~ The Study of Threes ~
http://threesology.org
In line with a quest to determine what may have been that which influenced threes in our physiology at the beginning of biological time, it is of value to begin with some generalizations which may or may not turn out to have any usage other than to become part of a list of incidental 3s occurrences.
When we begin accumulating patterns-of-three found in a variety of subject areas, there is, for each of us, an unspoken or unrealized quantity which begins to influence us to consider that there may be a threes example that illustrates the initial beginnings of why multiple versions of this same pattern show up. (For some readers it may not be the quantity but quality of threes or a mixture thereof; such as might be considered a preponderance of evidence in a judicial litigation.) For example, when we find there are numerous examples of "threes" in our anatomy as listed by Dr. McNulty:
http://www.lumen.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/GrossAnatomy/Threes.html
...and then find that DNA (as well as RNA) have triplet codon (coding) systems, we might venture to say that the resulting incidence of threes in our physiology was inevitable, thus establishing an hypothesis that needs to be tested. Such a test appears to take place each and every time DNA appears with a living organism... at least on the complexity of development we humans have.
But then we might want to ask if the triplet codon system in DNA was predictable because (as far as we presently know), it developed on the 3rd planet from a source of solar energy. While there may be the same or different forms of what might be called DNA on planetary objects (as well as other planets), we as yet haven't found any. However, we have found what appears to be evidence of substances that could well have "encouraged" the development of life on Earth, though they were on structures that came from elsewhere than Earth. The following information is important since it not only shows structures of life found on meteorites that fell to Earth, but that they show "trichomes":
http://www.panspermia.org/hoover4.htm
If these "trichomic" forms came from elsewhere on Earth, where then did they come from and did the place(s) have a "threes" environment that influenced their design? Is such a pattern to be found ubiquitously (everywhere) where life (as we know it) is to be found? And yet, we could just as well ask whether or not the "threes" pattern is a fluke developed by accident, or is it an inevitable occurrence that may be termed a predictability with or without a statistical annotation?
But why three? Why not some other numerically identifiable pattern such as nineteen? Why not use a pattern-of-five since it is a pattern that is repeated by most humans in terms of five fingers and five toes? ...Unless it is not the five that has a preeminent "expression" but the underlying three segments, with patterns-of-one and two also expressed.
While most researchers tend to shy away from using a singular numerical quantity reference as the sole criteria for establishing a scientific claim because they feel it is suggestive of practicing a form of numerology, or dabbling in some form of speculative cryptology, it is nonetheless correlatively interesting because such a recurring pattern in our biology and physiology insinuates, at least the possiblity, that such a pattern may be illustrative of an answer to origin-of-life questions... from another perspective.
If the evolution-directed biological threes on Earth were not influenced by biological threes from elsewhere, should we thus consider that the Earth-based influence itself may itself be of an evolutionary character? Thus, because the initial influence was not static but dynamic (was in "developmental") motion, looking for a "permanently fixed" representative threes model in Earth's antiquity as the foremost threes "great-great-great grandparent," may lead to dead-ends. While such a threes model may yet be present today, it may have had a simpler structure just as we find when comparing more evolutionary "advanced" (complex) life forms with simpler ones. Numerically speaking, the quantities of 1 and 2 would have preceeded the 3.
With respect to the "Predictability of 3s", we might begin with a general numerically-based statement that 1 + 1 = 3 (or using words: one plus one equals three). And yes, it may not be difficult for one reader or another to try to interject a wedge of philosophical peculiarity by claiming some exception. Nonetheless, as a simple statement we say it is predictably correct, so long as those who can read the "numerical sentence" agree with the linear sequence of symbols and the conclusion reach... given our inclination to devise and interpret the defined-as-such "formula". It's not that the statement becomes incorrect if someone doesn't understand the symbols and the intended representative statement, it's just that it has no meaning to them... even if they mentally organize information in a a similar fashion without acknowledging that they do. For example, a person denoted as a primitive may not even write or speak in recognizable numerical terms (as we "modern" people do), but in the context of their own day to day interactions, they may use some form that is a one-to-one correspondence with our formula.
Another may claim that A2 + B2 = C2 is but another flavor/type/style, etc., of this 3-based predictability. Which, when said and generally accepted as being understood, is the point to be made: There may be multiple forms of patterns-of-three which, (at least give the initial impression of), a predictability. The forms may have different structural components that are distinctly or indistinctly defined, labeled, or even recognized; as well as those which are constructed with different elements under different circumstances... such as with sounds, visible or invisible spectrums, smells, etc., including mixtures thereof. Hence, we begin to describe structural components which may have perceptable ("perceptualable"), imperceptable, or an intermittancy thereof. [And yes, I am trying to cover all possiblilities with these three categories in an attempt to at least be suggestively comprehensive.]
For some readers it goes without saying that the "3" is a predictable occurrence in a given circumstance. Yet they take a firm exception, as do I, to any notion that we could make a broad claim to some universal application of this view if the initial formula of our expression is incomplete. For example, given the statement 1 + 1 + 1..., most people would not assume it represents a final comment, even though someone interested in a specificity (such as the "1" or "+") may want to interpret the expression as a conclusive proof of their inclined belief.
Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com