Hi, Hal,
and thanks for your reply. I don't feel up to discuss YOUR ideas: as I
touched I WAS a polymer(chem) scientist as long as I lost my faith in the
conventional views (giving place to agnosticism upon the infinite
complexity I call "everything". So consider my responses 'second rate' -
ideas you may or may not consider indeed.
## Ability: seems to me you value the potential energy higher than the

##Mass - I am lost. (massive as well). When I tried to "go down" to the
bases of it, I lost all massiveness: mass less concepts with physical items
attached. All in our conventional science terms: human thinking within the
model we actually carry (different at all times).

##Dark energy (matter?) - thanks for not crucifying me for such un-science.

## - "E"??? do you have any idea how to identify electricity? (This is not
my vendetta against it for the 5 days this week when we missed it to
Sandy). Luckily we got it back but I have bad vibes.

## We NEED Strong and weak forces to maintain our figment of matter.
So we created them and calculate them to satisfy what we think. I don't
deny an atomic bomb explosion, but the explanation is premature.
We have a fantastic technology - ALMOST good (except for some unexpected
mishaps, accidents, sicknesses, wars, imperfections.)

##Your Conclusions to 6 are perfectly identified by the terms science is
using (work?). I call them figments based on our present partial knowledge
of EVERYTHING - subject to be changed when our knowledge -inventory grows.
It was different 1000 years ago and maybe yesterday.
Your sentences are involved, I need more time to digest them better.
(As I recall our last discussion years ago, I stopped short when you
started to resort more and more into engineering lingo what I could not
match. That was the time when my agnostic ideas emerged and I could not
cope with the human thinking firmness of the engineering know-it-all.)
My principle is  -  "I dunno".

## LIFE: I feel with 'my' translation I may be close to your position -
maybe a bit wider in scope. I did not boil it down (so far!) to energy
change (flow). Reproduction is nonexistent, except in prokaryotes, the
offspring of 2 heterosexual parents into a 3rd entity maybe 'procreation',
but not *reproduction* of any of the parents. Just think of the personal
DNA. I surprised already some reputable biologists/physiologists.
Like a physicist's characterisation of energy(activity!) I found for life -
*process* the M&R (metabolism and repair) description of Robert Rosen the
closest - not an identification of the *term* either.

Besides I place a 'life(process)' into much wider bounds than OUR human
chemistry of carbon compound-, even non-carbon compound live-
bio-chem-processes in our terrestrial circumstances. (See resp to ##9)

##to7: I "feel" the 'universe' is our abode among innumerable others in a
Multiverse - composed of non-identical ones, MAYBE not so simplistic ones
as ours (we have no contact to others): ours is founded upon two ordinates
(space and time) making it a 3D view with changes between the two.
Conventional sciences cannot afford to step out from such framework
(Sci.Am. or else). That would be 'unscientific' and 'imaginary'.

## "Heat Death" - the perfect and infinite entropy Stephen referred to - is
akin to (my) re-distribution into the - OK, let's say: - perfect entropy of
MY PLENITUDE from which the universe(s) popped out because of some
"un-entropic" complexity formation - to re-smoothing again into it.
The Black Hole is a related idea, perverted into Terrestrial Physics. (And
so we get again closer in thinking - Ha Ha).

## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake) evolution
without a goal, a final aim which would require an intelligent design to
approach it. (I may have one: the re-distribution into the Plenitude). My
way (as of yesterday) is the ease-and-potential path of changes allowed by
the available configurations (relations) when a change occurs.
NO RANDOM, it would make a grits out of nature. Even authors with high
preference on random treatises withdrew into a "conditional random" when I
attacked the term. Conditionality kills random of course.
So in my terms: NO random mutations, (especially not FOR survival) I call
'evolution' the HISTORY of our universe. The unsuccessful mutants die, the
successful go on - science detects them in its snapshots taken and explains
them religiously. (Survival of the fittest - the Dinosaur was fit when it
got extinct by the change in circumstances).
I accept ONE random (in mathematical puzzles): "take ANY number..."

Your "lower, but not upper bound" is highly appreciable. Thanks.

I apologize for my haphazard remarks upon prima vista reading. The
list-discussion is not a well-founded scientific discourse upon new ideas.
Most people tell what they formulated over years. A reply is many times


John Mikes

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Hal Ruhl <halr...@alum.syracuse.edu> wrote:

> Hi John:
> My responses are below within an edited original post.  Thanks for your
> comments.
> ####################################################
> 1) Definition (1):  Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force.
> *****************************
> Re the use of "ability" here:   What I am trying to do here is establish a
> process such that at the instant an ability becomes a possibility that
> possibility is realized immediately since the necessary series of events
> unfold immediately .  Take as an example a radioactive isotope deep in the
> earth's core.  We can reasonably assume that it was fused together billions
> of years ago in some ancient stellar event.  Since then it has had the
> "ability" to undergo fission [ a type of energy ] but has not because
> conditions in it have never been quite right.   Then all of a sudden
> conditions are right - appropriate Bosons are exchanged and the fission
> unfolds.   Energy is redistributed amongst the various types.  Thus at the
> moment I will therefore leave the above wording as is.
> *****************************
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> *****************************
> 2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed :
> I agree with you about Dark Energy - I had intended the wording to be as it
> now appears above.
> ****************************
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ****************************
> a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M<=>E/(c*c)]
> I do not think the above is a restriction in the sense I think you mean.
> For example a spring when compressed [as I understand it] is more massive
> when compressed then when relaxed.
> ****************************
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> b) Gravitional
> c) Electromagnetic
> d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
> e) Dark Energy
> 3) Definition (2) Work (W): Work is the flow of energy amongst the various
> types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or
> amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a
> force
> to a mass.
> 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types
> can't
> be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the
> prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics]
> 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take
> place immediately.
> 6) Conclusion (1):  Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the
> possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible.  The
> "origin" of life herein.
> \
> ****************************
> If we look at the usual attempts to define "life", we find things such as
> grow [larger I suppose], reproduce, etc.  These require a flow of energy
> from an initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and
> through
> the life entity.  Think of the life entity as a pipe or "conduit" for this
> flow.
> Therefore "life" herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in
> energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular
> entity to enable even more such energy flow - a simple but not necessarily
> uplifting origin-purpose.
> ***************************
> 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as
> "Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues,
> spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature
> requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc.  ["Energy Flow Hang-up
> Barriers" is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old
> article in Scientific American and a quick Internet search found a
> discussion of the repulsion hangup in "Cosmology The Science of the
> Universe".
> 8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many
> Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity
> involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit
> character.
> The "purpose" of life herein.  In other words life's purpose is to hasten
> the heat death of its host universe.
> 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper
> bound.
> A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of
> particular life entities] should await a critique and possibly a revision
> of
> the above.
> Thanks again for your comments.
> Hal
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to