You are on page 1of 61

http://aexion.org/text.

aspx On Transforming Darwin¶s ³Malthusian´ insight into a form of Transfinite Arithmetic

Kant Postumum Darwin¶s reading of Malthus has been variously commented on and interpreted over the years. In, ³A Hundred Years of Evolution´ G.S. Carter said,
³In 1839 he (Darwin) read Malthus¶ work on Population^1(1-T. R. Malthus (1766-1834) was an economist. He published his Essay on Population in 1798, in which he put forward the view that, since µpopulation increases in a geometrical, food in an arithmetical ratio¶, population is bound to outrun food supply, unless there is some active check to prevent it. He applied the argument to man and was not concerned with the evolution of animals. The application to the theory of evolution was due to Darwin and Wallace. Malthus¶ argument was not original; it had previously been put forward by Condorcet.) which suggested to him the idea of natural selection and its function in nature of removing the less efficient organisms. From that time he was continually collecting evidence in support of his belief in the mutability of species and of his theory of how it comes about.´

S.J Gould(SETH page 122) has echoed R. C. Lewontin¶s suggestion( BAIpage10) that Darwin took early-nineteenth-century political economy and expanded it to include all of natural economy. Gould wrote,
³In fact, I would advance the even stronger claim that the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith¶s economics transferred to nature. We must also note the delicious (and almost malicious) irony residing in such an assertion. Human beings are moral agents and we cannot abide the hecatomb* (³Hecatomb,´ an unfamiliar word in English,«off the tongue than ³substitutional load.´) ±the death through competition of nearly all the participants ± incurred by allowing individual competition to work in the untrammeled manner of pure laissez-faire. Thus, Adam Smith¶s economics does not work in economics. But nature need not operate by the norms of human morality. If the adaptation of one requires the death of thousands in amoral

nature, the so be it. The process may be messy and wasteful, but nature enjoys time in abundance, and maximal efficiency need not mark her ways.´

David Stove (³Darwinian Fairytales´) has written a playful book challenging this transfer through ecology to nature and as the world attempts to lift itself up from a bad economic past perhaps it is time to revisit evolutionary theory¶s economic past and provide the same reasoning with a different mathematical backdrop capable of evolving the structure of evolutionary theory itself. I intend to reformulate Darwin¶s use of mathematical ratios, in terms of transfinite ones and show how, the history of evolutionary theory may be re-read on this pure mathematical foundation instead of the more or less simplistic philosophy of mathematics that informed Darwin¶s thought process. Perhaps biologists will be in a position to extirpate more fully the ideological nature of its core notions. There is no doubt that a reality for transfinite quantities beyond discussions in pure math and the philosophy thereof, remains in question. The application of transfinite arithmetic via notions of greater, equal and less than, denied in textu generally by Galelio, to a domain encompassing prior separate creations of life as challenged by Darwin however, provides an object that may even attract applications in chemistry and physics. We will be in a position as we move this discussion forward and remove the danger the prior doubt inclines to or from, to answer Poincare¶s question through a concept that provides indeed evolutionary intuition where Poincare had objected to logistics. Dantizig was cautious to not invoke the full rejection of Poincare by framing his own discussion of transfinites from the perspective of the finite but in the end it will be Gould¶s psychology that is not healthy to a properly developed structure of all life. The newer form of transfinite arithmetic onto Malthusian parameterizations will provide gains that make up for the new impositions the theoretical mind set bears on the writer and the reader of the biological pasigraphy functioning. There is a confusion associated with if the offspring are a proper subset of the parents or if the parents are a subset of the offspring. The

ordertype associated with breeding continuum determines which direction the subseting truthfully consists. The reverse ordering translates offspring sets into parent sets and vice versa. Thus while the relation of offspring from parents under the continuum of ordinary generation of Darwin is either way a simply ordered set it is not WELL ORDERED as diplayed in the paradox under reeversal. Disputes with Panbiogeography from Darwin¶s perspective arise because of confusions of well ordering and simple ordering. Darwin used the word "infinte" alot. This re-reading will do justice to the senses that Darwin used.
Letter 152 ³ Darwin, C. R. to Henslow, J. S., 3 Dec [1831] to be done is infinite. I look forward even to sea sickness with something like satisfaction

2 Letter 158 ³ Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, R. W., 8 & 26 Feb & 1 Mar [1832] & infinitely exceed it in beauty of form.³ Cocoa-nuts, Papaws.³the light-green

3 Letter 166 ³ Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, C. S., 25²6 Apr [1832] of beholding them is infinite.³ I advice you to get an French engraving, Le Foret du Bresil

4 Letter 196 ³ Henslow, J. S. to Darwin, C. R., 15 & 21 Jan [1833] , the 2 mice rather mouldy³ Pack up an infinite quantity more of land & freshwater shells

5 Letter 206 ³ Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, E. C., 22 May [² 14 July] 1833 opportunities for geology & for studying the infinite host of living beings

6 Letter 274 ³ Darwin, C. R. to Henslow, J. S., 18 Apr 1835 resemblance, is to be subject to infinite variation, passing from one variety to others

7 Letter 275 ³ Darwin, C. R. to Darwin, S. E., 23 Apr 1835 pleasant person & took an infinite degree of trouble for me.³ It is quite surprising how kind

One of the omisions that a failure to so read Darwin affects is afailure to comprehend a proper undertanding of orthogenesis.
There is a concerted attempt among biological elites (Mayr, Gould and Provine) to degrade the causality of orthogenesis in nature and to attempt to read the history and growth of biological thought such that this degradation never even gradually survived the so-called ³evolutionary synthesis.´ This is a misreading and causes the attempts of modern panbiogeographers to rescue Croizat¶s use of orthoselection and orthogenesis to appear anachronistic. A false view of time is involved. Darwin had considered that the rates of change may have differed at different times which implies that some kind of orthogenesis must be possible albeit theoretically and possibly limited in frequency even within his, a Darwinian viewpoint. Mayr attempted to locate prepotent orthogenesis in Darwin¶s concern contrarily to ³necessary laws of development´ but this is more against orthogenesis IF guided by the purposivity of a final cause not by an orthogenesis as discussed in the generation after Darwin an exemplified in the terms of David Starr Jordan. Mayr is aware of this difference as he speaks of orthogenesis and vitalism or no t but he does not criticize the reading as advocated by Gould and Provine that with the synthesis orthogenesis was graded into a nonextant discussion. Mayr seemed content to remain textually attached to Darwin¶s view that the creation of two similar functions in two different places or the creation of two forms in two places was not how evolution worked. It all depends on if Darwin was correct that the characters were not affected by the linkage of the forms in space as he did think that the times may be variable. Darwin had to hold the geography constant. Panbiogeographers do not. Mayr may have been overly influenced in relating orthogenesis to Chardin¶s world force that ³pushes´ organisms up the ladder of change until they reach a highest point in man. Orthogenesis exists as Wright suggested for purely geometrical reasons. There is no philosophical bias towards the direction orthoselections may construct over time. Gould¶s thinking is clouded by his instance to invert Darwin¶s relation of form to species so getting species to forms. This curious instance of overuse of probabilities at the expense of oppositional versimultudes only exists in a scientific world where Campbellian philosophy reigns. The effect is Gould¶s style of writing. Nonetheless, he agrees with Provine that our current consideration of orthogenesis ought to follow the reading of Kellog. Provine who spent much time reading Wright for reasons of preferring Fisher simply overlooked understanding Wright on orthogenesis and Gould followed suit because Provine¶s failure to understand Wright supported his own idea about there being two phases in the Synthesis, to adaptationist hardening. In narrating the first supposed comparison of Fisher and Wright Provine mistakes Wright¶s use of squared standard deviations summing to one and path analysis as Wirght¶s comment to Niles

where he would prefer uniform antecedent of Mills to Niles perfect correlation and thus Provine¶s hypothesis that Wright was ³partioning the variance is false as uniform antecedence is nessary for path analysis but not for sum of squared deviations to one in cause and effect where not reciprocal (uniform antecedent) in the relation of correlation and cause. Wright,´A correlation between the length and volume of a body is an example of this kind. Just because it involves no assumptions in regard to the nature of the relationship, a coefficient of correlation may be looked upon as a fact pertaining to the description of a particular population only to be questioned on the grounds of inaccuracy in computation´ This is without a reciprocal relation of cause and effect. And thus wright distinguishes mathematical and causal differences. Current comments by Ruse and popgens confuse this difference when they suggest a continually constant approach to an adaptive peak OR logical negative peak directums. They have substituted the math into the causality. Can path analysis be extended to transfinite addition and multiplication where unity is assigned to all the ordinals that make up a given number class? Can Path analysis be hierarchicalized this way?? The fisherwright difference IS traceable to ³mathematical´ techniques contra hodge for the very issues of choice Wright brings up in 1960 when discussing algebra in the context of the facts of correlation coeffients and regressions as the geometry of wright¶s math no matter the algebra gives a better biology than fishers simple comparison to thermodynamics. The thermodynamics needs to be part of the path analysis which is better and different than what Fisher can leave as legacy. Charles Darwin wrote frequently of the infinite, Huxley reasoned to a notion of predestined evolution across an adumbration of original sin and post-modern day creationists continue to insist something a-miss within evolutionary theory. Is it not possible to write a version of evolution in nature such that the infinite references contain determinate content? Infinite exponentials working from the deepest infinite depth proceed to bias 1-D symmetry directionally. It could be, indeed, that Darwin s vernacular, Huxley s ethical man and the creationist complaint all stem from a failed linguistics remedied by recognizing evolutionary change as arising from actual infinity before the finite counts are homogenously conducted as per contrary to Poincare s opinion. The notion of infinite for Darwin marked a notional limit to the hypothesis he was attempting to refute, almost infinite number of generations (p15) infinite connecting links p463 infinitely complex relations (p61) but it appears Darwin had more than mere unawares affects in mind when he yoked the simple forms to possible infinite number as caused under power of natural selection. He decided rate-wise that though possibly infinite the actual competition among living beings would limit the infinitude.

But we may go further than this; for as new forms are continually and slowly being produced, unless we believe that the number of specific forms goes on perpetually and almost indefinitely increasing numbers must become extinct. Darwin page 109 Huxley was less loose with his words (in the same region of causality) and suggested that there would be cognized an end to natural competition selection before even the best art could select the most fit. And Huxley s lack of knowledge of mendelian genetics prevented the proper definition of numbers terminated vs becoming extinct from being familiar. Darwin saw no limit to the amount of change of form accruing between selected creatures and Huxley showed that even under the best possible authoritative art it seemed doubtful man could reach this boundary. Creationists have constructed walls of interpretation around this place and politicians refuse to make accurate assessments of the separation under consideration. By/through an understanding of Fisher s use of the Malthusian parameter of population growth computed in approaching convergent titration models, it seems adequate to suggest that once one answers Poincare s concern over the intuition of the empty forms an infinite representation within mendelian left and right directums can not only can one sustain a critique of separate creation but one can introduce Kant s physcio-theology as legitimate but outside determinations of infinite number forms thus conceptualized. Let us compare two equalities get started. Math s =2 and Huxley d a/b=n Now imagine 2 replaces 2 on the left Then Can one imagine this situation in any way for Huxley s equation? Can there be any sense in which the maximum number if men supportable in an area ( a crucial concept for Darwin) as equal to a/b of Huxley be conceived within the energetic division created by Huxley? Well if people lived greener lives like Robinson Crusoe in the trees there would clearly be more plants able to produce food stuffs in the same area. Perhaps man could learn how to put tree photosynthesis directly into his body like endosymbionts. So the possibility of recursion as

in the pur math problem is not a priori out of the question. Exactly how to do this is however in no sense obvious nor is it clear biologically that all of n could find itself within a/b. One must not forget however that n is ethical-man not man before somekind of direct struggle had already been made into an art had occurred. Now with our math example it is possible to prove an infinite number of substitutions. If an infinite why not any transfinite # of them? Calculating from such a formation however only occurs in one direction from left to right Cantor s distinction of w* from w would be needed. I will show that this infinite version is possible for Darwin s use of infinity and is directly available to evolution in mendelian populatins via the latent variable in Shipley s extension of path analysis. Identifiying the infinites (rather than the unbounded actually finite number) remands different variations within a certain symmetry of distributions but is dependent on replacing the Malthusian parameter with the superlogarithm and determining genetically the different effects of even and odd approaches to population size on the whole infinite levels of possibility (short of absolute infinity).

It is very disturbing that Darwin scholars and Gould s review of their work (SETH 234-235) fail to make the simple, on its face reading, of what is crucial for Gould s notion of hierarchical selection. All of the discussion devolves to determinations when Darwin actually left the concepts considered under reflexion. So, none of these commentators took Darwin s words at face value. When Darwin wrote, This is the final cause but mere result from struggle (I must think out last proposition) he could simply be recording that when he was comparing the volume of a heath vs a meadow he recognized in his thinking that this was the final cause as discussed by Aristotle through Kant but in EITHER volume, he was able to reflect on them via struggle but that he must continue to attempt to determine what this reflection on nature reveals. This prima facie reading shows up the simple observation of Michael Heads that Kant wrote confusedly teleologically but did not think so. Darwin was not confused as evidenced by his ellipsis. Commentators attempt to write unconfusedly something that cannot be, that Darwin did indeed think teleologically as Gray found wedded. This understanding probably has something to contribute towards reanalyzing the discussion of Darwin on divergence as well. And because Gould does not make any difference between 2 and 3 D maximization he does not have the lexicology necessary but manages to confabulate instead a different gramme through the use of a false negation ( not final cause ) saying this is a new, better and different logic of selection when in truth (since the mathematical understanding of equipollence of point sets)

Gould s intuition on display is neither very accurate (as to form) nor thoroughly definite (as to space) nor distinct enough (in time).

The following abstract fails to apprehend what this next generation of understanding Darwin can contain.
Gertrudis Van de Vijver1 , Linda Van Speybroeck1 and Windy Vandevyvere1 (1) Research Unit "Evolution and Complexity", Ghent University, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Belgium Abstract "Living organisms are currently most often seen as complex dynamical systems that develop and evolve in relation to complex environments. Reflections on the meaning of the complex dynamical nature of living systems show an overwhelming multiplicity in approaches, descriptions, definitions and methodologies. Instead of sustaining an epistemic pluralism, which often functions as a philosophical armistice in which tolerance and so-called neutrality discharge proponents of the burden to clarify the sources and conditions of agreement and disagreement, this paper aims at analysing: (i) what has been Kant''s original conceptualisation of living organisms as natural purposes; (ii) how the current perspectives are to be related to Kant''s viewpoint; (iii) what are the main trends in current complexity thinking. One of the basic ideas is that the attention for structure and its epistemological consequences witness to a great extent of Kant''s viewpoint, and that the idea of organisational stratification today constitutes a different breeding ground within which complexity issues are raised. The various approaches of complexity in biological systems are captured in terms of two different styles, universalism and (weak and strong) constructivism, between which hybrid forms exist. Boundary - causality - complex dynamic system - constructivism - development - emergence - evolution - hierarchy - interaction - observer-dependency organism - reductionism - self-organisation - structuralism - universalism"

Reflecting on Complexity of Biological Systems: Kant and Beyond? Acta Biotheoretica Volume 51, Number 2 / June, 2003
This author confounds form, shape, structure and complexity. It is not possible for the current perspectives to be merely "related" to Kant's viewpoint. Kant's sense is internal to Mayr's understanding for instance. In fact there is no "new" breeding ground but rahter the difference of artifdical and natural slelection under entropy supports a full teasing apart of the Kantian discursivity.

The issue that Eva feels partly worked out in the Opus with respect to the relation of space to sensation was NOT understood by Darwin in the

way that Kant related it to Darwin's grandfather and not in any way as understood from the perspective of transfinites (in a measure) and postevolutionary synthesis social evolution with heat without gravity contained.

Metaphysics and the Genetic Code
Even while "Chemistry" is not 'necessay' as per Kant (as Guyer said) biophysics/biochemistry/genetics/macrothermodynamics is in the internal evolution of loci. The incidence geometry of this expandable space will come back to the necessities in the science of the genetic code.
Biophilosophy does not begin as with Mayr against Kant but rather through a direct understanding that the recessive/dominant pair explained genetically by distributions of homo- and hetero-zygotes are examples of Kant¶s chemical penetration whereby ³to introduce a dynamical mode of explanation (which is far more suited and advantageous to experimental philosphy, inasmuch as it leads directly to discovery of the proper moving forces of matters and their laws, while it limits the freedom of assuming empty mediate spaces and fundamental bodes of definite figures, neither of which admit of definition or discovery by any experiments) it is by no means necessary to forge new hypotheses, but merely to refute the postulate of the mechanical mode of explanation.´ There is no emergence per say only a rejection of the machine like vision of Descartes. Wright¶s approach to population genetics sustains an analysis without the empty spaces voided by Kant. Fisher¶s approach does not explicitly keep these places out of the notion of form-making and translation in space.

Francis Crick (1966) has written ³Why a Triplet?
We have argued that the code must have been basically a triplet code from a very early stage, so that one is not entitled to use sophisticated arguments which would apply only to a later stage, although one could argue that early organisms with doublet or quadruplet codes actually existed but became extinct, only the triplet code surviving. However, we are inclined to suspect that the reason in this case may be a structural µ one. If indeed there is no direct stereochemical relationship between an amino acid and a triplet, the problem of constructing an adaptor to recognize the codon may be a difficult one to solve. In effect, one wants to perform a rather complicated act of recognition within a rather limited

Crick also said,
³The evolution of the code sketched here has the property that it could produce a code in which the actual allocation of amino acid to codons is mainly accidental and yet related amino acids would be expected to have related codons. The theory seems plausible but as a theory it suffers from a major defect: it is too accommodating. In a loose sort of way it can explain anything. A second disadvantage is that the early steps needed to get the system going seem to require rather a lot of chance effect. A theory of this sort is not necessarily useless if one can get at the facts experimentally. Unfortunately, in this problem this is just what is so difficult to do.´ The metaphysical reading does not permit accidental relations but may express something like the principle of substance stability (Gladyshev) as the volume of resistance is enlarged (during possible growth).and it does not suggest ³chance effect´ but rather simply a better logic of the infinite in positing.

space, since two adaptors need to lie side by side, and attached to adjacent codons on the mRNA, during the act of synthesis. This is probably very difficult to perform if protein is used for the adaptor. On the other hand, nucleic acid, by employing the base-pairing mechanism, can do a very neat job in a small space. For various reasons the adaptor cannot be too simple a molecule. For example, the amino acids on adjacent adaptors need to be brought together²this is probably done at the present using the flexible ... CCA tail. It must have, to some extent, a definite structure and this is likely to be based on stretches of doublehelix. Thus .the diameter of a double-helix (since two may have to lie side by side) may have dictated the size of the codon, in that a doublet-code (moving along two bases at a time) would present an impossible recognition problem."

I have suggested that the code arose in fulfillment of Kant¶s construction of dynamics, namely that the triplet question posed above is not one of simple recognition but rather by logical constraint to circumscribe any possible balance of general repulsions and attractions (two fundamental metaphysical force kinds).

Let AB and ab represent two velocities of different base pair junctions in a compound velocity of the entire chromosome reproducing in cell-clock time. Assume AB =ab. Kant argues that these velocities cannot be at the same point (junction on the DNA) in the species lineage. Velocities are not strictly mutation rates. One thus has a possible metaphysical injunction for the existence of multiple chromosomes. Chromosomes thus can exist when and if organisms are being selected for simultaneity of change in density in different spaces. This adaptive simultaneity can only arise by natural selection in time but cannot occur on the same chromosome as the origin is through different times (angles in space).

There is thus a form of 1-D symmetry (>>) connecting pairs of different Thus the amino acids represent chromosomes in the same cell. If two base pair junction velocities are to be equal they the filling of biological space must be in different chromosomes. so as to resist other bodies from entering the same In case two , the notion of dominance/recessive, mutation to or from a loci and the reproductive continuum. alleomorph series arise with instantation of of 1-D ++ symmetry. The difference of Different code systems thus physics and biology occurs because chromosmes and genetic principles as represent different systems of metaphysically distinct in cases one and two are combined for physics under resistance and thus target

different sets of infintesimal difference in case three. Life is alive because it can not like purely impact/environmental/mutation physical matter dispense with the metaphysical differences when angles are allowed. forces. This means that there should be classes of mutagens The logical "powers" of different creatures may not be the same as Herman Helmhotlz would have assumed. that do not merely affect rates of mutations (randomly) as understood by Wright, but this is the maximal extent that the code can ³evolve´.

On this reading, evolution in Mendelian populations occurs because of the logical bifurcation that any pair of repulsions and attractions can compose phoronomically. Life is the dyad of this kinematics. Sex can double the impact forces dealt with in the dyad.

Thus, this organon indicates that notions of bacterial sex confuse the substance of resistance with the thermostat of the dyad. This understanding however should not be read as implicating in any way ³intelligent design´ of the genetic code.

One is thus able to comprehend more with genetic biology and chemistry than with physics alone.
Kant wrote, If anyone wants to connect the aforementioned three parts of the phoronomic proposition with the schema of the division of all pure concepts of the understanding, namely, with that of the division of the concept of quantity, he will observe the following. Since the concept of quantity always contains the concept of the composition of the homogenous, the doctrine of the composition of motions is at the same time the pure doctrine of quantity therein. Since a generalized track is a homogenous motion in the same space in many independent lineages, this Kantian observation is revealed in my criticism of comparative biogeographers claims that panbiogeography is purely phenetic. This criticism also indicates that it is possible to carry out Kant s construction without sacrificing the philosophy of biology to reductionistic terms or denying Kant's effective use of phoronomy in general.
Kant did not "beg the question" as Westphal suggests, rather Westphal did not seperate out the differnt notions of homogenous

rest in physics, chemistry and biology etc. He did not take Kant's "logic" (1800) far enough.

The idea here is that the triple codon system is a result of so-called Kantian congruity
Geometrical construction demands that one quantity should be identical with the other, or two quantities in composition, with a third, not that they should produce the third as causes, which would be mechanical construction. Complete similarity and equality, in so far as they can only be cognised in intuition, is congruity. All geometrical construction of complete identity rests on congruity. This congruity of two motions combined with a third (in short, the motu composito itself) can never take place, when the two former are presented in one and the same space, i.e. relative [space].

Thus multiple codon triples per amino acid are indicative of different degrees of solidity in the same impenetrable space of the particular evolution being described as incongruous. The triples result from a magnitudinal quantity constraint not a mechanically historical contingent cause as Crick suggested. This interpretation provides molecular biology with a new intuition when attempting to develop

information based on base-pair sequences and explains why current approaches have not resulted in comparatively highly significant advances given the amount of funds dedicated to the work. These multiplicities may have implication for the difference between dominance and recessiveness and or the serial extent of mutability in alleomorph series per locus.
RNA ("U" instead "T") makes the fundamental forces of repulsion and attraction between base pairs in DNA able to interact over a dynamical amount of time on one another so as to format more than one "sense" for the cell. It thus does not seem likely that life arose form "RNA-life" but rather that RNA permitted cellular differentation. Genetics enables one to cognize and coordinate the difference of superficial space (via the DNA through transcription and translation) and corporeal space( of Kant) being the object of selection. Point mutations do not create empty mediate spaces as seems supposed intentionally by some advocating the neutral (Kimura) theory but rather affect the original attractive directions in the base pairs not the corporeal space that the genes selectively etc support. Neutralists tended to substitute the corporeal space for the superficial in their arguments about it role in evolution as a whole. This difference in kinds of space helps to orient the different views of evolution as presented by Wright (Kimura, Haldane, Fisher, Wright). Given the attraction and repulsion of base pairs and the full logical complement of possible triple DNA bases , then the relation between these possible bases as the genetic code and the amino acids physiologically sustain Kant¶s continuum of elasticity and compression at loci as points in this space. Further the mathematical infinite divisibility of matter where there need not be substance in every part of THIS filled space, this space is the place of the organic thing and in the use of Kant¶s positing one can put Cantor¶s actual infinite. Genetics thus affords logic the ability to sense the space predicable. This was lacking in Russell¶s empiricism. Wooder was unable to attain this either. Kaufmann insisted on binary basis which is not the same as repulsion and attraction. Impact and pressure however depend on the entropic fixation of genes and possible macrothermodynamics of the substance which were obscured by Fisher in overemphasizing the infinite divisibility aspect of matter vs. the infinite divisibility of space itself. Thus contrary to elite opinion the Fisher-Wirght BIOLOGICAL controversey DOES depend on the mathmaticall differences used. It may even be that the common opinion that a creature is really what its' DNA makes protein wise is mistaken because the inheritance of the a particular genotype may simply frame the space to which the life of the creature lives irrespective of the matter monohierchies (density) inherent. It remains to coordinate the macrothermodynamic continuum to the Kantian one.

The difference of base pairs between DNA and RNA goes towards instantiating the nexus of infinite divisibility of space and infinite divisibility of parts. Chromosomes express an actual dimension of empty space . Genetics enables one to cognize the difference of true and apparent attraction once population genetics works in the difference of supramolecular impact of bases from contingent attractive base pairs in existing DNA and RNA separating superficial and penetrative forces. Macrothermodyanmics contributes to this task.

2 drawing forces in opposite directions combine velocity and direction differences

T-A A-T C-G G-C Double repulsions driving forces give triple code when combined with attractive moving force. TxG,C Ax G,C Cx A,T Gx A,T

One of the really amazing consequences of this new position on the genetic code is that it reveals a new way to try to resolve the debate since the 60s on whether selection for heterozygotes or neutral mutation acquisition rate is responsible for the high amount of allelic variability uncovered with the development of gel electrophoresis etc. Selection effects would be found in pressure while that for mutation spread in compression for the same form's moving force. Devising experiments to measure proportions of pressure to compression should be tried.

Thus this reading of Dina Emundts (Kants Übergangskonzeption im µOpus Postumum¶)is clearly FALSE.

What Goodreau was missing was the relation between attraction and repulsion and moving forces themselves. This is provided by the physics and chemistry of Wrightian path analysis particularly in cases following Gladyshev's law. Kant did recognize this in the difference of organic and inorganic bodies and the simple understanding that organic chemicals can be made by hand currently does not obviate Kant's insight in any way. The generation of the genetic code by the real A and -A of attractions and repulsions in a unity specifies further the entropy affected "fixed" state of genes in Kant's density and gives meaning to "orthogensis".

Given the the same genetic code origin and relation to infinty it can be predicted that plants will show a smaller "repulsive sphere" than animals as measured by kinds of transfer RNA(variance in paricular 3 base pair code per amino acid) used in proteins because attraction, impact, contact, concussion and pressure are in line in plants but can be right in animals with respect to ponderablity, coercion, and exhaustion.

This means that proteins express metaphysically the repulsive driving nature of bodies (whereby a matter can be the cause of repelling others from itself and/or resists the approach of others to itself) rather than attractive ones which during selection and penetration opposes the retreat of others from itself and/or draws the approach of others to itself. The motion of evolution as expressed in the flucutation of gene frequencies can be further decomposed into the plurality of straight lines drawn into a multiplicity of repulsions united by genetic penetration. Thus while Feynman had expressed that a creature (plant vs a fly) is just the sum, of the unique set of proteins and enzymes developed it is rather all the matter in space filled by the homogenity of repulsive forces (of all its parts) through its own force of extension that makes up the biochemistry of a species. The difference between penetration and c ompression depend on the realtion of the the repuslive forces in all its parts to the force of extension and thus there is more to the thing than a simple sum of proteins expressed but includes extendability however this is not limited to the mathematical philosophy of Darwin. Feynman was expressing the filling of the space rather than the surfaces that intersect in the same places. Proteins provide the enclosure for evolution. Darwin mistook (or rather limited the math to arithmetic vs geometric (rather than tetration to ackerman etc)) the expansive nature due to repulsion of all homogneous parts of unity from the drawing forces accompanying extension of matter filling space. Darwin did not adequately distinguish the space (relative motion of the space with the bodies at rest) of extension filled from the bodies' space extended during modification. Croizat knew this and Darwin's dissection of traits into ornaments and armaments sedimented this falisty morphologically. Thus Darwin failed to cognize the degree of extension in the existence of different trait types which trace their origin not to an anachronistic use of special creation in multiple places in geographic space but rather to the two metaphysically cognizable fundamental forces (attraction and repulsion). Creationtists are legitamately upset with Darwinized thought that used destruction of the notion of seperate creation in biogeographic space for the mechanical casues of original form bounds but without a clear description of how form itself results from general idea of a thing and its complement evolutionists ought to seek out more dynamical possiblities for whatever is supposed to be checked naturally. This they have not done either. There is available to the reader a general resolution of creation-evolution controversy. Dont believe it, think again.

Darwin simply substituted Seperate Creation for that force thinkable beyoinmd every extending force that works against the extension. This compressive force is actually inside the individual creature expressed during cell differentation and development due to the expression of proteins and not in the geographic coordinates of species biogheography. Darwin would have been well advised to read how Kant understood the work of his grandfather rather than his following out of his own thoughts. The narrower space of competition can not give the narrowing caused by migratioin, mutation or drift to the full multiplicity penetratively. Speciation occurrs through penetration when the space of extension is abolished by compression. This occurs when the unity of attractions and repulsions under expansion reproductively cross the entire straight line directums beyond each complemented side populationally and thus while the biogeography may indeed encode the forms of matter so penetrated the compression occurrs within the body of the individual creature and is not a matter of the geography whether distributed in confined areas or over large regions of geography.

Dynamical Natural Philosophy
Circular DNA creatures restricted their own population growth by having a circular figure for the duration motion. Eventually multicellular creatures had ways to restrict their own space compressivel y which were under pressure in the bacteria, protozoans etc and communally cellular creatures. This is called dynamical impenetrabil ity by Kant and exists without the

mechanical need for mediate spaces which do not exist even between the surficial and body forces of bacteria because this is simply the difference of physical chemisty and biophysics. Futhermore Gladyshev s law restricts the volume that any compression could press in. Kant's position gives rise to the idea that the difference between heterozygot es and homozygote s is a result of matters that have been able to penetrate and move past one another as in

With this difference of apparent and true attraction and the existence of so-called Kantian called living and dead forces it is not possible to argue "a priori" that selection is not real as Sober argued against Fodor and Piatelli- Palmanrini (below) as such between cause and correlation: Elliott Sober (2010). Natural Selection, Causality, and Laws: What Fodor and PiatelliPalmarini Got Wrong. Philosophy of Science 77 (4). "In their book What Darwin Got Wrong , Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini construct an a priori philosophical argument and an empirical biological argument. The biological argument aims to show that natural selection is much less important in the evolutionary process than many biologists maintain. The a priori argument begins with the claim that there cannot be selection for one but not the other of two traits that are perfectly correlated in a population; it concludes that there cannot be an evolutionary theory of adaptation. This article focuses mainly on the a priori argument. *Received March 2010; revised July 2010" There is a general lack of positing the form of creatures fully in the transition to physics. Mayr likewise failed to appreciate and/or have an apperception of sparsim of Kant on the one hand and coniunctim on the other in the transition. Thus he does not actually express the non-saltus passage to biology from physics in his "What Makes Biology Unique?" The suppposed autonomy Mayr constructs for biology is as fragmentary as the physics that Kant left in the hands of others. This, unlike and the a priori argument against selection which canot be, this can be cognized a priroi. There is more work for arm-chair biophilosophers than S.J. Gould gave persons credit for.

In order to combat the destructive effects of viruses it is necessary cognize the compressive forces acting on each kind of virus in conjunction with the narrowing of the space in the host and relate this to the difference of true and apparent attraction at work in the hijacking of the cytoplasm of the host as viruses do not posses penetrative force but only surficial ones when it comes to any original elasticity. This is of course a relationship between the body and space of relative motion. Without respect to prior descent however the penetrative force of viruses clearly utilizes the compressive force of its host. Philosophers on PhilPapers are unaware of

fludis but without rupture. with recessive and dominance being an expression of catastrophic topoloigcal wholes.

this rather simple reading.

A relation between dominance and recessive as expressed in the difference of heterozygotes and

homozygotes per wildtype is dependent on the how the various pressures of mutation, migration and selection etc have over times of impact enabled penetrations and compressions to be impelled past one another with or without changing places. Thus a recessive or a dominant trait can move from the heterozygote condition to the homozygote state by being impelled without diminishing the quantum of contact as expressed macrothermodynamically as the places are changed. It appears that genetics thus is able to afford a new intuition beyond a simple disagreement about the theoretical space described in population genetics when the body is given equal ³weight´. This is not genic necessarily however. This article is generally mistaken as the math of a common curve amongst a path analysis of residual effects onto heritability of evolvability is not the mere increase of subtilites which does occurr in the application of art technique to purposive design but not to intelligent control of coporeally moving objects no matter the subjectivity.

Anti-body attachement ((first diagram) (to a virus))is an expression of the compressive force attempting to mechanically narrow the empty space(between DNA/RNA and proteins) of the virus.

The difference between the nucleus and the cell membrane (DNA-RNA-Protein)contains the empty space needed for compression under extension. Viruses carry empty space referents. Retroviruses have however been able to co-opt some of the compressive force nature otherwise limiting becasue the RNA is force-wise elastically between the DNA and the protein.

These are situations of A and -A in spaces where all added combinations of A and non A are

expanded from a prior forced moving body.

It is sad that reviewers are unable to discriminate this new application of the transition to physics from older Platonic essences in form in the identity.

E. Forster says ³ I arrive at the conclusion that Kant¶s ether in these fascicles is best understood as a transcendental ideal in the sense of the Critique of Pure Reason´ but this sense however misses the relationship of the barriers to sense in religion (ethics and religion are not coincidental for Kant at all) from mere reason as read ³backward´ to the forces of attraction and repulsion as bonding DNA in either alien life or life derived from causally that associated with current Earth forms.
Paul Guyer says ³I argue that Kant's Selbstsetzungslehre, or theory of selfpositing, according to which we cannot have knowledge of the spatio-temporal world except through recognition of the changes we initiate in it by our own bodies, does not constitute a radicalization of Kant's transcendental idealism, but is a development of the realist line of argument introduced by the "Refutation of Idealism" of 1787-90´ This realist understanding is clear when Crick¶s atomic bond force between the two helices of DNA, Shrodinger prethought was an ³aperiodic crystal´ instantiates the relation of A and non A vs A and ±A for any a or +a dynamics in the changes we can initiate in our own bodies through locomotion.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eighteenth-century_studies/v037/37.3peck.html
³Previous commentators have pointed to the project's obvious connections with the Critique of Judgment and, more specifically, the "Critique of Teleological Judgment" contained in that work. Förster agrees with the connection and provides a concise explanation of the effect of the third critique on the project of the transition (8-11). Yet, he argues against reading the Opus Postumum as a continuation of the critique of

teleological judgment, arguing that the 'beyond' of the object's purposiveness in the third critique is modified and revised in the Opus Postumum. Kant states this revision thusly: "Because man is conscious of himself as a self-moving machine . . . he can and is entitled to, introduce a priori organic-moving forces of bodies into the classification of bodies in general" (OP 66, qtd. in Förster 27-28). Therefore, whereas the third critique was content to leave our knowledge of nature on the level of reflective judgment, the Opus Postumum makes our understanding of nature a corporeal experience. ³ Plants are not known to be self-moving machines (in the sense-organ that animals are but they may be if they could use the dielectric constant to anticipate climatic whether changes and affect growth thereby) but to the extent that their seeds in falling to the Earth and growing to the Sun clinematically deviate from the Earth ±Sun Gravity line may permit morphs into the non-existent for human empty space (of minerals). This however is a determinative thought if extant and not simply reflective as in the Critique of Judgment. The Evolutionary Synthesis of the 30s introduced organic moving forces of bodies into the classification of species bodies in general. Mutation, Selection and Immigration are pressures on the moving force that continues with propagation irreversibly subject to phenomenological hierarchic thermodynamics. Wittgenstien¶s thought however deals only with that NONA not the A and ±A. That is something that fully requires reflection not determination.Rather the combination of penetrative and compressive force founds a fuller mathematical theory of the geometric etc increase (tetration) in the number of individuals of an evolutionary individual from which the A and Non A could be thought inifinitely with Russell contra Poincare. What is generally missing (even in Gould's sense of morphospace) is the clear difference of bodily vs surficial forces but these deviate just as much in plants as in anything with souls. Gould simply thought that the mathematical constraints on form were not going to be an important center piece but there was also a lack of the two different locomotive approaches to final cause in the discussion on Kant so far both directly and indirectly.

A matter cannot be penetrated by the compression of another. Thus genders which coerece more than the former ponderability cannot penetrate the surface any further than that biophysically possible through histogenic and morphogenic compression. Sexes arise on ponderosity by the

new empty ponderable space created with moved imponderables through dynamically filling of impenetrability not absolute impenetrability physically. Impact of Fisher genectics and pressure of Wright affect this filling dynamically. There is a difference in the maths used that affect the philosophy of the relation to infinite divisibility of space.

Genic selectionism is decomposable into the impact penetration logic of any individual base directum and subject to movement of relative impentrability. Thus organisms are not simply vehicles of potential gene increases but rather holders of empty space under extendable twisted repusivities attracted selectively in a prior time without empty time. Genetic Code Metaphysics and Dynamical Natural Philosophy Applied to Social Evolution

Joan Roughgarden has challenged the notion of Darwin's sexual selection with a two tier (behaviorevolution) use of Nash equilibria which may manifest metaphysically the difference of penetrative surface and bodily surface suggested by Kant. I suggest that guanosine effects through microtubules mediates the different information cycle suggested by the math of social evolution and can manifest a monohierarchy.

This is the original idea for this page Richard Dawkins said in 2006

"Would be similar to a scientist of... the future saying something like this: Well of course we don¶t literally believe in the double helix anymore But, let¶s think- what does the double helix have to tell us today«"

What s wrong with the body of evolutionary theory? Generally there is no concept that enables a homogeneity towards a decision to know when one is observing a level of organization or a level of selection nor a common intuition of the same. This is because there is no way to know what body is. Dakwin s thinks that Roughgarden s notion of body of St. Paul is not one that one scientifically need bother with. He only thought this within a difference of emotional religious thought rather than between metaphysics and transcendental philosophy. No one seems to know of the difference between flesh and bodies. Is this merely due to living things having been found to all contain cells? It cannot be. Kant had a detailed vision of the difference of fluids into strands , laminae and blocks which are segmented into solidity. This is missing from the notion of body discussed by Roughgarden and Dakwins. Roughgarden is not only wooing people of religion into the body of evolutionary thought but all people. DawkinsWhy bother to express truths if they are truths? Why bother to make up a parable?, to make up this, tenuous allegory when you can just tell people the truth. The truth is perfectly simple. Why bother with going back to the Bible? and seaking out some sort of of analogy Why not just teach natural selection , teach evolution . It he way it is It is perfectly simple. You do not need to ..this strained , unnatural , seizing of a possible analogy from the Bible. Evolution is not perfectly simple. It may be that simple to a genic selectionist but if it is more than bookkeeping it is not simply this simple. If the fibers , laminae and blocks are biological in this sense of simplicity then every one, Bible believers and those without religion, all , have a subjective connection to the bodies under evolution that express the truth of change of the bodies. This is not strictly symbolic as Dawkins presumed but formal but beyond the logical of A and not A but is rather of A and A of Kant. So though one may think you can just tell them the truth it is not so simple since the statements themselves can inhibit to collection of a common intuition under different concepts. Roughgarden is developing a different concept of cooperation rather than conflict. We do not literally believe in the belief of DNA of Watson and Crick as expressed by Richard

but instead we think of it as an elementary part of a body under repulsion and attraction that leads to bodies that can contain multiple sexes, regardless of the fact that all living bodies are made up of cells. Dawkin s notion of truth told is within a particularly vested interest in a simplistic matheis directum. He inappropriately projected onto religion what is a difference between metaphysics and transcendental philosophy under the guise of politics . There is a good reason beyond the science for returning to seizing towards something different while one moves in a circle around from unity to plurality through multiplicity no matter the diversity. That the double helix is not true anymore is thus not due to religion in the particular but due to phoronomy being applied in the opposite motions that two sexes can mechanically/dynamically instantiate in the body of evolutionary thought. There is a service here because Darwin had sought to make common locker room bravado comments for different kinds of life from ants to primates in the same mathematical philosophy without having thought out the possibilities otherwise first. Dawinks did not do this either.

Charlotte McKechnie and David Shunker of the University of Endiburgh challenge the truth of Roughgarden s depreciation of sexual selection theory. They assert that the social context of Darwin does not a priori undermine the basic empirical truth of examples and interpretations from them. To state this requires some metaphysical sense, what is it? This hidden metaphysics comes out when the authors claim, there is no rationalization for equating sexual selection with a particular gender construct. The authors obtain their opinion by a general metaphysics unnamed than that which has rather specific implications as in Rougarden s instead. Darwin equally tried to imagine jealously and other unusual traits for insects so asking how insects may friend each other on the facebook of a different theory is the same question as if there can be cooperation in plant sexes/genders in the body of Roughgarden. Should macrothermodynamic substance stability of aggregations as Dawkins belittled the DNA love of the future enable a form of cooperation within Roughgarden s two tier theory that so leads to a better and/or newer intuition than that of the Darwinian stepping stone suggested by the Endinburgh authors, the metaphysical differences will be moot. Thus we would have rationalizing judgment applied as if true. Working this out may lead to extremely detailed understanding of plant behavior that we currently do not possess. That such is not just pie in the sky imaginePlants seeding seed are falling either to the Earth or the Sun. Evergreen trees may be doing this outside the branch and deciduous trees within the branch. Plant behavior depends on utilizing clinamatic deviations from a gravity described trajectory across generations, whether sexually or not. Sexual conflict may be defined as separations and discord of the deviations and cooperation as combinations and harmony of the deviations with respect to the particular

developmental behavioral variations that arise during the growth and development of the tree relayed onto the evolutionary tier. The amount of behavioral variation in plants may even eventually appear to be larger than that phenotypically in animals and not simply dependent on squash shape variation per say. With in an increased range of hypotheses and space of plauisbly true ones the mental relations that Darwin supposed for all kinds of animals may be supplanted through a larger domain of understanding of behaviorally structured functionalities' variation (coming from plants as well) and the examples and interpretations othewise concurrent will lack the then on-going rationalized unity and thus be depreciated to zero itself.

Social Evolution in Plants If a two tier behavioral variation plus social evolution is to replace sexual selection then cooperation and competition should be definable for plant sex difference manifestations even though the physical contact through a nervous system Is lacking.
y

Why are unisexual reproductive units of plants called diclinous, imperfect, or incomplete.

A local mating environment with an excess of males or females could bring about severe local competition for mates of either sex. An individual that changes to the minority sex will be favoured in such an environment. http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Nov1998/pdf/Nov1998p30-39.pdf

Is this really a now or never replacement of maleness for femaleness but could it no rather be cognized as a cooperation between male and female plant genders under social evolution?

1. Sexual Selection Cannot be Replaced by Cooperative Game Theory (and It Doesn't Need Replacing)
o Sasha R. X. Dall o John m. McNamara, Nina Wedell, David J. Hosken
Centre for Ecology & Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Termough, Penryn, UK

Sasha R.X. Dall1*, John M. McNamara2, Nina Wedell1, & David J. Hosken1 1Centre for Ecology & Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Tremough, Penryn, TR10 9EZ, UK. 2School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, University Walk, Clifton, Bristol BS8 1TW, UK Another week and another attack on Darwin, but as usual, rumours of problems with Darwinian theory are grossly exaggerated, or in this particular instance, plain wrong. In this latest instalment Roughgarden et al. [1] suggested: 1) the Theory of Sexual Selection is inadequate, 2) that it needs replacing and 3) that cooperative game theory should be the replacement. We will not go into claims 1 and 2 (they are being addressed by others) other than to note they are incorrect, are a misrepresentation of the facts, and we additionally remind readers that, as Darwin himself stated in his great sexual selection treatise [2], "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science". Instead we will deal with claim 3, that cooperative game theory is an ideal replacement for current sexual selection theory paying particular attention to the arguments presented by Roughgarden et al. [1]

(referred to as R henceforth) to make their case. Our main contention is that R misrepresent the philosophical basis of cooperative game theory, which obscures its fundamental unsuitability for analysing evolved systems in general, including the vast majority of sexual interactions. They introduce cooperative games as alternative to sexual selection by distinguishing them from non-cooperative games. However, in doing so they deviate significantly from classical economic theory textbook distinctions between the two types of game. To quote from R: "In competitive [non-cooperative] games, the players do not communicate. ... In cooperative games, players make threats, promises, and side payments to each other; play together as teams; and form and dissolve coalitions." (p965; text in brackets added). This contrasts with a quote from the preface of a popular reference book on economic game theory [3]: "A game is cooperative if commitments --agreements, promises, threats -- - are fully binding and enforcing. It is non-cooperative if commitments are not enforceable (note that pre-play communication between players does not imply that any agreements that may have been reached are enforceable)." Thus contrary to R, the distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games lies in the assumption of implicitly (a priori) binding 'contracts' between players; in this sense: "...the phenomenon of cooperation is to a certain extent assumed and thus not subject to a complete analysis" [4]. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that cooperative games typically involve bargaining tactics, which require some form of communication (including extended interaction) between players.

Can the tuning of a frog ear and call sound be understood as a behavioral (developmental) bargaining? Via bidirectional transduction from metabolic energy reservors through electrical matching to aduitory pressures?
However, this does not mean that any form of communication between players necessitates a cooperative game and the corresponding solution concepts - so-called 'unimprovable' outcomes such as Nash bargaining solutions (NBS). In fact, a whole branch of evolutionary game theory, which is fundamentally non-cooperative [4], is devoted to the study of communication between animals: signalling theory [5]. Furthermore, since the early 1980s economists have devoted substantial effort to analysing bargaining tactics in non-cooperative games [6]. So how much can cooperative game theory, with its intrinsically binding 'contracts', help us to understand sexual interactions in biology, which is the domain of sexual selection? On the one hand, sexual reproduction, by definition, must involve interactions between organisms, however remote, to exchange genetic material. However, this does not require that the individuals involved are bound to any 'contract' they form in the process.

The frog contract is have equal energy resonances between hair cells electrical resonances and mechanical resonances. The social evolution of a chorus provides the mechanical resonances while the behavioral interactions in the chorus may be directed by metabolic matching through the electrical resonances. Thus the two tiers are directly associated.
Such stricture implies some form of enforcement that is external to the interaction, which may make sense in many human interactions occurring within legal and moral bounds. However, if commitments are not implicitly enforceable then games are non-cooperative. Furthermore, to presume that individuals will behave so as to avoid discommodating other interacting individuals, which is central to

the 'unimprovable' solution concepts in cooperative games, is unrealistic for organisms that have evolved by natural selection.

But this may be the case of multiple species choruses dividing up the auditory spectrum where by development under metabolic control avoided discommodating and thus divides with speciation. The prediction would be that macrothermodynamic side payments as individuals team up into a chorus accrue during differential expression of otherwise socially evolved populations¶ genes.
Indeed, it is precisely the Darwinian notion of populations of reproductive lineages competing for limited resources that has led researchers to reject cooperative game theory as irrelevant to evolutionary biology [4]. R's juxtaposed logic is illustrated clearly in the analysis of the hypothetical asymmetric game detailed under the "Logic of bargaining and side payments" section (p965- 966). In fact, the hypothetical payoff matrix presented on p965 seems a strange one to illustrate the heuristic value of cooperative games in biology; since the best payoff (in arbitrary units) Player 2 can achieve from bargaining is 7.2 (Fig 1 in R) compared to 8 if it opted out and played non-cooperatively, it is hard to imagine why it should ever agree to bargain in the first place if it is acting to maximise its payoffs (as will be favoured by natural selection). Moreover, the hypothetical sequence of threats and promises outlined in R, which is used to demonstrate how the bargaining solution can be reached, is equally unconvincing from a biological perspective. Why should Player 1's threat to play A (even if it were made credible) ever induce Player 2 to change its behaviour, given that it would gain 6 if it kept on playing A and 5 if it switched to B? The only rational reason that such threats should be effective is if Player 1's well-being was important to Player 2, which is difficult to justify for unrelated players without including additional assumptions (e.g. reciprocal interactions). In fact, most organisms are expected to minimise their relatedness to sexual partners except under very limited circumstances. Furthermore, R strongly argue that sexual reproduction is a social activity involving repeated interactions between participating individuals ensuring negotiation and threats can take place. This underpins the cooperative game theoretic approach they propose. Indeed, R admit that "the difficult issue for the cooperative game theory approach is whether the animals can carry out team play and can discern the team fitness function whose gradient they should climb" (p966).

The sexually dimorphic ear size may be explained by repeating interactions
However, for the majority of animals (not to mention plants, many of which reproduce sexually), mating is a once in a lifetime encounter between individuals and does not involve repeated interactions, let alone opportunities to 'discern the team fitness function'. For example, external fertilizers such as broadcast spawners simply shed their gametes without ever encountering one another, and the majority of arthropods will only encounter and mate with the same individual once. R's justification for their perspective focuses exclusively on behavior that seems largely restricted to hyper-socialized vertebrates,

Macrothermodynamics however applies more so in the less socialized species
which only represent a tiny minority of the vast number of species, extant or otherwise. All sexually reproducing organisms need to be encompassed in any general theory of sexual interactions. This is

not the case for cooperative game theory.

It may very well be.
Frog chorus bargaining may award side payments for movement of whrilin by MyosinXVA. The Chorus itself is a series of sounds impacting across the Brownian electrical-mechanical continuum. The chorus itself by the structure of series rewards in evolutionary time the amounts of MyosinxVA and whrilin(or equivalents) of those current injectable electrical oscillations that most probably are associated with calling behavior that increases the amplitude of the chorus. Thus a frog could hop into and out of positions in the chorus or call more on its own once it has found the correct temporality wherein its intracellular noise feeds into the Brownian motion of all its developed hair cells but thusly puts itself in sync with the continued production of intracellular electrical noise in individually macrothermodyanmically thermostated cells . Continued calling could maintain this balance and trigger amplexus in those females where the sync is overwhelmed by the chorus and the intracellular noise no longer feeds through metabolically. The males and females bargain over what sync is the best for the most number of offspring (feeback of evoltutionary onto behavoral tier). The silent pre-chorus period could function as setting up of this state where the sync will serially be consequent by hopping (muscular)behavior (muscular behahvior without sound). Muscular metabolite overwhemlming electro-mechanical sync continuity. Thus a Nash bargaining solution is obtained amongst the mutiple equilibria possible in the hop behavioral chorus spatial position, timbre of the caller, the chorus seriality, withing that side payment system of the genes that elongate the hairs and influence the metabolic to electrical noise relation independently of the sound environment.

Winfried Denk, a, b and Watt W. Webba, b
a

School of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
b

Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA Received 8 November 1991; accepted 3 February 1992. Available online 17 March 2003. Hearing Research Volume 60, Issue 1, June 1992, Pages 89-102

Abstract

The spontaneous fluctuations of the intracellular voltage and the position of the sensory hairbundle were measured concurrently using intracellular microelectrodes and an optical differential micro interferometer. Magnitude and frequency distribution of the hair bundles' spontaneous motion suggest that it consists mostly of Brownian motion. The electrical noise, however, exceeds the value expected for thermal Johnson noise by several orders of magnitude, and its frequency distribution reflects the transduction tuning properties of the hair cells. Frequently, a strong correlation was observed between the fluctuations of the hair bundle position and the intracellular electrical noise. From the properties of the correlation and from experiments involving mechanical stimulation we conclude that in most cases mechanoelectrical transduction of the bundles' Brownian motion causes this correlation. Small signal transduction sensitivities ranged from 18 to 500 V/nm. Bundle motion that was observed in response to current injection in more than half of the cells suggests the existence of a fast reverse (electro-mechanical) transduction mechanism to be common in these cells. The sensitivities could be as high as 600 pm of bundle deflection per millivolt of membrane potential change. In a significant minority (4 in 44) of cells, all showing excess electrical noise, we found µnon-causal¶ components of the electro-mechanical correlation, and in two of those cells narrow-band bundle motion in excess of their thermal motion at frequencies coincident with peaks in the intracellular noise was observed. Keywords: Hair bundle; Thermal noise; Hearing Metaphysical analysis suggests that gender initiation in an organized body occurs when given a prior ponderosity a new level of cohesion is achieved sexually by coercing otherwise imponderable matter in the exhaustions of locomotion. This supports the idea that sexual/gender teams cooperate rather than conflict.

This analysis provides the "super theory" Hurd contended is lacking in Rougarden's "Genial Gene"
y Hurd PL, 2009. Pitting the boys against the girls (Book review: Roughgarden J, The Genial

Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Fitness), Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24: 646-647. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.010, supplemental notes). Homosexuality would be adaptive for both sides in the prior pondersosity but because the new level of cohesion is the target of the gender origination the team's cooperation is a function of both coersion and cohesion as a whole. The failure to cognize this does give justice to Roughgarden 's claim of "homophobic" responses to the 2006 Science article. Hurd contends that Roughgarden's use of the phrase "is it true?" "loaded language" but on listening to Dawkins (above) it is clear that this is the question that needs to be answered. Kant's Opus Postuum also provides the reason why social evolution can be congruent with social justice but this goes through the particular mathematics of threat points in the NBS (and ESS vs NCE) and the relation to philosophy not to the particular social issues of humans

themselves. Roughgarden has not said how morality may improve science but this is also possible but is in the relation of scientists IN congregations, not philosophical differences of ID vs EVO etc. http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~phurd/cruft/Roughgarden-notes.pdf "Discern" may be quite definitely understood as explored in the page "Anuran Chorus" as a frog changes or does not change signal frequency in the context of background sound. The key is in differentiating the penetrative surface genetically from the bodily one in general. Thus the four categories of social evolution directums (goal achieved by team play with proximity more important, goal achieved by side payments with proximity less important, nongoal cooperation exhausted to outcome spatially, pure competition) depend on the relations of the empty spaces not the voids in the constructability of the games as the moving forces are enclosed. Following in the path of Gibbs where he forsook complete adequacy of all manifestations that accompany the union of atoms if we restrict attention to equal probabilities as he did and note as commented on by Plank with respect to finite numbers of particles relative to infinite divisibility and supposing equal probabilities for each gender then under these phase considerations it is possible to construct with the Macrothermodynamic thermostat levels of organization biologically as additional physical phases ((plasma, gas, liquid, solid)that are viewed permanently))to those permanent traits specifically called ornaments and armaments as resulting from expulsion of water under monoheirarchy constructions of social evolution and aggregation of higher energy chemicals by thermodynamic activity in the lower level. This can be integrated into the two tier theory of Roughgarden and explain an actual evolutionary result of phenomenological thermodynamics.

The Anuran Chorus Competition or Cooperation?
Communication across an Electrical-Mechanical Continuum After publication of Joan Rougarden et.al. 2006 Science paper there was an exchange of opinion between McNammara etal and Rougarden etal on whether competition or cooperation or neither need be assumed. Obviously, it should be neither, but just what are the possiblites? We can look at this from the narrowed issues of theoretical application of game theory or the general issue of sexual selection and genders. I will show that it is possible to cognize the Frog and Toad chorus as model of cooperation in the sense of Rougharden et al and not that attributed to sexual selection of Darwin. It will be possible to show how game theory directly applies in the two tier model and that chorus calling ( as opposed to lone calling) inititates what is otherwise a binding bargaining contract. The Nash bargaining equilibrium is directly indicated in the ossilations within and across cells in the anuran ear. The extent to which the NBS can be measured a priori in the ear will be developed.

Charles Darwin wrote, sexual selection. This depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over others of the same sex and species solely in respect of reproduction. If this is read to indicate advantages not due to growth and development or behavior other than reproductive (where natural selection may act during habit activity in life) then it may still be possible to recognize cooperative reproductive activites under sexual selection if one sex and an individual of another sex cooperate to the disadvantage of other individuals of another gender. But because Darwin included same sex and species it is unclear how cooperation of one sex and one individual of another sex is also at the advantage of the species unless it is the same phenomenon in which case Darwin would not have need to have written same sex and species. Rather what it appears Darwin means is individual advantage in one sex over others of the same sex or the species as a whole regardless of sex. With the development of the modern synthesis it becomes problematic how single gender structure directed difference in the habits of life inherited do not mix with sexually selected differences. A mutation for locomotive behavior may lead to sexually selected competition or cooperation and thus though selected naturally is fixed sexually or a niche may selected naturally and then offer feed forwards for otherwise sexually selected dynamics. Of course a solution to this is to deny the existence of sexual selection altogether. With respect to beetles Darwin makes plain that the ticking sound is a sexual call that facilitates the finding locomotion of the male and the female (0832). He concludes this from the observation that bettles respond to each others ticks and then are found together. The anuran chorus he likewise attributes to an appropriate expression but actually saw the alternative when he noted that bull-frogs are inppropriate to our taste or ornamentation. He decides emphatically that the structure of vocal organs (in all cases) is attributed to sexual selection. It may not it may be androgen driven instead. Darwin describes sexual selection as of two kinds (pager1051) one between individuals of the same sex generally the males to drive away or kill their rivals (compete) the other is a struggle of competition to excite or charm the opposite sex and are selected by this sex. Some others have thought female frogs may be doing this with respect to mating calls. I will provide a different scenario where the male frogs are cooperating to produce a chorus that triggers a bargain with females when the cooperation reaches an NBS. Thus if cooberated the Darwinin narrative with respect to anuran chorus and vocal structure can be demonstrated as false. Darwin thought the effect was due to differences in timing of breeding but in a comparison of tropical and temperate chorus where such differences are evident and necessary it will be demonstrated tha t the same cooperation to using a choral series to put a mechanical electrical continuum into sync is the effient cause the difference in vocal structure. The basic logical apparatus that establishes Dawins sexual selection is that because females are unarmed and unadorned and yet survive that vocal music strucutures allureing and exting the female (age 764) are the result of sexual and not natural selection. This will be shown suspect in cases wher females call instead of males and the reasons why. Macnamara etal wrote: Nevertheless, it is fair to say that cooperative games typically involve bargaining tactics, which require some form of communication (including extended interaction) between

players.However, this does not mean that any form of communication between players necessitates a cooperative game and the corresponding solution concepts - so-called 'unimprovable' outcomes such as Nash bargaining solutions (NBS).

We will see that any form of auditory anuran communication affects the electro-mechanical continuum of the ear necessitating unimprovable outcomes given the state of inheritance of monophyly underconsideration.
So how much can cooperative game theory, with its intrinsically binding 'contracts', help us to understand sexual interactions in biology, which is the domain of sexual selection? On the one hand, sexual reproduction, by definition, must involve interactions between organisms, however remote, to exchange genetic material. However, this does not require that the individuals involved are bound to any 'contract' they form in the process.

It will be shown that the nature of the chorus sounds produced by individual callers creates binding contracts serially that are negotiated with respect to density and length of the series which differentiates the serial chorus from some other one possibly useable by another species under the same syncing system of the genders.
Such stricture implies some form of enforcement that is external to the interaction, which may make sense in many human interactions occurring within legal and moral bounds. However, if commitments are not implicitly enforceable then games are non-cooperative. Furthermore, to presume that individuals will behave so as to avoid discommodating other interacting individuals, which is central to the 'unimprovable' solution concepts in cooperative games, is unrealistic for organisms that have evolved by natural selection.

The commitments are implicitly enforceable because of the random Brownian nature of the motion both in the electrical and the mechanical motions. So while a contract may be altered by speeding up a call or spacing it out differently in the average (the number of the next generation callers) the Brownina motion will enable enforcement of the behavioral tier in evolutionary time. This solves a common problem of relating ecological time to evolutionary time. Silence could be a threat and vocalization a promise. Silence would operate in behavorial time by affecting the choral ouput. Promising to exert metabolic energy to create audio sounds to feed in to to change the electrical continuum that only operates otherwise in silence is also behavorial . Amplexus thus silences when non reproductive (precalling silence duration) silence value is no longer effective in silenceing within the chorus itself. Thus the so-called limiting rescourse of the audio bandwith is only limiting when the series can not be any denser or shortend or lengthened. Competition will thus arise at the species or levelsa beyond if ecosystem can not support multiple kinds of populations rather than invidiual population sizes. Maximization of payoffs are thus within a bandwith that can be reached by a given series dependent on its ordinality not cardinality. The cross eletro-mechanical continuum communications depend on kinds of series of choral singers not on any choral sound whatsoever. That is what Darwin had in mind when relating the taste in music to beauty and female choice. This is not what is happening physiologically even though the female may silence the male and the offspring spring forth.

The males (below)may be cooperating through electrical oscillations(from muscles to metabolism and nerves) affecting the mechanical oscillations generally (sound etc) no matter the biomechanics and not fighting nor under sexual selection at all.

Attenborough tries to make the case that hand waving and soft calling which can not be heard well in the rushing stream environment of the golden frog is a case of males fighting for a female but this could well be the case that for some physiological reason that ultra sound is not developed in these frogs as in China and Borneo that rather instead they utilize (the black and )gold motion through the eyes to stimulate the electrical oscillations in the ear making the call (in evolutionary time) only once /after directly encountering the balck and gold male that does not move unlike the female that will jump to the water. So the hand motion is a moving of something gold to see if the other male will jump and sound is used less. This is a cooperative behavior with the hand motion, and lack of motion on the bottom and the call on the top (two males) as the promise. The threat point is the ability to clasp hard on the female when other males also find the same motion if the female is jumping towards water. ³Instead, we suggest that animals cooperate to rear the largest number of offspring possible, because offspring are investments held in common.´ Generally, extant amphibians categorically are divisible into the rearing of offspring by external broadcast fertilization (anurans), internal sperm retention (urodeles), and internal egg development(caecilians). Social selection should be applicable in all three kinds of cases if sexual selection actually is not true. ³We introduce a notion of allocating time into various relationships to maximize cooperative or ³team´ fitness. In this theory, we can observe that diverse social organizations emerge from how individuals accure direct benefits from the relationships they develop with one another within diverse ecological contexts.´ ³We suggest an approach that relies on the exchange of direct ecological benefits among cooperating animals without reference to genetic benefits´ In frogs and toads the development of eye-locomotion ability (which salamanders and caecilians in part lack) and the mechanical to electrical bidirectionality of the anuran auditory system provides the communication and coordination system necessary to/for teamwork as modeled with cooperative game theory independent of actual genetic benefits. The anuran chorus is the standard game that frogs and toads play to increase the number of the offspring in the next generation. Thus with these amphibians there is a literal not an analogical relationship as expressed by Rouhgarden et al with ³ A social system develops from the interaction of individuals just as body parts develop from the interactions of tissues.´ The

development time differentiation of the auditory system provides a structural morphologicalcognitive variation of the behavioral tier that doubles in the social interaction of individuals thanks to the dual random motion in the ear with electrical oscillations and mechanical ones. This provides a special case wherein arguments against social selection can be tested. ³unimprovable enforceable contracts´ ± physiological continuum and behavioral variation vs discrete individual behaviors and actual correlated speciation patterns. & Doubts about how to define team play where mates may switch from season to season (social selection vs mutation and migration and drift). ³In our view of selection in relation to sex, the number of eggs produced by the female is of direct significance, and both males and females should have evolved to maximize this quantity by exchanging ecological benefits.´ Frogs and toads operate with a multiplayer bargaining structure where males cooperate to increase the choral volume so as to have common access in a given beneficial ecological niche that maximizes the number of eggs produced. If this explanation is correct then a non-cooperative signal network (expressed in bandwidth distribution amongst multiple species in the same ecological environment)game (for the same data set) will be shown to lead to malformed and inefficient behaviors and failure to maximize the number of offspring developing in the next generation. The issue of communication may end up being sufficiently defined by the ability to send signals from the electrical to the mechanical continuum or from the mechanical to the electrical by any means (proximate or ultimate etc) across the randomization effected by Brownian motion on either side. Individual strategies will thus be decided by the ability to effect particular influences (of frequency or amplitude or serial density or serial elongation or serial ordinality) through a transitive asymmetrical relation with respect to the entire trajectory of the behavioral and evolutionary tiers. ³Perception´ of the team fitness function thus became a convergent mathematizable sequence of series when applied to amphibians. The applicability of ESSs will depend the nature of these maths regardless of the philosophy implicated. When Schiotz explains choral sound volume (Evolution of Anuran Mating Calls Ecological Aspects p 312) by, ³It may be explained as a result of a selection by females of males with the loudest voice, the voice that is heard best in the chorus´ he exemplifies the difference responded to by Roughgarden et al , that, ³The difference between our theory and sexual selection is that we claim selection in relation to sex operates through direct ecological benefits and exchange of these through social interactions. On the other hand, sexual selection theory stipulates selection occurs for genetic benefits and says almost nothing on sociality, and what purpose it should serve.´ Thus contrary to sexual selection narrative exemplified by Schoitz who used of female choice to explain the unexplained amplitude of the chorus,« in a cooperative interpretation the males increase the volume because of constraint the particular timbre benefits ecologically and the female is not picking out males from the chorus but is offering a payoff once the volume gets loud enough(has had enough influence in behavioral time) and the randomness in the communication channel is no longer able to convey the message. The payoff timing thus may not

be a result of only heritable variation but instead includes a developmental constraint in the behavioral tier due to the mathematics of serial ordination of sounds that must vibrate across two systems of physical force surfaces. The physiology of the anuran social selection system is such that these constraints are related directly to number of offspring produced because egg laying decreases the physical amplitude of the chorus ipso facto in terms of life history. Social selection thus allows one to differentiate the developmental constraints effect behaviorally on form-making from heritable trait variability in the form of the phenotype. This division of structural shape into two kinds of mathematical components seems to be missing from multiple level selection theories and is due to the novel theoretical formation of the two tier modeling that has expanded the range of hypotheses that can be formulated.
Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size? has been published but this may not be a form competition but instead a function of

cooperation if the lower pitch for instance preferentially stimulates the electrical oscillations so as to make either the individual ear more sensitive to pitches in general or offers a broader background sound in which more inclusion of callers is possible in the continuum (that may accumulate in behavioral time over years but is built up in its barganing solution (in the nervous system (years) or on the tectum membranes (miniutes) year by year (more so for the smaller frogs)). Thus the switch to lower frequencies may indicate conversion from individual threat points to the attrainment onto the team fitness function.

If this is applicable for frog chours frequencies in general than the difference in the calls of Acris

indicate a further development of the team fitness function of the noththern cricket frog over the sothern. These frogs do not move as much as others and the sothern hops more/further than the northern. This may be how the Southerns can get by with a less developed team fitness function.
Ecological Economics

For now I will just leave you with a quote from Bill Gibson and a comparison of that to the perspective of perhaps the first physical chemist, Mikhail Lomonosov. Before Bill's death he set out what is probably the most daring and controversial positive position in the journey to eco-justice under the rubric of "ecological economics". Dale Corson a former president of Cornell and leader in the formation of Sandia National Labs had been unable to unite the four economics departments on campus. This is a very ambitious proposal. In "Eco-Justice -- The Unifinished Journey" Bill (page 313-314)said, "The new field of "ecological economics" seeks better ways than the size of gross product to measure economic well-being. It distinguishes between beneficial economic activity and that which is actually injurious - or remedial in the sense of dealing with pollution and other injury resulting from production, consumption, trade, and growth, Ecological economics argues for "getting the price right" - by internalizing, that is, including the price of a product the costs that have been externalized by being passed to the public. Valid measurements and "right prices" will reflect the "natural capital" upon which economics depends and the quantitative value of the services tha ecosystems render to economic activity.^19 These considerations make a relevant contribution to reconceptualizing economics. Their application to the brutal arena of economic reality will encounter the opposing force. Nothing is more important at this juncture in the journey than the realization that it cannot consist simply in pushing harder here and there against the dominating force. We need strategies and scenarios for getting from where we are to where we must go, strategies that include the politics of sweeping realignment and democratization of the existing configurations of power....In the just, sustainable,

community-enhancing economy, the "good life" wil mean less in quantitative terms. It can mean more in terms of convivial community, affinity with nature, democratic governance, and genuine fullfillment. That economy will not be capitalism. It will not be socialism or communism as we saw in the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. It does not have a name." I say it will be BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY utilizing microevolution. This is manifest in a particular case of Gibson's ethical norms into practice.

But before we can get here we need to be admonished principally in the words of M. Lomonosv whose Russian was translated by H.M. Leicester with, (1751)"In dicussing the welfare of mankind, my auditors, I do not find that it is accomplished as if its benefits could be brought about by pleasant and simple labors. Nothing on earth can be give to mortals higher and more noble than an exercise in which beauty and significance, taking away a sense of wearisome toil, gather some delights which, while offending no one, entertain the innocent heart, and, increasing other pleasures, thankfully arouse perfect joy.

Where can we seek such delightful, unblemished, and useful exercise except in science? Here we discover the beauty of multitudes of substances and the amazing variety of action and properties, marvels of art and order, constructed by the Almighty. Enriched by Him, no one is then harmed who gains for himself that inexhaustible treasure given universally to all.... Here, I hope, you will wish to ask why investigators of natural substances at the present time have not in fact succeed so far. To this I answer that it requires a very skillful chemist and a deep mathematician in one person. The chemist must not be one who understands his science from reading books only, but one who by his own art practices skilfully in it, and not on the contrary one who, although he makes numerous experiments, yet stimulated by a great desire for enormous and rapidly gained riches, hastens only to carry out his wishes and therefore, following his dream, scorns the phenomenon and changes which occur in his work which serve to explain the secrets of nature. Nor is there need for a mathematician who is skillful in his work only in calculation, but there is need for one who in originality and demonstration is accustomed to mathematical strictness and can deduce the laws of nature from exactness and order. Useless are eyes to one who wishes to see the interior of matter but lacks hands for opening it. Useless are hands to him who does not have eyes to see the substances opened." Part of the problem has been with Darwin's "Malthusian Inspiration" (there is only one surface). The graph above is to be a replacement of such. To get a sense of where ecological economics could head one need only compare the ordering of a couple of paragraphs Lewontin wrote in ³Biology as Ideology´ (pages 9-10) He said,
³But Darwin's explanation for that evolution is another matter. He claimed that there was a universal struggle for existence because more organisms were born than could survive and reproduce, and that in the course of that struggle for existence, those organisms who were more efficient, better designed, cleverer, and generally better built for the struggle would leave more offspring than the inferior kinds. As a consequence of this victory in the struggle for existence, evolutionary change occurred. Yet Darwin himself was conscious of the source of his ideas about the struggle for existence. He claimed that the idea for evolution by natural selection occurred to him after reading the famous 'Essay on Population' by Thomas Malthus, a late-eighteenth-century parson and economist. The essay was an argument against the old English Poor Law, which Malthus thought too liberal, and in favor of a much stricter control of the poor so they would not breed and create social unrest. In fact, Darwin's whole theory of evolution by natural selection bears an uncanny resemblence of political economic theory of early capitalism as developed by the Scottish economists. Darwin had some knowledge of the economc survival of the fittest because he earned his living from investment in shares he followed daily in the newspapers. What Darwin did was take early-nineteenth-century political economy and expand it to include all of natural economy.´ We will be able to use ecological economy to fill out the ethically normed 60s started movement.

I will show that Darwin¶s thought process can be expressed in terms of arithmetical and exponential increases of transfinite numbers as well as finite ones (where tetration applies) but that new conclusions might be contemplated such that one would tend to find that Lewontin¶s prior paragraph (below) needs some re-writing. ³Desptie its claims to be above society, science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values an views of society at each historical epoch. Sometimes the source in social experience of a scientific theory is a direct translation of social expereince are completely evident, even at a detailed level. The most famous case is Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. No scientist doubts that the organisms on earth today have evolved over billions of years from organisms that were very unlike them and that nearly all types of organisms have long since gone extinct. Moreover, we know this to be a natural process resulting form the differential surviorship of different forms. In this sense, we all accept Darwinism as true.´ This will become clearer in the next section on Ecosystem Engineering which may form the base of a new ecological economics where individuals in 3 different populations at one endemic area form the changes which also apply then to Richard¶s first paragraphs quoted (political --> natural economy). This will show (in other earlier paragraphs of Dr. Lewontin that a new counterfactual (not Dobshanksy vs Lysenko and the imending (then) difference of US and RUSSIA) is the example though the target remains agriculture (biomass productivity in distributive competition with traditional and genetically engineered agriculture) as organisms become juridically eco-just. Thus we need both a chemist and mathematician and a biologist and a physicist in one. The difference of Fisher and Wright will be restudied with Cantor¶s distinctions of reality and quantity, number and set in mind. One will be able to extend Bertrand Russell's notion of atomic (logical) philosophy. ³The old and oft-repeated proposition ³Totum est majus sua parte´ may be applied without proof only in the case of entities that are based upon whole and part; then and only then is it undeniable consequence of the concepts ³totum´ and ³pars´. Unfortunately, however, this ³axiom´ is used innumerably often without any basis and in neglect of the necessary distinction between ³reality´ and ³quantity´, and "number" and "set", on the other, precisely in the sense in which it is generally false. [An] example may help explain. Let M be the totality (n) of all finite numbers n and M$ the totality (2n) of all even numbers 2n. Here it is undenaible correct that M is richer in its entity, than M$; M

contains not only the even numbers, of which M$ consists, but also the odd numbers M$$. On the other hand it is just as unconditionally correct that the same cardinal number belongs to both sets M and M$. Both of these are certain, and neither stands in the way of the other if one heeds the distinction between reality and number. (http://uk.geocitites.com/frege@btinternet.com/cantor/cantorquotes.htm) One has to understand that even Godel did not advance beyond us here. Thus we come to the simple statements of Bill Gibson again: ³Growth and profit cannot be the predominant forces. They will have their place, along with markets, to the extent that they serve the goal of sustainable sufficiency for all. The new economy will not be ruled by huge corporations unaccountable to the public. The test of political democracy is whether it can finally fulfill its potential of protecting societies from dangerous concentrations of power. This now entails breaking up those concentrations and effecting a redistribution of economic power and access to resources. This does not mean an allpowerful state and a ³command economy´ but a major decentralization. Economic activity and development will be predominantely community-based and community-strengthening. Localities, regions, nations will find appropriate ways to build self- reliance, with less dependence on imports for necessities, especially food. Governments at every level and international institutions will facilitate the initiatives of their respective subdivisions and will direct resources to enlarge the capabilities of deprived and damaged places. The right balance will be sought between decentralized responsibility and national or international planning and coordinating and protecting against localized inequities and abuses.´ These statements will become modified as biomass producitity is carried out in practice and indeed some of the most distressing limits that guided Bill¶s thought may be amended as we find that we can grow ecosystems as our economy grows rather than simply notice that it is not growing as we do. Thus the limit of growth of the ecosystem will limit the economy but an economy focused on growing the ecosystem off Earth will leave many technical and non biological investments viable no matter the spread of the norms of eco-justice during our world¶s transition to ecological economics. In the narrowed perspective of applied evolutionary theory some credence will be showable to the thoughts of David Stove in "Darwinian Fairytales". M. D. Young, in Sustainability and Global Environmental Policy: New Perspectives, by Dragun and Jakobsson, Edward Elgar, 1997. ISBN 0 18589 863 03 came to the conclusion "that ecological economics has to become more positive in its vision and more pragmatic in its orientation", but before positive law can more than principled, the natural law of these stations on Earth have to be theorized. The following contents on this page seek to utilize phenomenological thermodynamics to retain such a vision for our future. It will be suggested that the Earth may even be able to carry the capacity to evolve population growths off the Earth. Thus Gibson's idea that less is the only way to go may be possibly modified to a limited Earth retained growth after the human population tables down.

A New Ecological Economics Can work be done in evolution to evolve creatures able to sort low entropy better and thus expand the life span of Homo industrialus? Cannot artificial selection instruct natural selection in the wild counter to Darwin¶s vision (due to his limited knowledge of heritability) such that genetic information gains material constructs designed by converting kinetic energy into potential energy through a fundamental manifestation of the second law not available to non-living systems? Does not the phenomenological hierarchical thermodynamic thermostat provide the construct on which to build a periodic crystal potential energy niche via water recycling in the ecological world of Darwin¶s ³variability´? Can not the actualization of this procedure supply indications contrary to Malthus that the ³food´ supply may not be arithmetically limited but may be subject to progressive neo-Darwinian alterations in gene frequencies as creatures mutate and migrate into little populated regions of these thermostats? Should not the tone of eco-justice be modified, provided a hierarchy of prima facie biotic rights are granted to the objects of these increases in biomass production, and the actions to simply ³green´ the economy be translated into shapes of low entropy sorters of food sources able to convert the motion of water into better effiency of sunlight genetically? Why do we simply not propose that mankind can even direct this artifical selection in microevolution to FUTURE uses for life off of Earth? Our food thus may come from creatures not now able to procreate on mountain tops, desert areas, or the ends of the globe but enabled by human design of natural selection Darwin confused with separate creation.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Darwin wrote, ³Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the pas and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the firs bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become enobled.´(p116) Because Darwin had imagined that intricate adaptations might arise via these secondary causes and on considering that there was an reproductive continuum linking all creatures rather than some special creation for each Darwin misplaced in the reciprocity of cause and effect the purely lineal relation of man to God. He mistook the opinion of his day for the lack of information on how the ³secondary causes ³ of birth and death, in addition to everything he imagined, circulate the putting together and taking apart of genomes. This is why symbiogensis and creationism often sound sometimes to have a similar complaint about neo-Darwinism despite the causal differences. This was his error when he tried to imagine the continuum in space and time what he had developed in soma only. Infinity of the latter requires some kind of ordertypes in the former where he denoted separate creation but without the necessary numerology of continuous motion (back to the Silurian)in the discrete space of the genes of birth and death of the component species lineages the Boltzmann corrected materiality of entropy under this energy of connections can develop macrothermodynamically what Darwin took as an impression. He further made mistakes by using what is only but a Hamiltonian bifurcation adequetly circumscribed by the difference of homozygote and heterozygotes while he sought to apply Malthus to the place of the change generally. Stephan Jay Gould is of the opinion that these secondary causes of birth and death are to be generalized to any ³evolutionary individual´ thus expanding a horizon of evolutionary logic but he expects this without the direct imposition of force or the impression that Darwin ostensibly waived off from God. Gould attempts to relate his disinclination towards direct impression by his reading of Lamarck, dissection of the history of biology into formal and functional categories, and lack of enthusiasim for Kaufmann¶s ³order for free´ while giving a rather parochial reading to the mathematical meaning and direction possible in Darcy Thompson¶s use of ³co-ordinate transformations´ This confused synthesis of analysis of biology results from failure to recognize that there is a limit in the form but not in the matter under consideration. Thus rather than expecting to see a new Keplerian notion in biology Gould rightly stresses the dynamical nature of the birth and deaths. There is, given the thermostat, however a different reading in the history of biology than Gould and Provines¶, where kinematical structures ply the formal/functional divide and algebra kings the red square of any insect such, that physical forces give the intuition under which the forms changes (form-making) and Gould¶s organon is seen for what it is nothing other than a gap in the place of the data made by writing style (formality/grammar) rather than the rules that determines the place of the atoms themselves. By continuing to frame extensions of the evolutionary synthesis as if against notions of value etc Gould has continued a tradition where/while the particulate nature of substances is not put in at the beginning but only in the statistical division represented well by the used ideas of ³phenotype´ and ³genotype´. The volume boxing however does better if the horizon is recognized supramolecularly with changes made to Boltzmann relation of probability and entropy instead. This enables a new division of the relation of the source and flow of changes in low to high entropy within the place niche construction which once related to changes in potential and kinetic energy under reproduction of the evolutionary synthesis provides a the natural law on which juridicial decisions of eco-justice can be made de jure. So many of these pathways are obscured by the thermal constants involved in the reaction (H+ + OH- = H2O)

Creation Theology creates a new Organon for the 21st Century 2008 saw the publishing of The Green Bible and with it the Christian movement that capitalized on a combination of the 1960s¶ civil rights movement and 1970s environmental rights activity shows signs of coming of age. The popularization of what appears under the rubric of ³sustainability´ outside the religious context appears to been able to avoid a subtlety that befalls secular attempts at the same object of social reflection. Content in the discipline has matured to the place where philosophical justification can support the floating and somewhat precarious conversation that post-modern man must have if later generations are not to be handed down a completely degraded and down-spiraling condition. The 21st century can look forward to an ethical construction that not only greens and helps to slow down the exponential population growth of humanity but also suggests new occasions to revisit hermeneutical cycles of physicotheology as creation theology becomes accepted not as the mining of the Bible but as a legitimate contribution to the creation of a new form of instructability. This is possible because the capitalist-socialist difference from which this subject had it¶s moorings is now bindable to purely exegetical praxis and scholastic winnowing out of misological implants. Immanuel Kant in 1800 composed, somewhat out of order, a means to criticize and correct our current knowledge. Creation theology has provided a vista to employ the cosmic dimension of this extra aesthetical technique so as to improve its accuracy, definiteness and distinctness. It has

been the 20th century¶s bias, one to which Pascal was well aware of in a former time, that logical considerations associated mathematically with the objects of ³non-euclidean´ geometry removed the method Kant pointed to. A canon reflectable from within creation theology however is able to void this missive and otherwise felt reluctance to embrace infinity as actual and through continued determinations of definiteness, suggest even skills of use, for production where none are currently sought. Pope John Paul II ³The seriousness of ecological degradation lays bare the depth of man¶s moral crisis«Simplicity, moderation, and discipline as well as the spirit of sacrifice must become part of everyday life.´

A mannerism of eco-justice, as reflected in the continued call of Bill Gibson to determine the floor as well as the ceiling (deteminable in the graph above) is fundamentally possible if the consideration given by James Jones (Jesus:Savior of the Earth) forms the core of creation theology.

Bill Gibson was quoted by Dieter Hessel in Energy Ethics 1979 ³A broad movement toward energy sufficiency would significantly alter American life. William E. Gibson has developed the sufficiency principle as a positive standard for evaluating social progress. Social health is measured in terms of meeting human need rather than in terms of production achieved and goods acquired, Sufficiency is the norm of justice; those who have more than enough aggravate insufficiency among other and themselves.
Even though we cannot draw the line precisely at the point where sufficiency ends and excess consumption starts, a standard appropriate to the present world situation would insist that the majority of Americans consume far too much«The overconsumers need a downward redefinition of their lifestyle in the direction of sufficiency«What any one person may include in the idea of what is sufficient for himself or herself is necessarily limited but the ideas of others about their sufficiency and the recognition that some minimal sufficiency for everyone takes precedence over anyone¶s right to enjoy a surplus«There can be no minimum levels of sufficiency unless we find ways to set maximums upon incomes and wealth. There is urgent need at this juncture for clarification of the policy goals that can bring minimums and maximums into operation.^7

Public policy must limit the maximum energy available for any one use or user, and plan to meet at affordable prices the minimum energy needs of all. Sufficiency for all becomes both the goal and means of just energy policy. The norm displaces the notion that there is never sufficient energy, Sufficiency indicates ceilings and floors, but in a flexible creative way. Efficient energy use becomes socially important, as does each method of achieving efficiency.´ Page 7 Bill however was still calling for the same (only interms of µequality¶) in the 21st century ³An
essential part of the answer is to name and face the economic realities in a way that most people have been unwilling, hesitant, or helpless to do. It is not enough to advocate reforms. We have to face the full extent to which the economy in its most essential features causes the destruction that it will not and cannot stop.´ He interjected into a 1982 writing a diagnosis ³Sufficiency means enough, It does not mean bare necessities only, but enough for basic securities and a fulfilling life, as qualified by universal participation and nature¶s limits. Because sufficiency is a norm for everyone ± toward which some move ³up´ and others ³dow´ ± it points on the direction of equality. It requires a movement away from the two extremes of misery and luxury. In the United States this would represent a radical value shift. The American people have been conditioned to aspire to more and more, never to take satisfaction in enough. In an expanding economy sharing seems unimportant, sacrifice unnesseary, justice cheap. The comfortable and the wealthy rise to higher levels of material plenty and excess, but the poor may at least find a minimum wage, or even ³livable wage´ employment. [The paradox or scandal of the 1990s is that the ³booming´ economy and low unemployment failed at reducing poverty, even for many hard-working people.] With slow growth or no growth, however, it can no longer be pretended that tolerable economic minimum can be achieved without a greater measure of equality. In the face of persistant povery and inexorable ecological limits, the world no longer can afford the wasteful lifestyle of the affluent. We have to face hard questions about the control and organization of resources, employment, productive capacity, compensation, and mechanisms of redistribution. But it is at bottom a question of value, justice as sufficiency.´ Page 27-28 Eco-Justice the unfinished Journey.

In retrospect it is somewhat facile to say that Bill was a prophet of the current economic crisis but indeed such seems to be the case. It might be thought that because we did not have minimums and very little consideration about maximums in effect we got the current crises. Technically this appears to be that economics did not use the tetration curve but rather the multiple exponentials with carrying capacities. Now however the Christian community is in a position to bring this message further along because with the possibility that Jesus may have consciously used the relation of Son of Man and Earth while Paul did not use the term enables a full backing of an instruction from the Gospels to

bring about minimums and maximums, floors and ceilings. This can be accomplished by using Kant¶s horizon as the tops and bottoms are structured. There is nothing stopping one from reading Kant¶s notion of outside and below ³the horizon´ Kant 1800-³In reference to the subject, the horizon is either universal and absolute, or particular and conditioned (personal horizon). By the former is to be understood the congruence of the limits of human knowledge with the limits of all human perfections in general. Here then is the question. What can man, as man know?
The determination of the personal horizon depends on manifold empirical conditions, and special circumstances ± as for example, age, sex, position, way of life, and the like. Thus, every particular class of men ahs its own particular horizon relative to its special powers of knowledge, its ends, and points of view; every person, also, has his own horizon depending on the measure of his own individual powers, and his own point of view. Lastly, we can also conceive a horizon of sound sense, and a horizon of science, which latter requires principles in order to determine according to them what we can know, and what we cannot know«. What we cannot know is above our horizon. What we dare not or need not«´ The economic crises resulted because we did not develop minimums as Bill Suggested back in the 70s we did not actively set aside what we need not and dare not know. The suggestion of Jesus use of earth with reference to being the son of man suggests that these minimums which are BELOW our horizon according to Kant are what happens when the son of man is ³lifted´ up ,what is ruptured as a grain reincarnates´/develops into a plant, what is on the other side of face of the whole earth where one dares to stand with Jesus in faith and where the sins of failed maximums can be forgiven! Kant said, With respect to the enlargement and demonstration 1 ± to determine our horizon early 2- Not to change it easlity and often 3- not to measure the horizon of others by our own 4-Neither to extend it too much nor to limit it too much 5 to determine previously the absolute horizon of the whole human race 6 to determine the place that our science takes in ths horizon of all knowledge 7 In determining ones own horizon to examine carefully what brach of knowledge one has 8 Always try rather to enlarge our horizon than to narrow it. Furthermore Darwin¶s vision of science can be within this curve. There need not be the tension between creation and evolution. Ecological economics enable one to reliably enlarge the horizon by looking on the whole horizon morally rather than just in the more and more of the exponential part. . One will be able to say that the ³prophetic´ vision of evolutionist Carter was looking in the same direction as Bill Gibson.

Current economics fails to differentiate sense intensities ( see idea on haptics here) indentified below