On Dec 18, 8:50 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/16/2010 11:50 AM, Pat wrote: > > > > > 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. > > This is a fascinating application of quantum concepts Pat, I admit to > only skimming materials on Calabi-Yau shapes, and that was some time > ago. I will try to refine my idea, let me know if your view of it > changes in regards to your theories. > > Information as an attribute or quality differs from data or energy, in > the sense that mechanisms contain information but information can > contain an unlimited potential descriptive power.
Information differs from data in that, without some form of metadata that allows you to understand the data, data yields no information. The metadata are the rules by which data BECOMES information. For example, binary data: zero and one. Tells you nothing. Now, if I have some metadata that states that 0=False and 1=True, then we can start building binary information. I hope you see what I mean. >Energy cannot explain > itself under the terms of everything it is not for example, however > information can represent all the convolutions of probable future states > of an energy, the causal chains bringing it to a state/place/time in > reference to other energies, abstract the likeness and generalize > similarities with or differences to other energies. I suppose the > presence of something would be the container, but I wouldn't say > information is dependent on a specific thing, more that it is the nature > of things to possess an informational quality. > I think it's the other way around. First, the data and metadata are defined. Then, by use of the metadata, information can be derived from the underlying abstract data; however, all this data and metadata must still be 'stored' and there is only energy in existence. so, energy is the means by which data, metadata and information are stored and the substance itself that is stored in the 'form' of data, metadata and information. In fact, those three: 1) Data 2) Metadata 3) Information could well be another way of viewing how those 3 (Calabi-Yau) dimensions are used in regard to those concepts. One thing, though, is for sure: Information requires (thus is dependent upon!) data and metadata. Without those two, there is NO information, just data; and data, without rules to understand it (metadata) is absolutely useless. > Consider a clock for example, there is data integrated into the circuit > and/or gears to provide timekeeping using a reliable measurement of time > (using quartz or spring). The data is of the mechanisms and of their > interactions which work together to produce the desired effect. The mechanisms are the metadata. The clicking of gears makes no difference when you look at the gears, but, when you turn the device around, you notice that each click of 2 gears is equal to 1 second. 60 of THOSE makes 1 minute (by the ratio of another gear) and so forth. The gear-ratios are the metadata. Not necessarily obvious at first, but they are what makes a cog-click into a meaningful unit of time. >That > necessary data can be abstracted into mediums through apprenticeship, > writing diagrams and notes, transcribing writing into digital form, etc > for communicating. The information, though in many forms is not reliant > on any one form, though the emergent results and evolving designs bear > the weight of greater information through the whole cumulative process. > That accumulation of all the information in this one tool we call a > clock represents a magnificent amount, much more than would be apparent > to the casual onlooker (who happens to believe they own one) or even the > sum of it's parts and mechanisms. This is a level of complexity one > would be aware of when considering evolution or deep ecology, though the > information is coded into them, the information potential is not apparent. > Exactly. A strand of DNA is pretty pointless until you know how each 3-nucleotide pairings corresponds to a particular amino acid. That pairing chart is the metadata that gives DNA its meaning and makes it able to encode and, thus, provide information to the tRNA and mRNA. Thsat metadata table I provide below: UUU (Phe/F) Phenylalanine UCU (Ser/S) Serine UAU (Tyr/Y) Tyrosine UGU (Cys/C) Cysteine UUC (Phe/F) Phenylalanine UCC (Ser/S) Serine UAC (Tyr/Y) Tyrosine UGC (Cys/C) Cysteine UUA (Leu/L) Leucine UCA (Ser/S) Serine UAA Ochre (Stop) UGA Opal (Stop) UUG (Leu/L) Leucine UCG (Ser/S) Serine UAG Amber (Stop) UGG (Trp/W) Tryptophan C CUU (Leu/L) Leucine CCU (Pro/P) Proline CAU (His/H) Histidine CGU (Arg/R) Arginine CUC (Leu/L) Leucine CCC (Pro/P) Proline CAC (His/H) Histidine CGC (Arg/ R) Arginine CUA (Leu/L) Leucine CCA (Pro/P) Proline CAA (Gln/Q) Glutamine CGA (Arg/ R) Arginine CUG (Leu/L) Leucine CCG (Pro/P) Proline CAG (Gln/Q) Glutamine CGG (Arg/ R) Arginine A AUU (Ile/I) Isoleucine ACU (Thr/T) Threonine AAU (Asn/N) Asparagine AGU (Ser/S) Serine AUC (Ile/I) Isoleucine ACC (Thr/T) Threonine AAC (Asn/N) Asparagine AGC (Ser/S) Serine AUA (Ile/I) Isoleucine ACA (Thr/T) Threonine AAA (Lys/K) Lysine AGA (Arg/R) Arginine AUG[A] (Met/M) Methionine ACG (Thr/T) Threonine AAG (Lys/K) Lysine AGG (Arg/R) Arginine G GUU (Val/V) Valine GCU (Ala/A) Alanine GAU (Asp/D) Aspartic acid GGU (Gly/G) Glycine GUC (Val/V) Valine GCC (Ala/A) Alanine GAC (Asp/D) Aspartic acid GGC (Gly/G) Glycine GUA (Val/V) Valine GCA (Ala/A) Alanine GAA (Glu/E) Glutamic acid GGA (Gly/G) Glycine GUG (Val/V) Valine GCG (Ala/A) Alanine GAG (Glu/E) Glutamic acid GGG (Gly/G) Glycine Note that there are many ways to produce some amino acids and only one way to produce others, thus some mutations are more problematic than others. > It is difficult to abstract universal properties of information without > becoming hinged on value bases, but I'll throw my last thought to you on > this because it invaded my thoughts. Suppose the evolution of life leads > to lifeforms within our universe pushing the boundaries of space and > time to create ever greater vehicles to survival. Eventually, beginning > to exhaust resources they need to manipulate the form of the universe to > affect time and space. From an information perspective we could > speculate that life and the universe co-evolve naturally, and if so, > what would the potential challenges and solutions be for universes in > that hypothetical situation? Would the beings devise a cosmic Dyson > sphere as a means to reach further? How different would it be from a > chicken egg? Well, there were the stages of evolution. First is planetary, next is solar, then galactic. If you need more energy than an entire galaxy produces, then clusters of galaxies would be next. However, you would, assuming complete progression, reach the pont at which you required the entire output of the universe and you could expand no more. Once you're utilising the energy output of the entire universe, the 'physical' resources are tapped. But, of course, this says nothing about the potential usage of 'mental' or 'spiritual' energy. Thoses areas could still be utilised and, depending on how THAT energy is truly stored (unknown at present!!) it could provide for infinite growth. I strongly suspect that, given a pointless topology alone and 'spiritual energy' that a 'spiritual entity' could continue to grow forever. And, in fact, I would postulate that that is exactly what God is doing at this very moment. We just happen to be a part of that process. But we, as spiritual entities, outgrow our Creator. That is, the Chicken (God) can never lay an egg (us) larger than itself. ;-) - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
