0. Due to their Materialist Agenda, the Scientific Establishment tends to blur the difference between Life and Matter. For instance, they speak about ordinary Electricity and Bioelectricity as if they are the same, when they are indeed quite different in many ways. The same holds true for ordinary chemical energy and living bioenergy. This chapter discusses the difference between these two types of energy in more detail.
1&2. Are there any differences between chemical energy and bioenergy? To fulfill the urge to survive, living systems 1) store bioenergy for future use; 2) employ deliberate strategies to conserve bioenergy; and 3) spend the stored bioenergy in quantized energy packets for a specific purpose. Lacking the urge to survive, non-living (material) systems neither store chemical energy for future use, nor employ strategies to conserve chemical energy, nor spend chemical energy in discrete chunks to fulfill a specific function. Why these differences? Life’s urge to survive is inherently holistic, while Matter is inherently atomistic.
3&4. Another indication of our holistic nature is ‘feeling tired’. This common phenomenon suggests that we are aware of how much discretionary bioenergy is available (e.g. an abundance or very little). Feeling exhausted motivates twin bio-strategies: conserve energy or to rest build up more energy. These common bio-strategies imply that we and other living systems have at least a liminal awareness that running out of bioenergy is risky. Why? Running on reserves could compromise our metabolism (e.g. our immune system or reproductive system) and/or Attention. A diminished immune system and/or the ability to attend to sensory data streams threatens our ability to survive. Lacking the urge to survive, Matter never feels anything (tired or otherwise.)
5. To fulfill the urge to survive, Life produces its own bioenergy, dispenses it in discrete packets to serve specific biofunctions, and must interact with sensory data streams. Lacking any urges, non-living Matter has none of these capabilities. How could an atomistic material explanation possibly account for any of the phenomena associated with Life’s incontrovertible holistic urge to survive?
6. With this massive accumulation of evidence that is contrary to the Material Dogma, why do so many scientists stubbornly resist (even scorn) plausible immaterial explanations? Due to their familiarity with inanimate objects combined with their many successes, these scientists tend to worship the logic of objects (material particles). Rather than objects, Life deals in sensory and composite data streams. Rather than deterministic material mathematics (Calculus), Life is better characterized by the mathematics of data streams (DSD) and an ID system.
0. Due to Materialist Agenda, Scientific Establishment blurs Difference between Life & Matter
1. Logic (Bioenergy) ≠ Logic (Chemical Energy)
2. Life’s Strategic use of Bioenergy vs. Matter’s Instantaneous Use
3. Feeling Tired (Low Energy) -> Awareness of Available Bioenergy ≠ Matter (No Awareness)
4. Energy Awareness -> Discretionary Bioenergy -> Choice ≠ Matter
5. Definition: Life = Self-Contained Entity that Produces Energy to Survive & Replicate ≠ Matter
6. Specializing in Object Logic, Scientists ignore Life’s Data Stream Logic
Why does the Scientific Establishment regularly attempt to blur the difference between Life and Matter? We suggest twin reasons: 1) to reinforce their misguided Materialist Dogma; and 2) to redirect Attention away from the many anomalies that contradict their position.
We’ve already witnessed this tendency, for instance: 1) the mutual interdependence of the cell’s many metabolic systems and structure (Notebook 50); 2) the holistic nature of the cell’s energy production system (N57); and 3) enzymatic assistance vs. degradation (N57.3).
Why does their rendition of the facts tend to draw our Attention away from the strategy and purpose behind holistic cellular behavior? Lacking any agenda, Matter has no need to strategize or engage in purposeful behavior. Committed to exclusively material explanations for all phenomena, Scientific Materialists are hard pressed to find a plausible explanation for any kind of the purposeful strategizing that appears to characterize Life. They pretend that the abundance of contrary evidence doesn’t really exist in order to avoid admitting the limitations of their model.
Continuing this theme, this chapter examines the differences between ordinary chemical energy and bioenergy. Although they are very different (as we shall soon see), the scientific community tends to conflate the two to support their nefarious, self-serving agenda.
Just as the Scientific Establishment conflates bioenergy and chemical energy, they also conflate electricity and bioelectricity, for much the same reasons. Although outside the scope of this work, there is a huge difference between ordinary electricity and bioelectricity.
In their accounts, biologists tend to refer to the flow of electricity through our nervous system as if it were similar, even identical, to the flow of electricity through wires. If pressed for details, they would readily admit that the two are entirely different. Bioelectricity is actually quite complicated compared to the flow of electricity that powers our cities.
Briefly it concerns neuronal action potentials. When electro-magnetic thresholds are passed, a variety of ion channels (e.g. sodium and potassium) in the cellular membrane open and close in the response to signals from adjacent neurons. It is hard to concisely describe this seemingly purposeful and strategic behavior in terms of the random, self-organizing, emergent properties of Matter.
Rather than admit ignorance, biologists gloss over the purposeful process as something that happened by accident long ago due to unexplained natural forces. “Evolution had millions of years to come up with this chance occurrence.” Grasping at straws they mutter, “After all, monkeys could type a Shakespeare sonnet if given enough time.”
This standard, yet inadequate, explanation is confuted by modern findings in the mathematics of Probability. In the early 2020s, mathematicians proved that monkeys would have a hard time typing a coherent sentence in the time the Universe has been around – much less rhyming couplets. (I proved the same thing over 30 years ago.)
On to the differences between ordinary chemical energy and bioenergy.
What is the relationship between physical energy and Life? Why do biochemists generally speak of chemical energy rather than bioenergy? Could it be that this esteemed group considers bioenergy and chemical energy to be equivalent?
Bioenergy is a type of chemical energy. Yet conflating the two ignores the fact that only bioenergy serves a distinct purpose. Why do biologists neglect to mention or stress this difference (and many more) between bioenergy and the purposeless chemical energy of inanimate Matter? The purpose of this chapter is to expose these differences - to dispel the misguided notion that they are equivalent.
Why does the scientific community prefer to maximize Life’s material side and minimize all the features that make Life special? We suggest that biologists have adopted this convention because they have faith that Life is a purely chemical (material) affair. They don’t want to give the impression that there is anything besides an exclusively material definition for Life’s distinctive qualities.
This absurd position is obsolete. It is based upon simplistic misconceptions from the past. Scientists originally thought that Life was just some kind of mysterious plasma. A little later, the consensus was that proteins were merely self-organizing crystals. More recently, biologists believed that all behavior originated from DNA – genetic determinism.
However, 21st century discoveries have revealed that even the simplest cell is orders of magnitude more complex than our most complex machine – the cell phone. Rather than a basic chemical plasma, every cell has numerous parts, including organelles, a membrane, and a cytoskeleton. Rather than an orderly crystal, each of the thousands of proteins has a unique, specific functional design which self-organizing Matter cannot possibly replicate. Rather than a one-way arrow from DNA to behavior, there is a biological consensus that the arrow points both ways, e.g. environmental signals regulate gene expression.
In other words, recent discoveries have dispelled the original simplistic assumptions about living systems that enabled scientists to equate Life and Matter. Yet scientific philosophy has lagged behind these breakthroughs that continue to magnify cellular complexity. Despite these advances in our understanding of the cell, the scientific community has not matured enough to see beyond their materialist blinders.
It is time to put our dolls aside and adopt a more mature position. Rather than cling desperately to a materialist mindset, it is time to recognize and highlight the differences between energy in non-living and living systems.
Despite its chemical nature, bioenergy is only employed by living systems. Only living systems are comprised of cells. Cells via photosynthesis store solar energy from the Sun in the chemical bonds of biomolecules that are unique to living systems. Cells employ this stored bioenergy over time in a variety of ways that enable survival.
The stored bioenergy is also the biomass of plants and animals. In this context, bioenergy and biomass are equivalent. The cell can convert both bioenergy and biomass into kinetic energy to do work, e.g. moving atoms, molecules and even electrons around metabolic pathways to serve some kind of useful function. Bioenergy, biomass, and biomolecules, while chemical in nature, only have meaning in relationship to the cell’s holistic urge to survive and replicate over time.
The mere act of survival occurs over time and of necessity requires a sense of the whole – the entire organism, whether single-celled bacteria or an enormous elephant. Plus to survive, this organism (no matter the size and complexity) must be able to monitor and adjust to a dynamic environment.
Non-living Matter lacks the urge to survive and replicate. It has no use for the special forms of energy and mass that enable the cell to fulfill its special purpose. The stored chemical energy in biomolecules serves no purpose to non-living material systems. Further because Matter does not have a temporal sense, atoms and molecules cannot employ bioenergy strategically over time. Because Matter does not have a holistic sense, atoms and molecules have no urge to survive.
Lacking these talents and urges (or anything even remotely similar), the building blocks of our material Universe (atoms and molecules) have a reactive relationship with energy. For instance, rocks and planets don’t store energy with the purpose of surviving. Rather the objects of the Molecular Realm merely react to stimuli. Permanently in a reactive state, they are victims of the whims (laws) of the Universe.
Due to these many dissimilarities, employing the term ‘bioenergy’ (rather than ‘chemical energy’) seems more appropriate for the potential energy stored in biomolecules. When the two (bioenergy and chemical energy) are equated, the logics of the two systems tend to be equated as well (conflated). In fact, there are many fundamental differences between the two.
Rather than an accident, this conflation is at least liminal (somewhere between the conscious and the subconscious), if not deliberate. With this mistaken merger, the scientific community attempts to also conflate Life and Matter. Yet the urge to survive, by itself, sets the two apart.
Life -> Survival Urge ≠ Matter
Cells are motivated to store and employ Bioenergy to Survive.
Matter does not store or employ Chemical Energy to Survive.
Bioenergy used over time to fulfill holistic Purpose ≠ Chemical Energy
Logic of Bioenergy ≠ Exclusive Logic of Chemical Energy
As mentioned, there are huge differences between Matter’s chemical energy and Life’s bioenergy. Bioenergy is definitely a unique form of chemical energy. Yet it functions in an entirely different manner than the energy that drives non-living systems. Because of the intimate link between these two types of energy, biologists make the overly simplistic claim that Life is a purely chemical affair. However, there is an unbridgeable chasm between the qualities of material energy and living bioenergy. This gap provides yet more reasons why Life is qualitatively different from Matter. Let us examine this energy breach in more detail.
According to Calculus and Newton, material reactions are instantaneous. This is reflected in Newton’s dictum that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The infinitesimals of Calculus were developed to deal with this simultaneity. Matter’s reactions are akin to the stimulus-response mechanism behind our reflexes. When the doctor taps our knee with his hammer, it immediately rises – no thought required.
The same holds true for material energy. The Matter-Energy reactions inside of stars occur immediately. While energy is stored in a star, it is not deliberately stored for later use. Why would it be? Matter has no reason to conserve or store energy.
Energy is, of course, stored in the chemical bonds of molecules. However, this stored energy has no special purpose. It may or may not be liberated at any time for no reason whatsoever. This storage is not deliberate and serves no intentional purpose.
Living systems employ bioenergy in an entirely different manner. Rather than Matter’s knee-jerk action-reaction to chemical energy, Life always stores bioenergy for use at a later time. This time delay is inherent to the cell’s energy production process.
The photosynthetic process infuses a special biomolecule (G3P) with solar energy. Glycolysis and cellular respiration then charge ATP molecules (the primary currency of living systems) with the chemical energy contained in the molecular bonds of G3P. The cell spends the bioenergy contained in the charged ATP molecules as needed. Rather than instantaneous, this complicated multi-stage process occurs necessarily over time.
The time-delay is a direct result of the cell’s urge to survive (something that atoms and molecules don’t have). Cellular requirements are fluid (unpredictable) due to the constantly changing needs of a dynamic environment. This contrasts with the determinate ‘action-reaction’ nature of the inanimate chemical world.
Life’s Bioenergy -> Generated & Used over Time
Material Energy -> Instantaneous (Action-Reaction)
Life has the Urge to Survive.
Matter has no such Urge.
In addition to this fundamental temporal difference (instantaneous vs. over time), Material and Living Energy are poles apart regarding the strategic use of energy. Lacking purpose, Matter has no reason to strategize energy usage. In contrast, living systems are specialists at strategies regarding the conservation and storage of bioenergy. Due to the urge to survive, Life has every reason to be economical with its use and storage of bioenergy. Environmental irregularity places changing demands upon living systems. If they used up bioenergy continuously (as material systems do), living systems would not have any energy in reserve (for instance in an emergency).
Again this difference between Matter and Life is not complicated. Energy strategies (conservation and storage) are motivated by Life’s urge to survive. Lacking the survival urge, or any other urge, Matter cannot strategize.
Life’s Survival Urge motivates Strategies to Conserve & Store Energy.
Lacking Urges, Matter cannot Strategize.
Further, Life is very deliberate in its use of stored bioenergy. More specifically, cells (Life’s building blocks) employ discrete energy packets to serve a specific holistic function. For instance, glycolysis, a process employed by all cells to produce bioenergy, employs the stored potential energy in ATP molecules to drive chemical reactions uphill to produce G3P. This is but one of thousands of ways that cells use the discrete energy packets contained in ATP to survive.
Purposeless, reckless material systems have nothing equivalent. Stars and glaciers, while enduring over long periods, do not store discrete energy packets in a specific molecule and then employ this energy to survive.
Living systems infuse biochemicals with potential energy.
Living systems employ discrete energy packets (ATP) in these biomolecules to serve a specific holistic function.
Non-living systems (Matter) do not (and cannot) store and then employ discrete energy packets to serve a specific holistic function.
Even the way we talk about energy reflects these differences between chemical and bioenergy. The statement, “I don’t have any more energy”, is really saying that we have converted our daily allotment of potential bioenergy into kinetic energy to do some kind of work. Our internal fuel gage is heading towards empty. In other words, we have an awareness of the amount of available bioenergy that is in storage, waiting to be used. Molecules aren’t aware of energy or anything else.
‘No More Energy’ à Awareness of Bioenergy Reserves ≠ Matter
Matter unaware of Energy, or anything else.
This awareness reflects both our temporal sense and holistic sense. We remember that we had energy in the past, but not any more energy in the present. Plus, since the warning light is on, we are aware that we don’t have much bioenergy left. We are also aware that our depleted energy reserves can be renewed, for instance by a good night’s sleep, or some food and water. Once renewed, we can employ this energy in a discretionary manner to satisfy personal needs or the needs of the greater community. Cars, for instance, have neither a sense of the amount of fuel remaining, nor a sense of what the fuel is to be used for, nor a sense of how to refuel the gas tank.
Awareness of Bioenergy Reserves -> Temporal & Holistic Sense
Matter ≠ Temporal & Holistic Sense
Why is this awareness of the renewable bioenergy cycle important? This internal awareness indicates when we have used up our discretionary income and are about to dip into our savings, so to speak. It is time to take action, or, in this case, non-action. If we don’t give our Body some time to generate more discretionary glycogen, we will have to tap into our reserves (savings). Depleting our reserves could compromise other vital functions, for instance our immune system. This is a reason that rundown people frequently get sick.
Awareness of Depleted Bioenergy Reserves indicates it’s Time to Rest or Refuel to Replenish Reserves
Tapping into Reserves Compromises Other Vital System.
For instance, Compromised Immune System -> Sickness
In addition to protecting our Body from overextending bioresources, our feeling of exhaustion protects our Mind. When we have used up our daily allotment of bioenergy (probably glycogen), our Attention dims – akin to a light bulb when power is irregular. When our Attention is compromised due to lack of bioenergy, we are more likely to have accidents or make stupid decisions – both of which can threaten survival. To guard against depleting disposable bioenergy, evolution provided us with an internal warning (feeling tired) when we are running low.
Feeling Tired indicates Discretionary Bioenergy close to Empty.
Tapping into Reserves compromises Body and Mind.
Compromised Immune System à Sickness & Disease
Compromised Attention à Accidents & Bad Decisions
Why does diminished Attention due to depleted bioenergy result in accidents and bad decisions?
Attention is the interface of our sensory-motor network (according to our ID model). When Attention’s bioenergy runs out or is low, our ability to interact with our world (more specifically, the world of information) is compromised. Even though we might have sensations, we will not perceive the crack in the pavement and trip. Even though our behavioral models will be able to deal with ordinary circumstances (perhaps riding a bike in familiar terrain), exceptional circumstances (such as a reckless driver or a clueless pedestrian on a cell phone) require a fully functioning Attention to override autopilot and save the ship (swerving to prevent a collision).
Attention = Sensory-Motor Interface with Data Streams
Low Energy = Low Attention = Inability to Attend to usual Data Streams
Inability to Attend -> Missed Danger Signs -> Accidents
Low Energy = Low Attention = Inability to Override Models
Inability to Override Models -> Rote Behavior in Exceptional Circumstances -> Poor Decisions
The familiar ‘feeling tired’ or ‘low energy’ comment indicates an awareness, at least liminal, of the importance of refreshing Attention with rest. Why do we have this intuitive sense that a fully functioning Attention is so important? Attention (as a component of our ID system) interacts with the information contained in sensory data streams to serve the whole.
This holistic interaction with information indicates the ability to choose between alternatives. How else are we going make decisions regarding the proper course of action in response to stimuli? Random molecular collisions are too undependable to satisfy the specificity of Life’s urgency requirement in a timely manner.
‘Feeling Tired’ -> Importance of refreshing Attention
Attention = Sensory-Motor Interface with Data Streams
‘Feeling Tired’ -> Importance of Info Interaction
Further, our awareness of the danger of ‘low energy’ only applies to discretionary bioenergy. Our Body (in this case, the automatic metabolic processes and many physiological systems) will keep on functioning regardless of how tired we are. Our exhaustion is related to our internal sense that we have depleted our discretionary bioenergy. We have no control over our autonomic systems, which includes the bioenergy required to run our bio-machine (Body).
Our awareness of ‘being tired’ is accompanied by the intuitive feeling that running on empty can be dangerous. Once we have depleted the discretionary energy, our Body starts drawing upon the bioenergy used to power the many automatic systems. As mentioned above, tapping into reserves can have serious consequences, for instance a compromised immune system.
The logic associated with ‘feeling tired’ indicates that we have discretionary biological resources. In analogous fashion, ‘feeling poor’ indicates that our discretionary financial resources have been depleted.
Although this analysis might seem simplistic, the notion of ‘discretionary bioenergy’ violates the current (or at least prevalent) biological paradigm. This paradigm holds that Life is a deterministic affair, whether genetic, chemical or even behavioral (as in stimulus-response psychology).
Hence this commonsense analysis indicates that the current material paradigm is not sufficient to even explain the simple and common statement ‘I am tired (low on energy)’. This fundamental deficiency suggests the need to open our collective Minds to new models that are not based upon exclusively material explanations. As an iterative system that enables interaction (choice), Life’s ID system certainly has what it takes to provide explanatory power for the underlying logic surrounding our awareness of the amount of remaining discretionary bioenergy.
‘Feeling Tired (Low Energy)’ -> Discretionary Bioenergy
Discretionary Bioenergy violates Deterministic Material Paradigm.
Material Paradigm cannot explain ‘Feeling Tired’.
Life’s ID System can explain ‘Feeling Tired’.
One of the major themes of this book is that Life and Matter are qualitatively different. This thesis challenges the current paradigm that Life is merely an emergent feature of Matter. To understand the controversy surrounding what differentiates this duality of Nature, we offer some casual definitions of Life and Matter.
Matter is relatively easy: we define it as all the particles and objects in the Universe whose behavior is governed absolutely by the 4 fundamental forces of Physics. This vast group includes everything from Subatomic particles to galaxies. Many scientists are convinced that this is all there is.
Life is much more difficult to define. Biologists have been unable to come up with a standard, widely accepted definition of Life. One reason for this scientific ambiguity is that many diverse types of living systems and material systems exist on Earth. It is hard to identify features that are unique and universal to Life. For instance, crystals grow by self-organizing into intricate structures. Many scientists would include the ability to grow in this manner as a key characteristic of Life. And yet scientists would not characterize crystals as a living system. Hence the troubling ambiguity.
Cutting through this Gordian knot, I am going to focus my definition on cellular Life. Why? Everyone agrees that cells are the building blocks of all living systems. Hence any quality that applies to cells applies to every life form. In this context, we argue that Cells are the very definition of Life. Let us use our better understanding of cellular energy production to offer a more complete definition of Life.
Life as a cell is a self-contained entity with constantly changing molecular content. In other words, this Being has a skin or membrane that separates inside from outside – Self from Other. This membrane is and must be selectively permeable to allow the appropriate nutrients in and to prevent essential ingredients from drifting away. We grant that scientists have been able to produce a membrane via Matter’s self-organizing ability. However they have never been able to produce a semi-permeable membrane that is a necessary feature of all cells.
Life persists over a duration of time. Despite this continuity, the atoms and molecules in a living systems are in constant state of flux. Therefor cellular content is transient. While the contents of some material systems can be characterized as dynamic, the system does not deliberately attempt to perpetrate itself like a living system does.
Despite having transient molecular content, cellular Life produces its own energy. The bioenergy that the cell self-produces is regularly dispensed in discrete energy packets to serve specific functions related to the survival of the whole. No material system dispenses self-produced energy in discrete packets to fulfill a specific function. Could this be because Matter is not motivated by the urge to survive?
This bioenergy has a distinct purpose. It enables cellular Life to survive to reproduce. All life forms seek to survive individually as an ‘organism’ and collectively as a ‘species’. These two functions (survival and replication) are driven by two urges: maintaining homeostasis (to survive) and creating a new life form (to replicate). Material systems do not have an urge to survive individually, and certainly not as a species.
What is the fuel for the cell’s energy production system? Ordinary, readily available sources: sun, water, air, and soil. More specifically, the cell infuses common molecules from the immediate surroundings with sunlight to store potential energy in biomolecules. These special molecules are water, carbon dioxide and oxygen. In contrast, the energy that drives our most sophisticated machines rarely comes from the immediate environment, but rather is typically imported from faraway sources.
Finally, Life must interact with sensory data streams to fulfill the urge to survive. Living systems have an ID system that enables this interaction with information. Rather than interacting, Matter merely reacts to stimuli.
These are only a few of many differences between Life and Matter.
Witnessing their obvious inability to model Life’s capacity to interact with information, you would think that the scientific community would bow before the Mystery - admit Ignorance before the Wonder. You would be wrong.
Rather than admit Ignorance, they pretend that everything fits (by definition) into their Material model. If it does not fit into their model, it doesn’t exist or is mere illusion. No discussion required.
Yet there is a mountain of empirical evidence indicating that Life interacts with data streams in a sophisticated manner. Refusing to acknowledge (and discuss) Life’s connection to information is arguably an act of self-delusion on the part of the materialists.
Current Scientific Reasoning:
Material Science is helpless before Life’s sophisticated interaction with Data Streams.
Therefore Material Scientists deny that Life interacts with Data Streams.
More appropriate Reasoning:
If an obvious and large data set doesn’t fit into the Material Paradigm,
Then, the Material Paradigm is insufficient.
The Scientific and Academic Establishment has employed similar misguided reasoning when confronted with evidence for gravity, electromagnetism, and the Quantum Realm. Stuck in their entrenched beliefs, this esteemed group regularly continues to overvalue their human logic over irrefutable evidence and direct experience.
Despite its many historical mistakes, why do they continue to stubbornly worship their own human logic as if it was fallible? Why did the Scientific Establishment resist the introduction of gravity, energy, entropy, and electromagnetism for so long? Why do they currently deny and even scorn talk of choice? They themselves employ it, not just occasionally, but rather moment to moment - while writing their books or giving talks denying the existence of choice. Why do the bulk of scientists continue to hold onto these outmoded beliefs when daily life for all humans, indeed all life forms on the planet, regularly contradicts their Materialist dogma?
This obstinate persistence, despite evidence to the contrary, concerns our familiarity with the Logic of Objects. We deal with material objects every day. We subconsciously quantify these objects by the usual dimensions, such as weight, temperature, time, and size. To navigate our world, all humans must have a good sense of the properties of Matter in its many atomic forms – liquids, solids, and gases, as well as speed and acceleration.
When we carry groceries, drive our cars, or climb up the steep stone staircases of the Mayan ruins at Monte Alban, we regularly compute probabilities associated with our interaction with objects. We ask how heavy; how far; how fast, how much time – all related to material objects.
Due to our regular and necessary engagement with the commonsense material logic of Objects, it is much more difficult for us to conceptualize the logic of constructs like energy (which obey a different type of logic). Scientists feel secure with their understanding of material Objects and are hence reluctant to leave their comfort zone to engage with different types of logic. Even Newton’s theory of gravity was resisted until its explanatory efficacy was firmly established.
Rather than objects, we are really interacting with data streams - sensory and otherwise. For convenience and to facilitate understanding, we objectify the contents of these data streams. Due to the utility of this approach, we suggest that the tendency toward material objectification is innate – built in - hardwired. As such, we humans have been inclined to objectify our surroundings – including natural forces, our gods, and even our Science.
Humans are familiar with the Logic of Material Objects.
Scientists are comfortable with and specialize in Object Logic.
Scientists resist Phenomena that don’t fit Object Logic.
Scientists attempt to fit all Phenomena into the Logic of Objects.
In accordance with this innate tendency, Scientists have objectified Life and attempted to trap her in the laws of Matter. Rather, as these many pages have exhibited, Life follows an entirely different type of logic. As repeated over and over, Life has three capabilities surrounding survival that Matter does not have. They are a holistic sense, a temporal sense, the ability to interact with information. Life is in a category of her own.
This uniqueness extends to Life’s mathematical logic. Instead of objects/particles, living systems interact with data streams. To understand our world, we categorize our interactions with data streams and then objectify the categories. Although it seems as if we deal with objects (e.g. tables and cars), these are really composite sensory data streams that have been objectified for convenience.
This perceptual fact has huge mathematical ramifications. Rather than the mathematics of Matter (Calculus), Life is better defined and characterized by the mathematics of data streams (Data Stream Dynamics).