Are you saying there is no such thing as inert matter?//Who pulled the "trigger" to pure energy?
On Dec 8, 1:11 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/8/2010 12:26 PM, Pat wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 4:57 pm, DarkwaterBlight<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Not to mention that "work" is also kinetic energy! ;) > > > There is nothing that isn't energy. Well, to my knowledge, I, nor no > > one of which I know, has discovered anything that isn't some form of > > energy. The only argument I can think of that may lead someone there > > is if someone demanded that 'nothing' had to consist of some > > underlying substance (although I view that argument as a false > > premiss, as nothing is simply that which does not exist and has NO > > substance). If one conceded an underlying substance to 'nothing', > > then that substance could be called 'non-existence' and MAY, in a > > twisted way, be viewed as something other than energy; but, as non- > > existence, by definition, does not exist, one would never find > > anything--even to the inclusion of a 'nothing'--that would be made of > > it. > > > Like I said, it's the only arguent that leads anywhere close; but, I > > thik it's a black hole of an idea in that the idea sucks so much, it > > sucks itself to oblivion. ;-) > > An idea I have been enjoying even more than 'all is energy' is that "all > is information". In my view whereas we can say 'all is energy' we mean > composition but abstracting any phenomena, object, interaction into > types of information promotes a fundamentally universal layer to compare > vastly divergent fields: eg the accumulation of density producing > gravity (which could be seen as another density in space/time), and the > similarities to dynamically evolving, self organizing systems of > information (life, virii) as a higher form of information (greater ratio > of potential:matter-density) as the formula to understand the > similarities and differences of how (factors) each operates within their > environments (space/time). This to me would also eventually lead to key > identifiers for what we are (potentials), where we are (bounded > attraction differentials). A consequence of this system is the inherent > intelligence of the cosmos. I can't put it into words well right now, > but I see that many earlier ideas have helped spawn this and the name > that's stuck with me is 'super-intelligent design'. More pseudoscience > than anything really until I can rerun my memory/experiences and get it > all written down. (time, time, time...)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
