I really do not want to continue - seems side-line to you and side line to
I just cannot keep my mouse shut.
1. The 'nonequilibrium' topics still identify a certain 'cut' within the
boundaries of them, neglecting wider - maybe unobserved/able - effects from
(see my '3' below) Pertinent to 'closed systems' as well. In (my) wholistic
view nothing is shut of of anything in an intereffectiveness that may
elements at the level of our present cognitive inventory.
2. Suppose singularity is "not" - where does the (alleged) GR break down? It
is a 150th consequential idea from a questionable startup-figment and we
just continue to build logically, quantitatively, formally - call it
science. To be clear:
I appreciate and USE the technological marvels based on such questionable
theoretical background. I believe in human ingenuity even on wrong premises.
3.To your last par:
one cannot have it both ways. Einstein (what a comparison to myself!!!) did
not accept all Newton in his thinking and tackled only certain terms in a
Copernicus did not abide by the well proven Flat Earth and just 'included'
at some points his new ideas. You cannot keep creationism when you think in
I may get lost - as you say - but it won't last long. I won't either. In the
meantime I have the luxury of tasting the new ideas. And I feel I am not
alone in these ways
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:24:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Russell,
> > my apologies for the "approximate" typing. I don't assign to your "not
> > following my comments" to that awful new keyboard I tried to use (light
> > letters on a slightly less light grey base - not visible and I am not a
> > 'blind'typist) with the YAHOO-mail spellchecker that garbles up the
> > letters - I think your uncertainty stems from a different knowledge-base
> > use.
> No doubt.
> > Classical thermodynamics I learned in 1942 when I identified it as "the
> > science which tells us how things would go wouldn't they go the way they
> > go"
> > meaning the game of isotherm and reversible equational craze in closed
> > systems.
> > Then later Prigogine et al improved upon it, but I still hold the field
> > within the limited model of our epistemic - ever changing, enriching -
> > interpretation of the (obsolete) historical bases from very primitive
> > knowledge level times and accordingly primitive measurements by
> > unsophisticated instrumentation, subject to an all ingenious explanation
> > THAT level. (Think about the dozen+ (and still counting) changing views
> > about the 'entropy' conceptS).
> Indeed - you are thinking of the difference between equilibrium
> thermodynamics (which is "classical" in the sense of being a mature
> topic, but of extremely limited validity), and nonequilibrium
> thermodynamics which applies to much of the rest of reality, but which
> is very much an ongoing research topic. I have always eschewed
> equilibrium physics in favour of the more exciting nonequlibrium
> Nevertheless, the concept of closed system applies in both equilibrium
> and nonequlibrium cases.
> > *
> > Singularity in my view is a "no-system" because there is no way we can
> > extract any information about it - unless we give up the definition.
> > how I view a 'closed' system, (not lawyerish: "well, you can look at it
> > semi-closed, or even open, if you like,...") If it is closed, it is
> > Singularity is nice to speak about, I hold: there is no such thing only
> > sci-fi. We get usded to many sci-fi marvels and in the 15th step it
> > like real.
> Singularities are one of the features of General Relativity, but are
> contradictory in the sense that GR is expected to break down (in the
> sense of failing to describe reality) near them. So perhaps
> singularities do or do not exist. In fact we really don't know much
> about how they should behave assuming they do exist.
> The business of event horizons (which would cloak singularities, as
> well as other high density regions of space - collectively known as
> black holes) and information flow is certainly a case in
> point. Unitarity is tied up with information conservation, and some
> studies indicate black holes violate unitarity. I'm personally
> sceptical that unitarity is ever violated, except as a process of
> observation (the creation of information).
> But I have no plans to work in this area.
> > Russell, when I said good bye to my polymer science (1987) and started
> > think I tried to throw out things to be 'believed' (axioms, paradoxes,
> > emergence, chaos). I retired with limited movablity and allowed myself
> > get away from conventional reductionism. You are in the profession,
> > projects, responsibility for what you said yesterday: I don't want to
> > persuade you to think differently, especially since I am fully aware of
> > embryonic level of the 'new ways' I still try to find. I have questions,
> > very few answers and I doubt them.
> > John
> I'm well aware that you are following a "deconstruction" approach. A
> little of this is healthy of course, but too much leads to one getting
> Is it not better to understand the language of science, to debate the
> topics using understood terms of science, and occasionally lob in the
> hand grenade that causes a radical change in understanding.
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 05/05/06
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at