I've recently had a slight energy boost by restructuring my stress
management methods, just wanted to let you know I hope to have a useful
response soon after re-reviewing several of the key subjects here (damn
my memory sucks).
I agree with bringing in concepts from the fields of Systems Theory,
Information Theory and Mathematical Theory of Communication, the trouble
is I was approaching from the opposite side of universal
intercommunications versus independent agents. But I think many of the
concepts are adaptable.
For now I've identified a few important points regarding data in this
respect, that (1) differentiation or distinction provides an
identifiable datum and (2) semiotics and communication theory is largely
attached to pragamatic implementation, however in the sense of
'secondary information' and 'environmental information' information may
be independent of an informed subject or identifiable syntax/metadata as
latent and potential. Sorry so quick now, gotta go. And a definite nod
to your last response at bottom, I have a lot to say, but it has to wait.
On 12/30/2010 11:15 AM, Pat wrote:
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 ยป- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
