On Dec 30, 3:09 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Pat, here is a sign (typically precedes the data level) from the > knowledge management chicken ladder for you ;-) > >
Yup, very good. The Semantics/syntax is what I was calling metadata. You see it comes between data and information. Thanks for the graphical proof!! > > 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 > > ... > > read more » > > knowledge stairs.jpeg > 59KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
