I think I am more interested in how systems of rarefied thought motivate cultures and characters. Isn't it existential thinking- Sartre- that points to will and action as the highest human task?//I should also correct my flip remark- humanity seems impossible rather than men, alone. History is one shock after another.
On Dec 9, 12:57 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Considering inert matter I think there is a lot of information: physical > properties, spatio/temporal locale, history. History is interesting > because even inert matter would leave a wake. Or under the right > circumstances could play a very important role in some event present or > future. The interesting part of exercising information as a higher > abstraction than physical properties is that things are promoted in many > more angles (sounds like a founding principle, where's my pen?!). > > Energy is still as useful a tool as always, I think information and > energy may be synonymous on many levels (some of which should prove in > favor of energy). These are all tools for the mind, just showing off my > shiny new socket wrench (new to me anyways *wink). May have > misunderstood your meaning. > > On 12/8/2010 4:22 PM, rigsy03 wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
