16. […] write up on the golden ratio. I understand that he helped translated the work into English. Same? The Mathematics of DNA. […]

  17. God Chaser says:

    “Premise #2 – All codes we know the origin of, that are capable of storing and retrieving pictures of aunt Harriet, a couple of your favorite novels, and back up your computer data, come from a mind!”

    That brings the concept home!

    Hey Perry, are you going to do a write-up on being able to code and store a biology book in DNA?

  18. Old Git Tom says:

    God Chaser,
    no problem: there are many forms of ‘code’, not just mathematical. Broadly, which one is used depends on the kind of info to be best transmitted. Eg., a movie reel contains graphics as code. In principle, the moving images might be translated into scrolling formulae, but it would not be a rewarding viewing experience! And not all codes are interchangeable. Musical notation cannot become language text, & only skilled musicians can ‘decode’ a composition to unlock the audio ‘message’. AFAIK, we are not sure how many code-modes there are, so we cannot talk about transformations ‘in principle’. Some codes might not translate into others at all. But any biology book might be encoded as DNA. I’ve read that computer scientists are researching this very area, since DNA encodes far more densely than any known alternative – so, libraries on a pinhead, etc. OGT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Website

 

Kant, the Light of Nature, and Economic Theory

This blog post is under construction, like the urban 1/3 of Florida.  Please be patient as I actually construct this page, unlike certain other locations. Ahem.

Questions remain: Given that trade, the transfer of economic value, seems built into the human condition, where “the bottom line IS the bottom line,” we ought to ask after the transcendental character of economic value (See J.S. Mill et al), not merely moral values. For every moral law within, there is a tax-man without.   The regulations we pass because of the moral law within cost money, and someone has to pay those bills.

Supply and demand relations form a transcendental for understanding human experience IN THE COLLECTIVE, but not necessarily individually.  Dr. Kant’s original investigation was one of “individual understanding” — how the individual will understand the world.  Dr. Kuhn expanded the conversation to ask how GROUPS (that share paradigms) understand the world (and thus individuals within those groups).  My point here is this: Kant’s investigation did not go far enough, since it did not explain or render intelligible the relationship of the individual to the collective (which necessarily includes the production and transfer of economic value).

But one will say: this kind of grasp (economic) does not seem necessary to knowledge PER SE (until you get the tuition bill from Yale University).  I rejoin that Kant’s categories do not render intelligible a fundamentally necessary human activity.  His transcendentals have formal (by analogy), but not MATERIAL, adequacy.   Or said a bit differently, Kant’s categories render intelligible to the human individual the deterministic aspects of the natural world, but not by themselves the socio-economic (contingent) aspects of the natural world.

And then — there’s SET THEORY!   According to the battle that transpired for over a century, between mathematicians and logicians, over the question of which theory-construction activity was the more “properly basic,” the set theory guys won the debate, proving that in order to understand Kant’s “quantities” (including math systems), one would first need to understand sets as basic as well.  Here, the run “basic” as a bridge that frames the set of relations that properly obtain, linking the disciplines of math and logic.   One must in math (to manage quantities) impose and group separately from numbers, kinds of things like “operations,” “sums,” “quotients,” “properties of equality,” and the like.  (S) he must also group numbers in sets like the set of “real numbers,” “nonpositive numbers,” “imaginary numbers,” “fractions” and “decimals.”

Sets (classes and their members) seem necessary for all different kinds of “classification schemes” – taxonomy of animals, sports stats, kinds of diseases and disorders, study of epidemics AND (get this) — elements of knowledge, like quantities, qualities, modalities and relations.  Sets seem basic to both math and logic, and these to knowledge.  Understanding human experience in the collective (groups), as Dr. Kuhn has shown, is necessary for rendering intelligible human experience — because the production of knowledge does not transpire merely as an INDIVIDUAL enterprise — Kant’s would be the “fallacy of individual, epistemic reductionism” — where human knowledge falsely reduces to individual human knowledge, apart from “group knowledge.”  Remember that Kant’s phenomenology was performed individualistically.  He seemed to take for granted that all people experienced knowledge (more or less) the way that Dr. Kant did.

My challenge here is this: Dr. Kant is not a group. Groups do not necessarily do their knowing the way that individuals do.  Long live St. Thomas (of Chicago).

Conclusion:  The language native to a basic grasp of those (now fairly advanced) disciplines that we might call extra-transcendental — economics, set studies and other fields (e.g. future studies) — will need a dynamic equivalent from the English (or else a purely innovative form) to add to our New Greek tongue for optimal profitablility and finesse, as we advance in wisdom and understanding in the future.

Words And Categories: What We Will Be Adding to the New Greek Language

So far we have considered only what words and word-parts we will end up deleting from the traditional Hellenistic Greek in order to create the ideal Hellenistic tongue, one shaped self-consciously by the light of nature.  Now we must ask the question, “What must we add to render this tongue [progressively, step-by-step] more ideal”?

To begin our ideal vocabulary, we will engage the following exercises, and make use of their results:

  1.   Make a list of adjectives, verb forms (participles count as a “verbal” too remember), and nouns we would associate with the describing aright the ideal and the real, or describing the light of nature.  Or again, “What words would you need to use in order to describe something that is perfect (ideal)”?
  2. Make a similar list describing human design, the design of the stars, and the design of the animals.  List the words we need to describe the parts, purposes and functions of the most essential parts of nature.
  3. Make a list of the traits and actions of our Beloved Creator (“Plastaes” in Greek), and describe these in the best words one can find for the task.
  4. Find the ten best synonyms (use your thesaurus here) for each of the above words we might want to use to originate our new Greek vocabulary — add the best 5 of these.
  5. Make a list of the propositions you hold to be true about God and the light of nature (from the above explorations) and work out what these truths imply when arranged in various sets of propositions together.  Find the best words that describe the results of this logical “articulation” (meaning here, extensions of logic), and create a Greek (dynamic) equivalent for these words and the “concluding ideas” they would describe.
  6. Kantian transcendental categories and their essential elements.  And now for a brief introduction to ideas ordinarily sorted into the “epistemology” mailbox.     This may sound a bit tricky, but we can walk through it easily enough.  Dr. Kant became somewhat famous in philosophical circles for doing a kind of unique study involving self-inspection — to find out what the &*^% is going on when one actually studies and knows the world around us. He studied “the knowing process” as he himself experienced it, and broke down the categories in which one must think in order to make sense of the world about us.  The “pre-logical” categories, he dubbed “transcendental categories,” and listed them as “quantities” (2 +2 = 4), qualities (like ethics — just people v. unjust), modalities (things that are necessary, or else possible, or else impossible, or else contingent upon prior conditions, etc), and relations (like space and time — spatial relations = “ten feet away from me”).    Thus, we will want to make a full use of the thesaurus to describe with many synonyms the words needed to study these foundations of knowledge, since these form an essential part of what we mean by “the light of nature” — namely, the whole set of propositional, categorical and linguistic necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience [construct knowledge].   In short, we need the Stoicheia (the most basic elements) in order to have gnosis (knowledge).

Now, IMHO Dr, Kant was breathtakingly brilliant — a Plato’s Plato.  The history of western thought after 1803 is but a footnote to Kant, and after 1962, a marginally-unscientific postscript to Kuhn.  Still, Dr. Kant did not write the final page on the theory of transcendentals.  Here, I shall propose a notion, which for lack of a better designation, I shall presently name, “Second Order Transcendentals.”   These would follow as implicates from propositions (or sets of them) — sometimes called “propositional” (as opposed to merely categorical) “transcendentals.”  These — when they really are transcendental — can be shown to have 2 traits: 1.  they prove logically, or pre-logically, necessary in order to have knowledge AND 2.  Any rejection of such a proposition (or set) necessarily implies its own denial — philosophers call these propositions, “Self-referentially absurd.”  In other words, they cannot pass their own test.  These are then, sometimes rightly said to exhibit “properly basic beliefs.”

Many truths exist which might properly derive about the Kantian categories, and the cosmic and life situation that would be necessary in order for these to obtain, which one might show forth as a set of propositions, together with their necessary implicates and presuppositions, as an interwoven matrix, we should call the Pre-Kantian Worldview.  Here, the prefix “pre” renders as “prelogical.”  This interwoven matrix that Sophic Creationists might name the “Sophikon,” both renders knowledge possible, and necessarily presupposes a personal notion of Wisdom.  This should have been obvious, but only persons can prove wise.  No one (save the poets) speak of wise trees or rocks or rivers.  Wisdom and knowledge, discretion and discernment belong to the world of persons.  Plato missed this form, the form of the Wise (which subsumes the form of the personal).

Likewise, Justice needs a Judge.  Love needs a lover and a beloved — and here the poets favor me madly anon! (Say on thou silver surfer!) — Charity needs a giver, as knowledge requireth both a teacher and a student in order to live on.

In case the reader might have lost the upshot of the matter — for my many words thus far (yikes) — I have just described the light of nature in terms of Kantian, pre-Kantian and post-Kantian transcendentals.  These transcendentals, the whole set of categorical and propositional transcendentals, and all their implicates, forms the light of nature, which shows forth the Blessed and Beloved Creator and His unfathomable wisdom, in all his unsearchable handiwork (ktisis).  Since “light” has the limitation of rendering knowledge available to the eyes only, and since we have 5 senses, not merely eyes, the “appeal of all nature” to ALL 5 senses should receive its own name. I favor “the Sophikon.”  Some have called this “General Revelation.”  We sometimes use the term, the “Divine Testimony” to name it, though we regard it a silent testimony, like that of the industrious ants, who bid us to labor well, by a silent (and yet a quite telling) example.

This expands the notion of a transcendental to something entirely missing from Kant’s outlook — the “worldview,” or in ye olde tongue of the Academy, the Weltanschauung.  I would argue that the Pre-Kantian outlook necessarily includes a Personal notion of Wisdom and Knowledge, though I would hasten to add that this Wisdom has very little to do with any Bible or Book published in the name of the Divine Testimony.  It carries a system of both dynamic and static metaphors, ones that appeal to all 5 senses.  I believe that God has been talking to us all along,  but only in a kind of “Linear A,” which we have not learned to access as yet,  due to our immaturity in the study of wisdom.

Will he speak to us in the future in our language?  Probably.  It appears very likely to me that as the human race advances in science, linguistics, history and technology, etc., that we will eventually crack the code on linear A, and then learn how to “hear God.”  This will begin a new era of real conversation with the All-Wise Monarch.  What marvels the future holds the present can no wise tell.