--- John-Paul Frazer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Not sure about the bubble... but Brian Goodwin
> suggests in 'How the Leopard 
> Changed its Spots' that the evolution of the eye is
> less like 'climbing 
> mount improbable' (Dawkins) and more like 'rolling
> down into a valley' -  
> i.e. the basic form of an eye is an emergent
> property of certain proteins 
> growing/expanding (I'm no biologist BTW) in a
> similar way to mushroom clouds 
> forming when hot air rises, or the formation of
> Overbeck's vortices in 
> moving fluids.
> 


i agree with goodwin´s remarks. i have been primarily
studying the properties of relativity on a cantorian
space-time (with a fractal nature - continuous and
non-diferentiable) so that complex behavior may come
as well strictly from the medium where the process is
taking place.


>
> John-Paul Frazer
> m. +44 (0)785 496 2776
> h. +44 (0)208 241 4336
> EXERGY DESIGN LTD
> 


--- "O. Mayer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It sounds like what you are wondering about is
> outside my area of 
> knowledge. Biology looks at the eye primarily as a
> sense organ for 
> gathering information about the outside world with
> the secondary use of 
> conveying emotional signals and communications,
> (pupils widen when we 
> look and possible mates, winks and squints and
> rolling of the eyes 
> convey other signals).


interesting.


> The shape of the eye seems to be governed by certain
> factors like how it 
> can be built during embryological development (the
> emerging field of 
> evolutionary development or evo-devo) or what shape
> gives the most 
> information such as quantity, direction and colour
> of light for use by 
> the brain. How the physics of spacetime would be
> involved beyond those 
> constraints is beyond me. Certainly physical
> patterns like bubbles, 
> vortexes, fractal-like branching, networks and
> spirals seem to repeat 
> both in biological and non-biological systems. Some,
> like bubbles 
> (minimizing surface areas) are easy to explain,
> others like fractals may 
> make sense to wiser minds than mine.


alcubierre found a solution for relativity mechanics
that descripts a buble of spacetime that can isolate
an object from the outside frame of reference - so
that anything inside the buble remains unnacelerated
while the bubble itself can travel at superluminal
speeds in relation to an outside observer.

unfortunitly, from the current framework of
relativity, a large amount of negative energy density
would be necessary to keep the bubble walls stable.
but from this fractal-spacetime aproach, the bubble
can apear without any concentration of this exotic
matter. another interesting result is that a warp
drive may be regarded as a computation device.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0411/0411153.pdf

my basic assumption is that conciousness, or the
apearence of an observer that seems to be independent
from the outside reality, comes from the interation of
the fractal structure of spacetime with the
geometrical properties of the eye.


> I recently enjoyed the book called /The Space
> Between Our Ears/ by 
> Michael Morgan which deals with the neurology of
> vision but that is 
> outside what you are asking about.
> 
> There _could_ be some sort of influence from yet
> unknown physical 
> factors but whether such factors are needed to
> describe the eye is not 
> clear to me. It never hurts to look for common
> patterns but proving a 
> common cause is the tricky bit.
> 
> 


thanks for this insight.


		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html