Striking a balance,weighting and Cladistics

[Brad McFall]

Mark,
In 1986, in Will Provine's Evolution and Ethics class, I defined something
I called a fundamental particle which was material (naturalistic) but DID
NOT consist of the space electrons and protons take up from which ( this is
a cardinal concept) I proceeded to describe ( much in the manner of
Cantor's strange theory of ones (Hallet)) what you, Mr.Garland wonder today
about on another end of the scale for instance as to how to get a
population homology if not one of larger dimensions say the size of
Kant's "systematic constitution"?

Well this thought was also ill-taken and I gained the comment of thinking
in some Freudian Manner but that depends on the PHYSICAL HYPOTHESIS to some
extent assuming that Mayr is correct and there is no Bohr principle in
Biology.  This here thread more likely goes to a straight forward discourse
in morphometrics if I still have Newton's occult for an active principle as
I do not think we are yet realizing the change from morphology to
morphogeny that Croizat specialized as far as I read.

So form or physical geometry even mathematically the continuum hypothesis
is not obliterated in the supervience to biological research, though you
may Physically bar such an application however structurally with GIS this
can no longer be prevented generally (if I am on point).

If Mark really wants ( and I write thus not understanding what does a
thread mean actually) to think about how to do this physically as opposed
to say by ordertypes I would start with one of Maxwell's sources and sinks
but you must be creative with how you interpret Faraday's 'lines of
force'.  I read the induction straight out of Newton.  And Yes, I do think
he meant the General Scholium to be integrated throughout the whole system;
solar or planetary::do seeds fall to the earth or the sun???