On Jan 30, 12:03 am, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not talking about fluid flow,
> > I'm talking about simulating everything - potential and actual chemical
> > reactions, etc.
> > Water can be described by multiplying the known interactions of H2O,
> But many, probably most, of water's interactions are unknown to this
> day. Virtually all of organic chemistry (including DNA reactions!)
> involves water somewhere in the chain of reaction, but organic chemistry
> is very far from a closed subject, there is still much to learn.
cool. I didn't know that. What about DNA though? Why would it be any
> example, up to now nobody has derived the temperature that water freezes
> at from first principles because the resulting quantum mechanical
> equations are so mathematically complicated that nobody has yet figured
> out how to solve them.
Water is strange stuff. It's blue color comes from inside of it too.
Intramolecular collisions rather than reflection.
> > DNA would need many more variables.
> > Non-Shannon information would be anything that is not directly involved
> > in the compression of a digitally sampled description into another digital
> > description.
> In other words non-Shannon information is gaseous philosophical flatulence.
Uhh, what? I just explained that Shannon information has nothing to do
with anything except data compression. It's like I just explained what
a catalytic converter is and you said 'in other words non-catalytic
converters are gaseous philosophical flatulence.'
> > Shannon information is not information in general, it is [...]
> Shannon published his work in 1948 but you never even heard about it
> until 3 days ago, and now you're a great world authority on the subject
> telling us all exactly what it does and does not mean.
I'm only the expert compared to you, since your explanation which you
argued with all the authority of a seasoned expert was dead wrong.
> I don't mind
> ignorance, I'm ignorant about a lot of stuff myself, but there is a
> certain kind of arrogant aggressive ignorance that I find very distasteful.
That sentence embodies it perfectly.
> In contrast Richard Feynman displayed humble ignorance, he did as much
> as anyone to develop Quantum Mechanics but he said "I think it's safe to
> say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics", in describing the work
> that won him the Nobel Prize he said he found a way to "sweep
> mathematical difficulties under the rug". He also said "I know how hard
> it is to really know something; how careful you have to be about
> checking the experiments; how easy it is to make mistakes and fool
> yourself. I know what it means to know something."
Yes, I'm familiar with Feynman.
> > Compression and encryption are deformations.
> If you can get the exact same file out after compression or encryption
> then obviously nothing has been lost and all deformations or shrinkage
> are reversible.
Nothing can become a 'file' without irreversible loss. Once it's a
file, sure you can do all kinds of transformations to it, but you'll
never get the original live band playing a song off of an mp3.
> > I understand what you mean completely
> Apparently not
No, I have understood you from the start. I knew you were wrong about
information and entropy and you were. You don't understand my position
though, so you assume it's senseless and throw things in my general
> > White noise is called noise for a reason.
> And its called white for a reason, a evil occidental mindset
> conspiracy created by round eyed white devils.
I would imagine it's called white because it is additive interference.
My point still stands. The terms signal and noise refer to information
(signal) and entropy (noise). Get it straight. Or don't.
> >> How do you expect mathematics to deal with anything as subjective as
> >> quality? A novel that's high quality to you may be junk to me.
> > I don't expect mathematics to deal with it. I expect a theory of
> > everything to deal with it.
> And your way of dealing with it is to say it (bits electrons information
> logic etc) does not exist. I would never have guessed that coming up
> with a theory of everything could be so easy.
If you understand my hypothesis then you will see there is no reason
to think they exist. Just as you think free will has no reason to
> > I'm not a big philosophy or religion fan myself but Wittgenstein,
> > Heidegger, Sarte, Foucault, Kierkegaard were recent and had some
> > impressive things to say.
> As I've said before nearly everything they and all other recent
> philosophers say can be put into one of four categories:
> 1) False.
> 2) True but obvious, a truism disguised in pretentious language.
> 3) True and deep but discovered first and explained better by a
> mathematician or scientist or someone else who didn't write
> "philosopher" in the box labeled "occupation" on his tax form.
> 4) So bad its not even wrong.
Have you read anything of theirs? I thought Foucault's Discipline and
Punish was one of the most interesting books I've ever read.
> > Here's some sample articles on the subject:
> I know how to look up things on Google too, and I wonder how many of the
> authors of those articles graduated from high school.
> > "Science begins when you distrust experts." - Richard Feynman. You're
> > right, I'll trust Feynman.
> If you think Feynman would treat your ideas with anything other than
> contempt you're nuts.
Feynman's ideas in his time were as crazy as mine are in our time.
Feynman I think would have been intrigued by my ideas, especially if
they came from someone that he know personally.
> And you should look at the short one minute video
> by Feynman called "You don't like it? Go somewhere else!":
QED was wild stuff then, now it's the orthodoxy. That happens.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at