Re: [Fis] Limited info

2006-06-23 Thread Pedro Marijuan

At 18:41 21/06/2006, you wrote:

Pedro -- OK, I think I see your basic point.  If so, then we do agree
because I have concluded (tentatively) that, in the context of Universal
disequibilibrium, the principle of least action can be explained by the
maximum entropy production principle [e.g., the fastest action would
require the hardest work, and the shortest path for entropic energy flows
(heat, light, sound) would be sought in the interest of Universal
equilibration].

STAN


Maybe you are right, Stan, but my impression is that, if we are truly a la 
recherche de l'information perdue, we cannot follow that entropic path 
only . Playing with the Proustian metaphor, there are two paths which have 
to be intertwined: du côté de chez Swann  le côté de Guermantes. The 
dissipation of structures via diminishing supra-atomic distinctions  the 
creation of new structures via atomic bonds implying diminishing 
intra-atomic distinctions... Which path does predominate? It depends 
entirely on the existing boundary conditions. That's the general trick of 
life to navigate easily in both directions: a fantastic multiplication of 
boundaries by way of organs, organelles, compartments, membranes, etc.


Besides, both ways of information counting are very different, the entropic 
and the atomic internal energy (enthalpic), notwithstanding that Gibb's and 
other free energy expressions unite them algebraically. In this sense, the 
problem raised by Hans days ago, on the numbering discrepancy implicit in 
Schrodinger's equation, looks a very intriguing point. As said, my hunch 
concerning the informational quest for unification, is that the principle 
of least action is more general and more easily translatable to a form 
similar to least informational description than any acceptation derived 
exclusively of the second law... and perhaps more amenable to dialog with 
string theories too (which seemingly can deal with gravity and are 
cosmologically and ontologically quite creative).


Information physics is indeed a very fundamental region within the whole 
information science enterprise. If there is any possibility in the future, 
we should devote a complete real conference or seminar to it.


At the time being, Andrei's patience should be overstretched by all this 
continuous handweaving!


best regards

Pedro  



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Limited info

2006-06-21 Thread James N Rose
Stan,

-Part- of what you wrote makes absolute sense,
but what you rattled off is the accepted mantra,
which has so many un-accounted for holes and 
segued jumps, that in the long run, it's nonsense.

First hole -- no one has a glimmer of a notion
to -explain- gravity ... not 'describe it' ..
_explain it/account for it_.

Trick little notion matter invokes gravitation.
Which translates to : matter induces INCREASED
force-gradiency.  

That is -not- nature abhors gradients by -any-
interpretation of words/models I've ever heard of. 

And if I get the drift of your words correctly,
the more matter, mass, form there is, the further
extancy is -away- from  ... 'equilibrium'.  (?!?!?)

So ... 'equilibrium' would be complete immateriality
and non-existential form presence.   (?!?!?)

Which ... you must think that the universe wants to
(actions to) re-attain state-of.  (?!?!)


Plus, matter accretion/accumulation ... an aspect of
'precipitating out' from hyper-enervation into a
'condensate' of sorts .. in no way directly accounts
for systemic islands of increased complexity.

Aggregation does not equal complexification...
where complexification IS the direct production 
or comparitive information increase/densification
(increased information gradiencing).

Nature giddily and enthusiastically produces
information gradients all the time.  If nature abhored
information production, nothing in its structure would
generate it.  But it does.  Naturally  

Nature by default IS .. gradients .. and in essence 
is totally and ONLY ... gradients ... ie:  relations.
Patterned relations educing other patterned relations.


Our mathematics, by another default, is a mirror of
relations, and, I submit, it gets some of the
current mirror-notions -wrong-.  So wrong, that
we'll never quantum leap out of the errors-hole
until there is a wholesale re-vamping of math
and concepts interpretations.

Why, for example, don't we see rampant spontaneous
generation of more energy and materia out of the
hypothesized 'quantum foam' ?!?!?

The big-bang is a big-bust .. because it has an
unwritten law .. precipitate once only once ..
unless manipulatedly re-induced in some limited way.
(!)

Current math doesn't allow for anything -but-
such gibberish .. reality.  (unfortunately)

Why, are the regions exterior to event horizons of
black-holes uniformly smooth and bland?  If they are
made of intense flooded compactions of quantum 
gravity particles -- which particles MUST 'see' one
another and therefore ought to be interacting in
seething roiling tempestuous energetic events ..
we don't see ANY of that at all in those spaces.

clue

gravity ain't what old current ideas infer it to be.

We need to toss it all out and start over fresh
to explain what gravity is ... because it can't
be anything suppined to this point.

And, such re-thinking demands we START with 
ideas that REQUIRE quantum-continuum decription
depiction similarities/compatibility.


Existing math is self-hobbled by innacurate premises.

It needs re-organization of its basic principles.

Just like 'heat' and 'light' and 'sound' are all
local realities of the _one_ singular EM spectrum,
quantum and continuum are similarly: alternative
informational enactions of another Singular Spectrum. 

Which Singular Spectrum .. are Gradients .. with 
special laws/properties of coding and transduction.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle .. is in fact
a manifested _Information Theory_ rule of how to code and 
recode information in adjacent exponentially coupled spaces.
And non-quantum (rather: classical) spaces at that.

But, we'll never generally get to that level of appreciating
the organization of the universe until we're willing to 
revamp how we see things.

To insist that thermodynamics is THE base frame-of-reference,
is to stay mired in 'incorrectness'.

:-)

Sorry Stan, we still sit on opposite sides of the table.
Friendly opponents in 2000, and still today.  :-)

Jamie














Stanley N. Salthe wrote:
 
 Jamie -- My response is:
 The Big Bang is an expansive cooling
 This cooling resulted/results in a 'precipitation' of matter
 Matter invokes gravitation, making clumps
 Continued acceleration of Universal expansion affords furtherlocal
 developents into forms and organizations
 But Matter, mass, form and organization are rough measures of increasing
 distance from Universal energy equilibrium
 Distance from Universal equilibrum (created by magnitude of Universal
 expansion) increases the Universe's 'equal and opposite' tendency to
 destroy these materal gradients.
 
 STAN
 
 I have to pose the question .. if 'nature abhors a
 gradient', then why are gradients pandemic and exhaustively
 pervasive everywhere? (!)
 
 I respectfully suggest that there is qualia or class
 conflation involved with that premise.
 
 I submit that Nature -flourishes- through/with gradients.
 
 And in fact, uses special states of gradients, to induce
 the instantiation of more and more gradients.
 
 James Rose