Subj: Re: Pakistan
Date: 05/29/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-05-29 21:30:06 EDT, Alberto Monteiro writes:
<< Pakistan is an islamic country, and it's important to show the islamic
world that there is now an "Islamic Bomb", equal to the "Catholic Bomb",
the "Capitalist Bomb", the "Hindu Bomb" and the "Jewish Bomb". >>
Lemme guess: that's Pakistan, France, United States, India, and Israel?
You're forgetting the Communist Bomb and the Asian Bomb (USSR and China and
maybe even Japan).
<<Some of us "adolescents" were wise enough to put an end to our nuclear
programs: Argelia, Argentina and Brazil. And what did we get? Just some
silly lines mentioning us as "good kids"
In 1998 I'll vote for anyone who promises the Latino American Bomb! >>
This illustrates my point. As it stands, there's more reason for non-first
world countries to develop nukes than there is to keep to the
non-proliferation treaty, if only to assert that some nations aren't
"adolescents". If we as a species don't do something about it soon, we're in
big trouble.
Subj: Some questions about complexity theory
Date: 06/09/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One thing that bothers me about complexity theory is the postulate that the
universe moves towards a state of more information.
Doesn't this violate the laws of thermodynamics, where the universe is
supposed to move towards a state of increasing entropy?
Or is my definition of entropy not related to sentient manipulation of the
environment to produce higher and higher levels of order?
Seems to me that we're driving the cosmos towards dissolution by creating as
much order as we are, especially with the advent of computers which increase
our power to create order exponentially.
Perhaps someone better informed than I can resolve this apparent conflict.
Subj: Entropy and Mimedynamics :)
Date: 06/12/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-11 19:22:17 EDT, Dana Gourley writes:
<< I think this is missing the point that entropy is not a conserved
property. Entropy is an extensive property of a system. Talking about an
"Entropy sink" is flawed, because Entropy can't move, not even in the
sense that Energy can. >>
Yes, my engineering Thermodynamics book states that entropy is an extensive
property (like mass, volume, and Energy) and that there is no conservation of
entropy principle. Given this, however, there is the possibility of "entropy
sinks" because it is possible to reduce the entropy in a system if the
surroundings have a correspondingly greater increase in entropy. A common
example of this is a hot substance in a rigid tank that is allowed to cool to
an ambient temperature. This implies that while the entropy of the substance
in the tank has decreased, there is an increase in the entropy of the
surroundings which is equal or greater than the decrease in the closed system
of the rigid tank and its contents. The surroundings are therefore a kind of
"entropy sink" -- not because entropy has been "moved" anymore than volume
can be moved but because entropy has been displaced from one system to
another, as volume of a system can be displaced to volume of another system.
I would claim that Earth's Sun acts as it's immediate surroundings and thus
is its "entropy sink".
The third law of thermodynamics gives us the reference point for our
definition of entropy. That is, a pure crystalline substance at absolute
zero temperature is defined to have zero entropy. In light of this law, how
de we view a strand of DNA thermodynamically? Obviously, it has *some*
entropy because it is not crystalline nor is it often found at absolute zero
temperatures. However, it is also a molecule with a great amount of order
placed into it. Is there no thermodynamic distinction between DNA and, say,
another complex carbon molecule like those found in petroleum?
Similarly, a computer is a collection of millions of on and off switches. To
run a program, there must be an imposed order on those switches for the
program to function. Thermodynamically, it probably makes no difference if
those switches are in purely random state or whether they are systematically
running a program.
So can we say that on the order of complexity theory that one state of a
large system is mimedynamically greater in entropy than another state of the
same large system? Mimedynamics is a term that I just made up on the fly to
describe such a change of order in a system. Thermodynamic entropy seems to
be a purely physical property but the entropy of a large system can depend on
the outside perspective who might see order in something that microscopically
seems purely random. Thus the concept of entropy and order becomes a type of
meme, or is metaphysical rather than physical. Hence there can be such a
thing as mimedynamic entropy.
Does this seem like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo or is there a grain of truth that
I'm getting at?
Any and all comments welcome.
Subj: Re: Entropy and DNA
Date: 06/12/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-12 22:12:21 EDT, Nick Arnett writes:
<< At a high level, the notions of entropy and self-organization collide. The
presumed end result of entropy (when last I took physics, so correct me if
I'm out of date!) is a universe made of a consistent inert material. >>
Or an ultimate collapse of the universe into a singularity with zero entropy!
But this theory isn't in vogue these days as the universe is deemed to be
expanding and not contracting.
I do agree that entropy and self-organization are related in some way. Just
how is what I'm trying to conceive :)
<<But
complexity theory suggests that life is more likely than not, given the
rules of this universe. If the latter is true, then it becomes difficult to
accept the former, unless you postulate that life is doomed in its battle
against entropy.>>
I don't think that the two concepts are irreconcilable. There are pockets of
order within a degenerating universe as shown by the Earth. Given the supply
of high-quality energy from the sun the Earth is made fertile for
self-organizing principles to assert themselves. When that supply of
high-quality energy is gone, then Earth will be exposed to the ravages of
entropy, but we have several billion years of time to organize ourselves
before this happens :)
Subj: Re: Entropy and DNA
Date: 06/16/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-16 17:24:03 EDT, Darryl Shannon writes:
<< It is inevitable
that you get a hand, but each hand is exactly as unlikely, no matter
what hand beats what. Therefore, the royal flush is not more ordered
than the "random" hand.
The parallel with DNA is obvious. >>
Yes, but I also was careful to say that "DNA, in its proper context" is more
ordered than a random string. Context implies a recipient of the coded
information with the ability to distinguish information from garbage. Thus,
information content of a royal flush is meaningless without someone to
realize that it is a royal flush. There is a meme among all poker players
that a hand with cards of the same suit constitutes a royal flush. Hence I
suggested that perhaps information content is a subjective thing depending
upon a perceiver. Similarly, without the surrounding cell and system which
"perceives" (I hate to use a word that implies cognitive ability but I can't
find another word) the DNA as something that has information content, that
DNA is meaningless and might as well be a random string of the four
components.
Subj: Re: googoogoojoob
Date: 06/18/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-18 10:51:10 EDT, you write:
<< you probably remind me of a epal of mine, who happens to be 1/2 Chinese
and 1/2 German/Russian-American. >>
Well, my mother's grandmother was Chinese and both my parents have Spanish
blood. Dunno where the German/Russian features come in though :) perhaps
it's because I like Hesse and Tolstoy? Maybe not, because I really like
Camus much better . . .
<<>Only the cute ones :)
:P How do you know I'm cute? >>
Your writing style is cute!
<<Yer not that ugly!
So, tell me, how come you're unattached romantically then? :) >>
Ugly is as ugly does, or so they say :) I'm unattached because my wife left
me 6 months ago, taking my young son to Alaska to live with her sister. I'm
now living alone in the house we once shared and I'm lonely. It's really
hard to meet intellectually gifted women in America, and I'm not the
night-clubbing person with the energy to meet "normal" women. You're correct
that I'm like Hannibal in that I'm essentially a loner who likes to keep to
himself. I find it hard to relate to other people in person so I'm not that
sociable. Besides, most of my friends are in Chicago where I grew up and
we've drifted apart.
So tell me, how come you're in an LDR?
Subj: Re: What languages did Jesus speak?
Date: 06/27/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-27 15:43:24 EDT, Julia writes:
<< The book in question is directed at 5-9-year-olds. But hey, it had an
answer and wasn't difficult to type in! >>
No prob! My maturity level and attention span is about that of a 6 year old
anyway (though it would take a motherly figure to notice this . . .)
Thanks for all the answers folks! I didn't know Aramic was the
language of the region. I would expect though, that although Greek was
common among those who were literate that Jesus mostly spoke Aramic being the
carpenter's son that he was. Does anybody know if Jesus actually wrote
anything down that survives today? You'd think a literate person who
preaches would write things down and that a man with many devoted followers
would save such writings . . .
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-27 20:54:45 EDT, Keith writes:
<< Would you please tell me how -lacking- a property is somehow in the same
category as having it? >>
Actually, some would argue that it is a leap of faith to absolutely rule out
a Creator since we have no proof for or against.
If you don't take either leap of faith you're agnostic.
Subj: Re: Faith and reason, was A-theism
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 03:17:29 EDT, Doug writes:
<< Because lots
of people have faith that god does exist?
Atheism isn't faith, it's skepticism. >>
Well, no. Belief in a Creator requires faith of course. Belief that there
was no such thing as creation and a Creator also requires faith. If you can
prove that the Universe wasn't created then I'll believe that atheism is
skepticism. Until then, I will remain skeptic about your assertion that the
Universe wasn't created.
Subj: Re: The Apple Scenario
Date: 06/28/98
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 98-06-28 12:38:27 EDT, Keith writes:
<< If you retcon the "omniscient" god into the story, yes. The god (one of
many, is implied, actually) portrayed seems a little incompetant to be
omniscient. >>
No, one does not have to be omniscient to do the equation (x*infinity)>=1,
where x is the probability over a given time period that an event would
happen. Even I can do that equation!
<<No, but there are other flaws. The biggest flaw, which works even if the
story is taken allegorically, as most Christians and Jews do, is that Adam
and Eve were told not to eat of the fruit (the Hebrew doesn't say apple),
no? But, without knowledge of good and evil, they couldn't have known that
disobeying god (or obeying the serpent) was wrong! >>
No, you make a common translational error. The fruit was from the Tree of
Knowledge of Good *from* Evil. Thus Adam and Eve knew it was good to obey
God and not good to disobey. Eating the fruit enabled them to consciously
form and act upon evil thoughts.
