P.S. Sorry, I couldn't find the English translation, but you'll get the gist.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:09 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Pat, here is a sign (typically precedes the data level) from the > knowledge management chicken ladder for you ;-) > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Pat <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 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 - >> > >
