Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 15: Cancer & AIDS/HIV Cures Via Physics?

From Osher Doctorow mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx

Let's look at the set:

1) (A-->B) = (AB' )' = A' U B

which is the Causation/Influence of A on B in Probable
Influence/Causation.

We consider Euclidean 3-space R^3 or E^3, in which intuitively as A
"decreases" then A' (the complement of A or the part of the Universe
outside A) increases and vice versa. So as A decreases with B fixed,
then (A-->B) increases. Of course, some "measure" of size is needed,
typically Lebesgue Measure, which works for many more spaces than just
Euclidean spaces. And Probability can be regarded as a finite Lebesgue
Measure.

G. 't Hooft's (Spinoza Institute, U. Utrecht Netherlands as I recall)
Holographic Principle prompts us to look at the boundary of objects in
R^3, and for human beings that would be something like the skin (skin
cancer in medicine), surfaces of membranes (throat cancer), the inner
linings of the stomach/intestines (HIV/AIDS), etc. Notice that these
are surfaces when regarded as embedded in R^3, and surfaces in R^3 are
2-dimensional (intuitively, when cut open they flatten out like a
planar object).

In particular, the physics that arguably is relevant is the physics of
friction. Ultraviolet radiation is usually implicated in skin cancer
at least as an environmental trigger, and we can regard its effects as
those of "generalized friction". But friction "wears away" objects
somewhat analogously to geological erosion. Their sizes arguably
decrease, which would increase (A-->B) (Causation/Influence). But
there's a catch.

The surface of a human being contains most of the most important
sensory receptors (visual, auditory, tactile), and the surface of the
brain also seems unique among mammals for its high degree of
convolution, and according to 't Hooft's Holographic Principle we would
expect these surfaces to encode Knowledge/Semantic Information of the
R^3 object (the human being here and/or parts of the human being).
But Probable Causation/Influence and the set (A-->B) (the former is
P(A-->B) are arguably the most important types of Knowledge.

So the situation in R^2, the surface of the human being or of the neck
or stomach/intestines, should be opposite to that in R^3, namely that
as the surface increases, Causation increases rather than decreases.
The simplest model is for (A-->B) or P(A-->B) to be spread on the
surface. Friction wears it away by decreasing the surface, or
formally:

2) friction = decreasing function of P(A-->B) or (A-->B)

To make this more rigorous, we need to regard the surface as the whole
Universe when studying R^2, not as embedded in R^3. If it were
regarded as embedded in R^3, its Lebesgue measure would be 0, and its
P(A-->B) for continuous random variables would analogously be 0. R^2
and R^3 thus arguably behave oppositely with regard to Probable
Causation/Influence:

3) P(A-->B) = decreasing f(volume) in R3, P(A-->B) = increasing
g(surface area) in R2

where f, g are functions.

Osher Doctorow

.

Relevant Pages