Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

I’m painting 20 hours a day seven days a week and this is the purpose of my life by the wheel of God so I believe Well in my high school. I had this kind of teachers in art and in general and also also political leaders who were telling me yes just imagine you are 15 years old and adults. Yes, very powerful and influential people are telling you you were born to do something great so my art teachers were telling me God will punish me if I will not fulfill my destiny and it looks like my destiny is to be an artist because I always persisted in painting and drawing creating sculptures as well, and I disregarded my education Friendships or any kind of relationships because I don’t care I care only to create. I can speak about creation as a dance as a joke like a theater show like Shakespeare said the world is the stage. Yes that’s what he said. The world is by the stage, but in Hinduism, the universe is a dance of Krishna. Do you understand the concept? It’s a 7000 year-old concept that the universe is not a material solid item like a thing you can hold in your hand. No, the universe is a process, so everything I speak and everything you think and do is a process but at the same token the car you’re driving is also a process. The guy is a process solar system is a process. Milky Way galaxy is a process everything around you is a process but definition of a process it’s a vibration, I recently came across the concept the universe all the matter is made out of light so it’s a different vibration yes quantum physics nonexistence of subatomic particles. They are just vibrations so the atom is made out of vibrations so you and I do a bunch of vibrations like music like radio waves I think it’s very funny, I can’t get over that. I don’t exist here. I am talking to you, but I don’t really exist. I think it freaks me out.

😅

Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

​@@hyperduality2838 some of those things were words, I suppose.

Free Education in this case is "merely" poetry. Just sit back, loosen the brain cells with some alcohol, and enjoy! ...& don't forget to feed the algorithm.

​@@hyperduality2838 Sir this is a Wendy's

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

and the unmissable solo earrings...just to break the impeccable symmetry.

Stop looking at exterior and listen 🧠

No. He is just a typical badly dressed English.

Amazing speaker, what a joy to listen to him

Good that you feel that way. Now you too can wax poetic during a small gathering!

We're so glad you're enjoying your membership - thanks for supporting us!

Im not a member?

@@Ripen3prove it

@@Ripen3that’s why you are seeing it now.

@@Ripen3 Members get early access without ads to all our lectures, as well as exclusive access to the lecture Q&As, and help to support our charitable mission.

Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

I am just wondering how much human being like this great guy can be able to qualify themselves in a specific discipline in such a wonderful skill and ability.It's unbelievable, isn't it?

Depends on your needs. Adding to superficiality, absolutely feels good and gets clix (ad revenue). Trying to learn about biology? One of the worst, most mis-leading on any platform.

@@OlehenryIt was mostly beyond me, but I have literally just finished reading The Selfish Gene which this guy referenced and claimed Dawkins was affronted by the idea that we can act against selfish genes, which is just categorically not true at all. First of all Dawkins celebrates that we can, and that it’s good, and separately makes the point that it’s as if genes have handed over the reigns to brains as they have foresight and adaptability. Then he name drops Dawkins again at the end, giving the impression (to me at least) that Dawkins was confounded by the paradox of the organism before quote-mining from the intro of a paper that then goes on to explain how it’s not a paradox, with the answer/clue coming from how parasites work, and the idea of the extended phenotype. It feels a bit dishonest to me.

@@EeekiE Ball & Dawkins are in the same business, and both feel compelled to straw-man simplistic arguments in order to bolster "his" mysterious hypotheses. I find Ball to be utterly romantic & superficial WRT his understanding of biology, eg: the immune system. Whereas Dawkins has a far stronger grasp of biology & computation, eg, his writings displaying integration of these fields without constantly hand-waving away interesting but confusing outcomes and defaulting to "see, see? that's gotta be agency!". While I am always saddened when Dawkins does anthropomorphize (to gain clicks/views/book sales?), Ball is far worse and this talk clarifies that he thrives on knocking over hastily-constructed straw clowns. Keep reading & thinking, & best in your journey!

Thanks :-)

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

@@hyperduality2838 Stop spamming this. What even is the point of all that gibberish? Probably nothing....

@@kindlin Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Your mind is syntropic as you make predictions to track targets, goals and objectives. From a convergent, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Convex is dual to concave -- mirrors, lenses. Duality means that there is a 4th law of thermodynamics! Mind (syntropy) is dual to matter (entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. You are built from DNA which is based upon a language or code -- Duality! Male is dual to female synthesizes children or offspring. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Energy is duality, duality is energy -- the Krebs energy cycle. Mammals are dual to trees, plants -- the Krebs energy cycle is dual. The duality of the Krebs energy cycle (via the Hegel dialectic) is why mammals and higher life forms exist. You are a product of duality! -- It is hardwired into the physics and biology. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy (negative curvature) is dual to dark matter (positive curvature). Space is dual to time -- Einstein.

@@kindlin Natural selection is based upon random mutations or entropy -- Darwinism. The concept of randomness requires its opposite or opposame to exist. Enantiodromia is the unconscious opposite or opposame (duality) -- Carl Jung. If you accept randomness or Darwinism as true then you are unconsciously using duality according to Carl Jung as randomness is dual to order. Order, structure or patterns (syntropy) in biology (DNA) are a product conserving duality -- DNA or the code of life is therefore dual as energy is dual, and you are built out of energy. Everything in physics is built out of energy (duality).

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Sorry for the suggestion: "Scientific sounding..." and hopeful. Absolutely optimisitic!

@@Olehenry Scientific means for me at Bottom: in service of truth and wisdom. Some scientist don't meet this standard. Vice versa I am allergic of people misusing scientific jargon to dress up, an intuition, feeling or hope. I didn't get my allergy from this talk!

​@@Afrika_Percussie Agreed, Ball does not misuse technical terms to dress up his intuitions. This was pure poetry, anthropomorphic (humanized, from a Philip Ball perspective at age 65?), which indeed navigated away from mechanistic "it is what it is" and toward "surely there's a purpose in there". But why re-define science? You can have *both* useful science and simply, emotionally-satisfying poetry. I won't take his poetry to a call for funding, and you find little satisfaction in reading from a published, peer-reviewed journal article. Both personal preferences. But the intentions of any person can/should? be divorced from the outcomes of hir work. Otherwise you're leading anyone so enamored by wisdeom argued from authority, which is a road always paved with good intentions. Hope that is food for thought. Peace.

@@Olehenry I think you can't make the distinction between science and imagination (or poetry) as clean-cut as you it to be. Thinking is neccesarily also driven by values. Good thinking acknowledges this fact.

@@Afrika_Percussie Agreed that humans are inherently unable to carve a fine line between science and imagination (or poetry) during thinking, and thus the details (of a proposal for funding, eg.) are vitally important. Also agreed as to the impossibility of separating values from the thinking, post-thought analysis, and future planning. Introspective thought of a previous thought (eg: reviewing Ball's claims) can reveal misleading statements, and in this regard, good thinkers acknowledge this and act on it. Which I have done. Why? I predict that young budding thinkers of scientific quality will be confused, slowed unnecessarily, and probably become lazy in understanding mechanism of action because Ball confuses his intuitive make-believe with what we call scientific laws, mechanisms of action, ie Physics & Chemistry. His weaknesses at these levels are bleeding through in his effort to motivate and educate, to a young person's detriment. IMO. Maybe you are pleased by the poetry because your work will not stand on the scientific shoulders, nor contribute to the body of biological knowledge. So by all means, continue to cheer. But please consider the unintentional harms to a young mind when an authority figure is confounding hir misunderstanding of principles with narrow (Ball's perspective), vague (make-believe), and sweeping generalizations (spirituality?) about these biological phenomena. (It happens a lot at the elementary, middle-, and high-school levels, then continues at the university level, undergrad up through grad school. And it's confusing our young people.)

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

The environment has very much to do with how genes take effect and can affect the DNA that is inherited. The environment has very much more to do with traits than just cultural transfer. Evolution still makes sense in terms of reproduction because without successful reproduction the species dies out. At the same time, development of the brain and cognitive capacity for the need to reproduce can be useful for things besides reproduction.

Google “the paradox of the organism” and you’ll find the paper written by Richard Dawkins that coined it. It’s called: Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism It’s freely viewable online. This chap quote-mined part of the introduction, giving the impression that it was some unanswered paradox that confused Richard, which this guy just so happens to have the answer to, but the entire point of that very same paper is that it’s only an *apparent* paradox, and it then goes on to explain why it isn’t one. It’s really disingenuous. He did exactly the same thing when he said Dawkins was ‘affronted’ by the idea that brains could defy selfish genes, but The Selfish Gene book he’s referencing makes the point that it’s a *good* thing, and that genes seem to be increasingly handing over control of the organism to brains which have foresight and adaptability in a way baked in genetic instructions can’t. This guys great insight to what ‘affronted’ Dawkins is exactly what Dawkins himself said in the very same book this guy is referencing. Super disingenuous.

Male is dual to female. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Because he's a poet, not a teacher/mentor for understanding the subject matter.

@@Olehenry He seems like a smart guy, though. But, I think he took a tooth-fairy type jump over discussing why most of our genome is made up of non-coding genes

@@MrCampfires Agreed w/ both thoughts. Why does he make use of the tooth-fairy throughout? I was always puzzled by analogies from smart people in grad school -- we don't want analogies, we want the facts & best hypotheses! (Well, I did anyways). 🧚🏼

Nice move, but we all know what really matters sits outside of the technically true but not that meaningful "central point of the central dogma", ie the assumption that information only flows one way, which has had huge implications for our understanding of life in the last half a century, in short genetic reductionism and genetic determinism, precisely the positions Ball is arguing against here

@@marcodallolio9746 genes alone obviously don't determine every trait/behavior. genes + environment do, though, exhaustively. no one controls either. both just happen, unfolding either completely deterministically, or mostly deterministically with occasional randomness, ie. unexplained/unexplainable occurrences. the obvious falsity of simplistic genetic determinism isn't that much of a shocker. it was mostly motivated by sinister fascistic politics anyway, it was always without a well thought-through empirical basis.

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

He really didn't. In fact, in The Extended Phenotype Richard Dawkins already decades ago pre-emptively refuted the type of bad argument Philip Ball makes here. This bad argument here is framing the selfish gene view has one that has to find "ways to think about this paradox", the paradox of the organism that is. Richard clearly explained why that is simply missing the point of the selfish gene view, since the conclusion is that the organism is not only NOT a paradox, but actually an inevitable result of genes acting selfishly. More generally, the point of the selfish gene is not that higher levels than the genes don't exist nor have causality, but that one DOES have to go to that REAL lower level of selfish genes that still does exist in conjunction to that higher level, in order to be able to explain the phenomenon of life fully. In order words, appreciate the impact of BOTH the lower and higher levels, and their roles in the full complexity of life. Really, if anyone is taking a high horse view here it's Philip Ball and incidentally you as well. Dawkins's whole point is simply that the selfish gene view is one that must be acknowledged and used in conjunction with others, whereas you and Philip Ball are the one who are taking that condescending "no mine is the only one, mine is the better view" attitude.

@@2CSST2glad I’m not the only one that noticed the two strawman quote-mined segments of this talk. I’m far from a Dawkins fanboy but having just read The Selfish Gene a few days ago in no way whatsoever was Dawkins ‘affronted’ by the idea of brains defying the selfish gene’s programming. It’s the clear opposite of that. Dawkins also pointed out that genes handing over the reigns to brains with a general ‘instruction’ to do whatever you think is best is superior as it’s adaptable and brains can have foresight. Then when there was yet another Dawkins dig at the end about The Paradox of the Organism it made me suspicious, so I found the source of the quote, and the *entire* point of that paper is that it is only an apparent paradox, and it actually makes sense when you understand parasitism and that the phenotype of a gene doesn’t have to occur in the host organism’s body. I get why people want to knock Dawkins down a peg or two, but you don’t do it by being disingenuous and attacking a strawman version of him.

And then at the end he again quote Dawkins in reference to “The Paradox of the Organism”, before again implying Dawkins didn’t understand it or was flabbergasted by it, before offering his own take. But the quote is lifted from a paper freely available online that introduces the apparent paradox as a means of explaining why it isn’t. Read it for yourself by searching: Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism Forget selfish genes, it seems the only reason this guy is name dropping and quote-mining for the purpose of straw-manning Dawkins twice is to elevate his own profile. Read The Selfish Gene and see what it says about selfish genes building brains. Read that paper and see what it says about the *apparent* paradox of the organism. This guy is a bit disingenuous, or at least weirdly hostile to someone that isn’t making the points he’s claiming they are. Very bizarre.

*That's because of the Presence of DOUBLE LOGIC in the human GENOME !*

...and sidelining Franklin.

Problem, reaction, solution -- the Hegelian dialectic. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging or syntropic thesis, synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy). Agents with agendas (goals, targets, purpose) is teleological, syntropic! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Syntax (form) is dual to semantics (substance) -- languages, communication or messenger RNA. All languages (messages) are dual. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Hydrophilic is dual to hydrophobic -- the DNA backbone or hydrogen bonding. A is dual to T. C is dual to G -- DNA base pairs. Clockwise (mammals) is dual to anti-clockwise (trees) -- the Krebs energy cycle. The Krebs energy cycle is dual. The double helix should actually be called the dual helix -- the code of life is dual. The code or language of life is duality -- syntax is dual to semantics. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.

Because no one cares about the strict definition of words when speaking colloquially.

He's a poet, not a mentor/teacher. Living in an analogy....

Not quite. Speaker too is a poet, waxing as one w/ *pseudo-scientific* frame-of-mind. Different from your reference "manuals", which are primarily *make-believe*, not even close to pseudo-science; take heart -- some of your supernatural dreams are referenced here to support a "unifying spirit" or "greater purpose" so to spit/speak. Sheesh -- join the masses and partake a sip of wine (helps dull the unsettling feeling of ignorance), sit back a bit, and enjoy the modern poetry! 🥂

No more

A banana is more like a sperm I think. Maybe.

That doesn't make much sense. The same DNA (hence the same genes) are located all throughout the organism, be it a human or banana tree

Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense. The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include: 1. Theories of Quantum Gravity A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs. For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny: ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy) Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy. 2. Foundations of Mathematics It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks. For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations: ⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N} Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc. 3. Unification of Physics An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements: Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ] Tμν = Σab Γab,μν Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...) Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν. The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts.

Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry: 1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi Pref(R/S) = f(Φn) Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness. 2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals) κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities) Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals. 3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluralistic Quantum Superposition |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties) Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms. 4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics) LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits. The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales. Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry: 5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p) Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p) Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads. 6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Complementary Pluriverse Observables Δx Δp ≥ h/4π Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles) xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x) Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity. 7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions) |Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states) Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations. 8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn) pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies) dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization) Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms. In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.

What???