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 rest.
##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 instantaneous. Regards John Mikes On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Hal Ruhl <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
