Humans are an amalgamation of universals. Hands are universal enzymes, eyes are universal light-sensors, skin is universal sensor and layered barrier of cells. Tongues universal shapers of wind, speech systems, through the complex interaction of simplex components, can generate enough diversity of moving air to form simplex systems that form complete representations of ideas... And Ideas are the next big leap. DNA is universal storage for biological structural data. But structure determines only so much of behavior - the environment determines the rest. The set of behaviors that can be exhibited by structures of a certain level of simplexity is finite. To perform new behaviors, entities of a specific simplexity must form bonds, transcend their individuality to become distinct individual components of a greater whole. DNA stores empirical truth about the structure and relationships of molecules to form cells, and empirical truth about arrangements of cells and interactions between them, and in doing so forms the blueprint for higher-order multicellular simplexes. But it cannot determine interactions with chaos on that scale - that task must be offloaded to a structural system, initiated by DNA and shaped, over a smaller timespan, by the environment.
If the things are too big or too small to take apart or put together, put together tools that let us translate our hands into control at the desired scale. Then, using language, propagate the process used to take things apart and put them together to other individuals, who can use you and your words to form an abstract hypothesis, a simulation that swaps you out for them, and use that to implement your idea with their hands. You gain the power of their enzymes at a distance, without contact, and with reduced risk. With DNA, every change is set in stone. WIth ideas, any idea can be evaluated, abstracted, tested within the mind. If the idea seems doomed to failure, if it cannot lead to stable systems in practice, if it directly contradicts proven truths- those that do and always have lead to stable systems - it will not, cannot, be implemented or added to the internal canon - except as an example of something that is decidedly wrong, so that it can be used to identify similarly Wrong things in the future. So if the idea is bad, I'll either reject it completely and forget it - no need to waste space on a failed hypothesis - or I'll remember it as associated with Wrong, changing my representation of the idea to match while simultaneously expanding the abstract categorical representation of "things that are wrong", which I can then use to more accurately and effectively categorize other, similarly wrong ideas, faster. It becomes a pattern for me to match - a pattern that should be avoided.
If truth is defined as a blueprint from which stable systems can be reliably constructed, then we can define truth as that which cannot be altered arbitrarily while still defining a stable system. Thus the fact that we cannot arbitrarily alter DNA and still use it as a reliable blueprint for a stable organism means that it encodes objective truth, and that particular alteration is objectively false. Reliable DNA + arbitrary change = most likely failure to maintain truth, some contradiction at some level of simplexity prevents the equation from being true over time (stable). But there is a chance that the arbitrary alteration will define a truth of its own, one that is consistent with the entire set of truths that has come before (the rest of the blueprint) and which effectively defines some characteristic or trait which increases the organisms fitness - that is, its stability with respect to time and varying degrees of environmental chaos. In this case, the truth has grown, and the new alteration becomes part of the Canon of "Successful structure for an organism". But the new truth is severely limited - while its inclusion adds a new degree of freedom to the Blueprint/Organism system, that degree of freedom must be fulfilled such that the balance of all previous (and less simplex) systems maintain equilibrium, and it must, necessarily, affect the structure/function of the organism in a manner consistent with the goals of increasing stability with respect to time and with respect to energy. That is to say, it must benefit the whole in some way, without undermining any of the other parts. Otherwise it cannot be true - it does not define a stable system, either with respect to the structure of DNA (can't just add random molecules or atoms or subatomic particles to DNA, it just doesn't work, and if it DOES happen, the DNA is no longer an accurate blueprint. Can only add base pairs, and only in certain configurations). It also does not define a stable system with respect to outcome - the creature's alteration is an aberration, either useless or in some way worse than useless, causing imbalance within the whole. Only when new traits fall into alignment with the existing structures and the environment can they be considered "good" - lower-level simplexes that define higher level systems that fit this definition of "good" can be considered True. DNA, therefore, defines the individual Truth of the organism constructed from its instructions, and therefore defines the set of degrees of freedom available to that organism, and therefore defines, in a much higher-order projective coordinate space, the set of interactions possible between various quantities or various-sized systems of such organisms.
