On Dec 30, 3:13 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > P.S. Sorry, I couldn't find the English translation, but you'll get the > gist. >
Ja, Ich verstehe. Zwei jahre Deutsch, erinnern Sie sich an? (for those who don't) Yes, I understand. 2 years German (I had), do you remember? > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
