Going to reread link from 2015: Here’s my post from 2015:
Oh I’m so happy I could cry; I’ve been looking for this:
“Cells are not prerequisite to the origins of life. Rather, the action of pulling in deriving from the material bodies assuming the dative of time is prerequisite to the evolutionary emergence of cells.”
I’ll have to draw a graphic, which I’ll do later and yes, this is related to Philosophy, most certainly, even if it appears to merely a combination of philosophy of linguistics (a philology) with a materialist perspective, or Information Theory. Delete if you like but this is a _wow_.
it’s a marvelous bringing together of the objective and subjective with multiply (ee, not “i”) simultaneous perspective, if I may po.
some of my comments (it was in a Philosophy forum)
The short of it is, it’s a big “nice job but you’re describing it all wrong f”kers” to the ENTIRETY of the objective, externalist tendencies behind the philosophy of science while remaining as empirical as possible [AND also criticizing the empiral], utilizing the nearly forgotten dative case as an analogizer to communicate the simultaneously self-supporting, self synchronizing yet relative nature of time that fa;ljsildij ran out of words I’m just excited to read this. It could be dead wrong of course, but it’s rare that I found a paper that tickles all my fancies as it were.and… ‘gets it”, using more than enough examples to illustrate its simple point.
And DON’T ANYBODY SAY, “uh so its all relative then” ‘CAUSE… no no no… and yes, but no. It’s about *process*, stability and the limitations of our subjective objectifications of reality, flawed due to our corrupted assumptions on our “removedness” from time. Time isn’t fixed to the stars but we behave “as if” it is, and.. ok. I’m going to stop here and read more. I’m 1/2 through and wanted to share.
In shorter, Time *isn’t* an illusion but we’re using it in a limiting fashion in science; excessive assumptions of “presentness” by not representing the subjective mechanisms of time within the objects studied and instead abstracting to fit OUR notions of time as being fixed upon the stars as we’ve done since days of old. The exceptions being thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, but still in both, in a very primitive state of our potential future understanding of the nature of Time.
I’m getting all fan-girly about this. I need to digest.
“The distinction between non-life and life can be reduced to the distinction between the class identity of the dative of time and the individual identity of the messenger to be exchanged, the latter distinction of which can be approachable empirically or even experimentally. One can thus find here a clue for addressing the issue of the origins of life without using the notion of life as an analytical term that would otherwise require a formidable task of framing the precise definition of the term for its own sake”
I doubt that will make any more sense but it’s not an easy to comprehend subject. It’s been my obsession as a hobby for decades really.. bridging the gap between Time and the small scale from a subjective POV. QM was never fully satisfying in that department – too “head in the clouds”. Feynman being an exception of course. I never thought to look towards biology – and his use of basic linguistics to explain the phenomenon is brilliance.
The author is Koichiro Matsuno who single handedly INVENTED the _entire field_ of Protobiology in the late 1980s and changed the course of medical science and evolutionary biology entirely.
The thing is, its protobiology. Biology and physics speak different languages. This guy? Bridging the gap from a practical biological point of view and … they’re actually _using_ his ideas to do stuff. It’s not theory. His stuff is real. We don’t hear about it because it’s in the realm of industry, medical science and the like and in today’s age, if it ain’t theoretical physics, it ain’t “Science”. We’re short-changed in our Science educations in a big way.. but that’s a rant that belongs elsewhere. Anyway, this probably belonged elsewhere but honestly, Science forums are all about Hawking and Einstein, Psychology forums would get all “what-about-the-human”.. I suppose Engineering forums might work. They’d ‘get it’… or Philology. It’s all forms of philosophy (this Time stuff anyway) but philosophy utilizing linguistics isn’t everyday fare for forums like these. Anyway, hope this helps a little, Tony Draper and thanks for challenging me on this. It helped me clarify my thoughts a *lot* and deepened my understanding of the subject matter by challenging me to explain, re-explain and re-explain in a few different ways. The only real way to know if you know something is if you can teach it, or attempt at least, and I can now. So, thanks