On Dec 8, 7:11 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...)
Well, the problem I see with this is that information has to be stored and it has to be stored in some format in some apparatus. I believe that the simplest way to store the information is to use coded energy (perhaps an extension of binary-coded quanta packaged together to form bytes in the same way we do with computers) and the apparatus would, also, have to be comprisedd of some form of energy. So, we're back to square one: all is energy. In my theory, 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions are relegated to the storage of information (you see, I've HAD to think about this as a major aspect OF my theory, that is, where is abstract information stored and how is it stored?). One dimension is concerned with basic concepts, categories, if you will, for example, a container. Another dimension is dedicated to storing the various forms that concept can take. iusing the same example, a container might be a cup, or a barrel or a pair of cupped hands, etc. The third dimensions represents how the form exists, that is, whether or not it exists only in abstract form (like a spherical cube) or if the form can occur in space-time as an instantiated (actual/real) form or whether the form is somewhere in-between, like dreaming of a flying, pink elephant. With 3 dimensions, all information can be stored in an incredibly small space using the concept that those three dimensions are, topigraphically, a pointless region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointless_topology Given a pointless topology, an infinite amount of information could be stored as I describe above. Yet it would all be done with energy. We, then, use our consciousness to fetch into that area and retrieve certain thoughts back into our 4-D world via two interfaces: 1) the interface that fetches into the 3-dimensional abtract are wher einformation is stored. This is done by consciousness itself. 2) the interface that binds consciousness to our brain, which I believe to be the network of tubulin molecules that run through every neuron and not only act as a seketal frame FOR the neuron but also act as a vibrational framework that allows for the quantum flux of information from consciousness to flow into our physical being. This is a major aspect of my theory, in that it uses the Calabi-Yau dimensions to explain consciousness and where abstract ideas are stored. In a sense, It's a String Theory extrapolation of Plato's concept of Forms; although I arrived at it independantly without knowing that Plato had already believed dthat abstracts had their own form of existence. >- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
