This section briefly covers briefly other possible applicrtions of the theory to a number of other subjects of which I have very limited knowledge and which need to to be investigated further, alhtough there is enough preliminary evidence to suggest Duplication and resonance has relevance to them. They are as follows: inheritance of acquired characteristics, the reproductive ability of life; probability & symmetry; coincidence; group behaviour; complementarity of the electron; the gyroscopic effect, and inertia
C5.1 Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics
It has been assumed above that the device that triggers the holoceptual flow of eidetic memory is in the form of a large and highly structured molecule, complex enough in structure to contain every piece of information received at one moment in time from all the senses, to describe one static scene of memory frame. It has also been assumed that this trigger device, also known as the engram, is based on the DNA structure, or something similar, and then a mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics immediately suggests itself. This is a subject about which I have not studied adequately except to remark that there seems to be a wide divergence of opinion between Darwinists, Lamarkists, and no doubt many other categories of informed opinions on the subject.
It is known from experience that if a series of events is repeated a number of times, the response to such repetitive stimuli slowly becomes automatic and commissioned without consciously thinking about it: driving a car for instance. In terms of Duplication theory, every conscious decision made as a result of a choice from a review of recalled past experience, and the resulting action taken, will be recorded as a series of memory prompt molecules, now referred to as engrams. If the same event causes the same decision and the same action to be taken a number of times, then a great number of similar if not identical prompts will be stored in the brain, and by a process of accumulation, will tend to become permanent fixtures in that part of the body. It would seem through the argument stated above, that as these reactions become automatic reflexes, no longer to be invoked on a conscious level, they become relegated to some lower activity centre in the brain, down towards the animal level of the old, more primitive parts of the mind. If these engrams are consistently invoked throughout the lifetime of an organism by repetition of the same circumstances time and time again, with the result that in doing so, it obtains an improved chance to extend its existence, then these prompts will become very strongly, if not ineradicably imprinted in the lower, instinctive part of the brain.
Indeed, it is suggested that as a series of prompts becomes ingrained and permanently imprinted through duplication or repetition in the subconscious mind, they will tend to become an instinctive characteristic. It is further suggested that, since these engrams are very similar if not identical to DNA molecules, there will come a point where these persistent prompts will imprint themselves onto the DNA code system that controls the manufacture of genes in the chromosomes of the cell. Thus, as has been long postulated by the followers of Lamarck, it becomes possible to pass onto another generation, a characteristic acquired through constant repetition during the predecessor’s lifetime. The deeply ingrained engram becomes a permanent part of the metabolism, governing the make up of the cell structure, repeated throughout the body. However Biochemistry is a subject about which I know very little so perhaps I should have not even ventured to comment on the subject at all, especially as the subject of epigenetics has manifested itself relatively recently, about which I have not studied.
C5.2 The Reproductive Ability of Organic Life
This is another subject on which I have limited knowledge but the following descriptions of some of the problems involved has been garnered and reduced from a few books read on the subject some years ago. The problem of how inorganic elements, and combinations of these elements forming more complex molecules of inorganic compounds and salts, combine together in a certain highly organised way to form very complex molecules capable of reproducing themselves as organic life has not yet been answered. Despite very sophisticated techniques now available for demonstrating the behaviour of individual elementary constituents in the molecules behave, no faintly comprehensive answer has yet been proposed. It is possible to simulate physical conditions in the laboratory as they must have been on early earth before organic life developed, and indeed, for quite some years now, chemists have been blasting electric arcs and other packets of concentrated energy through bottled primordial atmospheres of hydrogen carbon dioxide, and ammonia, to see what complex substances might be generated by chance combinations. From this prebiotic synthesis all manner of amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and other constituents of living cells have been generated, but nothing like a living organism has ever been created, starting from scratch.
Living organisms can utilise the most improbable substances as foods because they are able to transform them, with the help of a battery of enzymes, into the specific compounds they need for cellular growth and reproduction. But to build up the initial primary organism, every one of the many thousands of these specific compounds must have been available ready made. The substances presumed from simulation experiments to exist on a primitive lifeless earth are no more than crude models for specific compounds; they have the wrong composition and the wrong shape. These primitive organisms must have needed enzymes that are enormously exacting in their formulation. Compare these molecules with the proteinoids produced by simulated Prebiotic synthesis. These are indeed not utterly random since their overall composition differs from that of the amino acid mixture used to make them. Nevertheless, it is extremely unlikely that all the proteinoid molecules from a reaction mixture are identical, and more likely on the contrary that hardly any two are alike. Moreover they are nearly certain to contain tangled branch chains like most synthetic polymers, instead of unbranched chains typical of biological proteins. These nearly random polymers could not serve even the most primitive organisms. To live at all, these creatures must have been able to carry out at least some of the thousand chemical reactions that proceed in modern micro organisms, where each reaction now requires a precision made enzyme molecule.
Nor is this the whole problem. The shape or configuration in three dimensional space of organic molecules is determined in part by the stereo chemistry of carbon compounds. Generally speaking, whenever any carbon compound with asymmetric carbon atoms is produced biologically, it occurs in only one of the possible stereoisometic forms, usually that known as the 1 form. Reverting to proteins, since each of the twenty or so natural amino acids contain an asymmetric carbon atom (except the simplest, glycine) biological proteins consist usually of chains of laevo amino acids. Naturally this stereochemical configuration affects their shape in three dimensional space, so it is a factor in the determination of their tertiary structure determination and hence of their biological activity. An enzyme molecule in which even a few of the constituent amino acids had the wrong, or d, configuration would certainly have diminished activity, or none at all. Now abiotic synthesis, whether under primitive earth conditions, or with all the refinements of modern organic chemistry, always gives rise to racemic mixtures of isomers of any asymmetric carbon compound (equal mixtures of both d and 1 form isomers).
The mathematical odds as calculated by F.B. Salisbury (Nature:1969) are staggeringly overwhelming against the chance combination of nucleotides to produce one DNA molecule capable of reproducing itself, and of containing the correct code for a complete protein, such as for example, an enzyme able to carry out a specific reaction in the cell. the calculations involved concern only one protein out of the many kinds needed by the most primitive organism. It also takes no account of the complexity of the mechanism for translating the genetic code into protein. The probability of suitable molecules arising by chance is ludicrously infinitesimal. Scientists who have given serious thought to the problem have been obliged to postulate some guiding principle, as yet unknown to us.
Having stated very briefly the extent of the problem of forming life from the inorganic elements, it is now suggested that duplication theory might be adapted by those who are very familiar with the problems involved in biochemistry, to form this anticipated principle. Perfect disorder is pure random motion, and as Duplication Theory shows how as the unattainably perfect state is nearly achieved, duplication or order is precipitated out of nearly perfect disorder. Therefore, if enough of the basic but lifeless molecular constituents were floating about on the earth’s surface in a primeval soup, if the circumstances were nearly perfectly random enough, the constituents might begin to form into well ordered groups: into the well regulated and highly ordered polymers, required to be capable of replicating themselves and of being regarded as the beginning of life.
No justification or further explanation will be given for this proposal that duplication theory might be a basis of explanation for life. Having broached the possibility, it will be left for those better qualified in the field of biochemistry to toy with. however, a final quotation from his book ‘What is Life’ (1944) by Erwin Schrödinger will be included:
‘The unfolding of the events in the life cycle of an organism exhibits an admirable regularity of orderliness, unrivaled by anything we meet in inanimate matter. An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of drinking orderliness from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘Aperiodic solids’, the chromosome molecules which doubtless represent the highest of well ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary periodic crystal – in virtue of the individual role every atom and every radical is playing here. To put it briefly, we witness the event that existing order displays in the power of maintaining itself and of producing orderly events. …….A single group of atoms existing only in one copy produces orderly events marvelously tuned in with each other and with the environment, according to the most subtle laws. I said, existing in only one copy, for after all we have the example of an egg and the unicellular organism. In the following stages of a higher organism the copies are multiplied, that is true. But to what extent? Something like 10 to the power of 14 in a grown mammal, I understand. What is that! Only a millionth of the number of molecules in one cubic inch of air…… For it is a simple fact of observation that the guiding principle in every cell is embodied in a single atomic association existing only in one (or sometimes two) copy and a fact of observation that it results in producing events which are a paragon of orderliness. Whether we find it astonishing or whether we find it quite plausible that a small but highly organised group of atoms be capable of acting in this manner, the situation is unprecedented, it is unknown anywhere else except in living matter….. ‘
The above extracts from Schrödinger’s clear sighted book, show that his anticipated ‘order from order’ principle accords very closely to the essence of duplication theory. Duplication of spatial patterns and repetitions of similar events in time is the concept of order from order encapsulated.
C5.3 Probability and Symmetry
The law of probability is so universal and so taken for granted as the basis on which statistics and the whole of quantum physics operates that perhaps the reason for its existence has never been deeply investigated. It is perhaps so fundamental to all aspects of every day existence – like gravitation – that it is not questioned or queried enough if at all. However, if duplication theory is taken to be correct, then a chicken and egg question can be seen as to which principle, duplication or probability, is more fundamental, and whether one results from the other.
If a coin is tossed one hundred times, then it will fall half heads and half tails, within a margin of about plus or minus fifteen percent. If the coin is tossed one million times, then it will fall heads fifty percent of the throws within a tiny fraction of a percent. This is perhaps the most familiar demonstration of probability, and despite the fact that quantum physics and therefore the whole behaviour of nature is based on this law, there seems to be no explanation given for this symmetric mode of behaviour, other than blind acceptance just because it is so. Probability could be described as another embodiment of the generalisation that everything in nature must be symmetrical.
It might have occurred to the perceptive reader that this fact of patterns of events becoming more perfectly symmetrical as the numbers of events increase sounds familiar with some of reasoning involved in the development of duplication theory. In section 1.3 on ‘the same location’ it was shown how the effect of large numbers of surrounding particles obscured the effect of different locations and hence fluctuations in gravitation, and it was later explained how if the rate of duplication of action, or frequency, is increased, the resonance effect anticipated by duplication theory should be stronger. In short the larger the number of similar events involved, the more prevalent is the imposition of pattern and order on that system. This is remarkably similar to the operation of probability, and it could be argued that it is the effect of this law working through duplication theory. However, it could also be argued that the latter does provide some form of insight into the reason for the existence of probability where formerly there was nothing other than to say it exists a priori. Perhaps it is easiest to regard both phenomena as either being interdependent on each other, or even different manifestations of the same thing.
Duplication theory indicates that pattern is a prerequisite for the existence of form and structure, and that therefore there is pattern in everything that exists, diminishing in degree with the increase of randomicity. The logical conclusion of this line of thought is that ultimately there can be no such thing as coincidence since everything happens in patterns, even though its perception might initially be heavily obscured especially if the events observed occur only occasionally.
This section on coincidence follows very closely on that on probability as the two are closely interconnected: if all things depend on probability, and if probability is based on a symmetrical pattern forming tendency as duplication theory indicates, then coincidence is a misnomer. The word implies that two similar events happen either simultaneously or perhaps at different times in the same location purely by chance. In fact, this coincidence of two similar events is not arbitrary, but must be part of some overall, highly structured system.
No classification of the different sorts of coincidence has yet been ascertained by myself or others as far as I know, but if a fair amount of observational experimental field work were undertaken on the study of coincidence, then recognisable patterns of its different forms might emerge, if some structure was given as to what to discern. For instance I speculate that there might be one form of highly structured stationary coincidence that will occur, dependent on the same sorts of location through time, and then there will be another sort of simultaneous coincidence occurring at different places that has more to do with the repetition of similar events than stationary structures. However, more observational evidence is required in order first to define different sorts of coincidence, before an answer of sorts can be put up as a serious candidate for solution. Some work has been done in this field, and it is also clear that large numbers of incidents are necessary. For example, the statistics of the New York Department of Health show that the average number of dogs reported biting people per day, was 75.3 in 1955, 73.6 in 1956, 74.5 in 1957, 72.4 in 1958. this is typical of any statistic where very large numbers of arbitrary events are concerned to show that there is a pattern behind what initially appears to be a totally random series of events.
C5.6 Group Behaviour & Ritual
From observation it is apparent that the normal behaviour pattern of an individual on his own is different from that of the same individual surrounded by a crowd of people. He will do things in a crowd, especially if that crowd has been emotionally charged by some commonly held belief, of which he would be incapable in isolation. Perhaps this is because as one of many the individual realises that the power of the mob is such that it can execute actions of which an individual would be physically incapable. This argument does not account for the apparent diminution in moral values suffered by the individuals comprising a mob. a large crowd of people may be observed to behave in such a manner that the group appears to have a mind of its own in a limited brutish manner. Again, the behaviour of herds of animals presents a very different behaviour pattern to that of an individual animal. Colonies of insects and smaller micro organisms appear to behave as though the collection of individuals unite to form a single co-ordinated macro organism.
It could be argued that wherever large numbers of similar units are involved, the law of probability will begin to emerge, and with it, the implications of duplication theory. To speculate on the way in which duplication theory could be argued to effect crowd behaviour, it would first be helpful to consider a quotation on the subject from ‘The Ghost in the Machine’ (Koestler 1967).
“As in the hypnotised subject, so in the individual subjected to the influence of the crowd, personal initiative is relinquished in favour of the leader and ‘the functions of the ego seem to be suspended’, except those which are in ‘rapport with the operator….. Crowds tend to behave in fanatical (or heroic), that is, single minded way, because the individual differences between its members are temporarily suspended, their critical faculties anaesthetised, the whole mass is thus intellectually reduced to a primitive common denominator, a level of communication which all can share: single mindedness must be simple-minded”.
Duplication theory would explain this phenomenon by stating that a great number of intelligent and complex minds tend to produce the same basic thought pattern in a crowd, when addressed by, say, an orator skilled in the art of rhetoric capable of inserting a single trigger thought pattern into their separate minds to transform them into a joint hive mind. Here would be a considerable duplication of holocepts in the same locality, at the same time, and the thought pattern duplicated most accurately would certainly be that of most fundamental, emotional sort. Sophisticated, cultured thought obviously differs greatly in degrees of complexity and attitude, whereas we all share the basic, more primitive emotional instinctive reactions which presumably create very strong holoceptual images. The more strongly an emotion is felt, rather than thought, the more basic the holocept produced, likely to be common to a large number of people. This duplication of strong fundamental holoceptual images would be detected through each individual’s capacity to detect resonance (described in the section above on intuition). This resonance will be reinforced so that it will appear as a great truth, in the way that genuine truth or faithful duplication of nature by a holocept in the mind will cause this detectable resonance. Thus the resonance of the same strong emotion through a number of minds together at the same time and place produces a magnifying effect so that the particular common holocept appears to be a driving concept, perhaps to be followed blindly.
Using the same line of reasoning, an explanation can be found for the importance most religions place on their followers’ right to be allowed to worship together, when logically, there would seem to be no reason why each individual should not practice his beliefs and rituals in private, with fewer distractions. Indeed, the significance of ritual can be justified in terms of duplication theory. Ritual is a definite and precise succession of events, often acted out in circumstances of pomp and ceremony, so that the significance of the event the ritual seeks to sanctify, is not easily forgotten. If a ritual has well defined and deliberate motions prescribed in its composition, then it can easily be repeated, and the more stylised and deliberate the motions, the more they will tend to be precisely duplicated by the practicers of the ritual. Thus the more basic the motions involved, then the more precise the repetitions will be, and the more deeply will the ritual become ingrained on the psyche in memory molecule form. If such a ritual is carried out by large numbers of people simultaneously, then the effect will be even more deeply ingrained on each individual’s psyche, which is no doubt why the Christian church in its Anglican form, for instance, insist that its congregation stand up, and face East when saying the Creed, when most other lesser prayers are uttered kneeling down. If something is considered to be really important, and of the greatest consequence, then a ritual of prescribed physical motions is likely to be undertaken, while the verbal description is expounded. It also would account for the effect of the ability of ordinary individuals of limited intelligence but with great gifts of oratory, to hold large numbers of people in thrall, such as was done at the Nuremberg rallies in the nineteen thirties.
C5.7 Complementarity of the electron
When the electron is at a certain energy level round a nucleus, it has been shown that it is misleading to regard it as a particle circling in orbit. Schrödinger solved his equations to show that it could be more accurately considered as a probability distribution spread out through all space, but concentrated in certain areas. However, as the orbit moves further out, so the electron begins to behave more like a normal particle and less like a matter wave. If at its most stable and lowest energy level orbit, the electron could be regarded as revolving at an enormous rate, which it would with the minimum circumference, what would duplication theory predict for such behaviour? There is both time and space duplication here. There is action repeated in the regular very rapid frequency of rotation so that there should be a simultaneous transmission effect to all space, and this occurs according to Schrödinger’s equations. Also, the electron occupies the same location precisely at the end of each revolution, at precisely the same distance from the nucleus, so that there is an element of duplication of equal intervals in space to quantum levels of accuracy, which would produce a strong tendency for resonance of the repeated structure through time. The higher the frequency of this structure repetition, the more would the mass of the electron tend to resonate through time, or in other words to appear at all other times in the location. But, this is of course exactly what is observed to occur. The particle quality of the electron disappears, since it is appearing through all space and all time to a greater or less degree according to probability, then it must be certain that it cannot retain its physical qualities at any one place or time – there would not be substance enough to do this. The further out the orbit, the less duplication as the frequency of revolution diminishes, and the more qualities of material substance are demonstrated by the electron. again this is exactly what is observed in nature. To a much diminished extent, this orbiting effect as explained by duplication theory, also explains the stability of the gyroscope as shown below.
C5.8 The gyroscopic Effect
Consider a spinning disc of metal, say a child’s toy gyroscope, it is observed that the faster it spins, the more difficult it is to displace the angle of axis of spin, and the more stable it becomes. If a particle of metal within that disc is considered, then that particle repeatedly occupies the same location at very regular intervals, and it will therefore set up a resonance in time with itself in that location. the higher the frequency of spin, the stronger the resonance effect, and the more likely will that particle demonstrate a potential to resonate with itself through time, or in other words, repeatedly occupy the same location through time with respect to its surrounding circumstances.
Again this is what is observed, and the results that can be anticipated through duplication theory are produced. I have not read enough about the subject and almost certainly would not understand the inevitably complex maths involved if I had, to know whether any basic explanation in principle exists to explain the gyroscopic effect. The explanation above such as it is, does not explain why it is only the displacement of the angle of spin of the axis that is resisted, and not, say, the displacement of the whole gyroscope in any direction, when only the ordinary resistance of inertia of the gyroscope’s mass will be encountered.
A structure comprised of large numbers of particles bearing an ordered
relation ship to each other, albeit there will inevitably be some small degree of uncertainty as to the precise location of each component, will ex hypothesi tend to resonate through all time in the same location (Equal intervals in space -similar structures- tend to duplicate themselves though all time in one location). Thus the more complex the structure in that it has greater numbers of component particle, then the stronger will be the tendency for it to resonate through time in the same place. The fewer the numbers of particles comprised in a structure the less will be this tendency to remain in that same location. In other words, the more complex and ordered the structure, the more it will resist any attempt to move it elsewhere. In short there will be an inertial effect against any force attempting to accelerate it away from its present position or line of steady motion. Why this might be so is discussed in more detail in section F below.