Re: Intelligent Design vs. Darwin

[James N Rose <***>]

John,

Some times it is difficult to consider new
realms of thought without revisiting territory
already presumed covered.

This doesn't mean one is stuck in a conceptual rut,
unable to move on, but simply cautiously re-evaluating 
when a relationship comes forth again but in another
guise.   You're a musician.  You don't encounter a new
composition or different work by saying, "oh no, the composer
is using the same set of notes all over again, even if
different combinants; how boring; couldn't she/he have
just used totally different note and not re-hashed
the same old tired ones all over again?!"

definition of life   ?   

it absolutely includes:  exploring variations on a theme

(making a musical pun here).

One of my notions-primitive identifies just and exactly that -
stemming from "mathematics as enviroment", where _mutually present_
but differentially bounded math numbers -and- math relations
establish a relationship between them that educe true existence,
and specific actionable among themselves relations which
set up just these juxtaposed correlations of gradients and
variable possibilities .. and have the potential to instantiate
Being .. which has as qualila and property, several impetus drivers:
including variability optioned for, stability plateaus (of their
inter-involved grouped presences) and clear survival benefits.

All of this coming from relational probabilitites and the
-interaction- (!) of 'probabilities'.

In otherwords, primitive-notioned 'order' generates transfinite
realms of infinite probabilities, which in turn generates 
instantiated order.  The beginning of an ontological reconciliation
and natural coordination of: quantum mathematics with continuum 
(relativity) mathematics.

"Life" is an emerged qualia - composed of its prior pre-emerged qualia
even while exhibiting qualia beyond the non-combinates.  Someway, some
how there is a definable relation and specification of the qualii
and relations between the non-emerged and the emerged.

This would umbrella Aristotle and give a foundationa rationale to Rosen.

Not that the 'numbers' are superior to the qualia.  Qualia stand as
their own valuable ediface and nature of existential qualities.  The
warning is to not give up all reasoning to reductionism after all the
hard work to show its deficiencies, and say in some final analysis,
that "all is inert insensitive non-spiritually associated 'numbers'".

That would to let the bad-notions we struggle against, win.

Does this make sense to you?  what I've written.  ?

Jamie