On Dec 30, 3:59 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, well. To be honest, I was relying more on your meta knowledge of > language that you must have attained by now than on your formal classroom > education. >
Yeah, there's that, too. In fact, once I saw 'syntax' I knew I'd found what I was talking about. Semantics, though, is another, perhaps better, way of stating the metadata of language. Both, really, come into play. Syntax is straight grammar (without an understanding of which no language would be comprehensible), whereas 'semantics' come into play when people use idioms. I used the term metadata because I'm a computer programmer and the usage of the term is relavant to the relationship between data and information when discussing, for example, a relational database. It's this reason why I say that God's omniscience, in and of itself, is irrelevant. Omniscience is knowing the data, which, without complete understanding, omniprehension, is totally useless...even to God. God's omniprehension is FAR more valuable than His omniscience and why understanding is far more valuable than knowledge. Without understanding, there can be no wisdom, even with omniscience. And that's a heavy thought, for some!! For me, it was one of the things that became obvious after studying the Kabbalistic Tree of Life diagram. > Well done, Pat. ;-) Cheers!! > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
