Maker Pro
Maker Pro

[OT] The stupidity of being too clever by half...

R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
it does?


to want to.

What makes you think it doesn't? In one sense entropy can
be seen as the tendency toward compaction of not only matter
but information. But that compaction is conditional on the
properties of the things being compacted; some things fit
together better in certain ways. Water molecules like to
form hexagonal structures simply because of the pattern of
the individual molecules' electron orbitals. More complex
molecules have a wider range of possible patterns. Now, when
water crystallizes, is information gained, or lost?

I've never heard this put quite this way. Makes me think of
a snowflake, though. When some given individual water molecule
encounters the snowflake at random, how does it decide exactly
where on the flake to condense out at? How do the arms know to
be the same as each other?

Or, which is more highly organized, a diamond, or an ameba? ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

An
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Because those configurations are lower in potential
energy for all the participant particles than a random bunch
of free particles.

OK, I get it now, at least this one. ;-) And anything
bigger than hydrogen probably got cooked up in the first
stars, right? (of course, that brings up, what set up
the initial perturbation(s)/inhomogeniety such that the
condensation of the Original Plasma into gases & stuff
was lumpy?)
molecules, which requires an input of energy?

No, it doesn't neccesarily require energy input. The
"complexity" you refer to is a matter of human perception.
As far as the component atoms are concerned, they're more
"comfortable" with a bunch of near neighbors so that their
localized potentials are neutralized, and the more the
better for certain ones, notably carbon. The patterned way
they combine is determined by the configurations of the
electron shells of the participants, and your confusion
apparently arises because there may be several possible ways
two or more atoms can neutralize their individual potentials
by coming together. That can be strongly influenced by the
availability of external energy.

Well, I'll give you acetone and formaldehyde between the
stars, and methane and ammonia and lightning on planets,
but I'm not ever going to quit harping on that miraculous
transition from dead to alive. :)
Human perception again. Where you see cooperation, others
see inevitable consequences of the neutralization of
localized potentials.

But this is circular. I'm talking about identifying, or at
least becoming aware of, these "localized potentials". Where
did _they_ come from? The bottom turtle? ;-)
answer to.

You're making the dangerous assumption that "the answer"
exists. That way lies religion (pun intended).

Yabbut, I went past religion and most human-comprehensible
versions of insanity decades ago. ;-)

I have found, at least from my POV, that continuing to dig
for this possibly nonexistent "answer" has led to some very
interesting theories indeed. At least for me. For others,
they are either claptrap or deeply disturbing. }:->
Mark L. Fergerson

Cheers!
Rich
 
S

Scott Stephens

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mark said:
Rich Grise wrote:

You're making the dangerous assumption that "the answer" exists. That
way lies religion (pun intended).

Both science and religion are based on a premise.

The premise of religion is "because God says", so to know why,
understand God.

The premise of science is the universe acts according to principles
amenable to logic and reason.

Perhaps it could be said that in the course of Nature taking the path of
least action to thermaly equalize, structures and systems of particles
emerged which have the emergent properties of consciousness and reason.

Living systems which optimize their logic and reason (philosophy) the
way lower organisms optimize metabolic processes, the way lower
molecules crystalize, the way lower particles form atoms and molecules...

So Nature gives us Reason, Reason gives us 1st religion "because God
says so" (based on crude reasoning and magical thinking, which is cheap
for me to say inlight of my 21st century education), then later science
gives us more powerful tools (which we can use to refute much of
religion's sick magical reasoning & scientific conclusions).

It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe wasn't such as
it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine it. But that doesn't tell us
how or why the universe is, just that it is.

What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and the space-time
manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the fundamental constants of physics,
or how they relate to each other can't change? What if the value of Pi
were to change?

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************
 
S

Scott Stephens

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, I'll give you acetone and formaldehyde between the
stars, and methane and ammonia and lightning on planets,
but I'm not ever going to quit harping on that miraculous
transition from dead to alive. :)

You will probably eventually be disappointed and shamed as theists and
creationists have been, as natural mechanisms are identified.

You'll be more secure tormenting atheists with the questions: Where did
the universe' mass-energy and laws come from? Explain why/how existence
exists. Why does it have to be an axiom? Because no underlying
principles can be found?
But this is circular. I'm talking about identifying, or at
least becoming aware of, these "localized potentials". Where
did _they_ come from? The bottom turtle? ;-)

*Something* behaving according to its *Nature* ("Somethings" "nature"
being to act according to scientific principles as we have discerned by
our reason.) If you would read what I recommend, you would find
*existence* is an axiom.
I have found, at least from my POV, that continuing to dig
for this possibly nonexistent "answer" has led to some very
interesting theories indeed. At least for me. For others,
they are either claptrap or deeply disturbing. }:->

I have often wished I had studied the history of religion, philosophy
and science before thinking a lot. But using your own reason is very
good practice. When you get around to studying history, you find your
notions were refuted by others, and get new insights.

But studying without hypothesizing for yourself puts your mind into an
ideological blinder and stops you from exploring paths you would
otherwise scout.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
You will probably eventually be disappointed and shamed as theists and
creationists have been, as natural mechanisms are identified.

I'll bet they're both going to be surprised (the theists and the
rationalists) when they identify _all_ of the natural mechanisms.
:)
You'll be more secure tormenting atheists with the questions: Where did
the universe' mass-energy and laws come from? Explain why/how existence
exists. Why does it have to be an axiom? Because no underlying
principles can be found?

Heh. Actually, atheists are just as dogmatic as any fundie,
maybe even more so, since they have "scientific proof" or
some such mumbo-jumbo. ;-)

Me, I have found the underlying principle, but it's too
simple for most people to grasp. ;-)
*Something* behaving according to its *Nature* ("Somethings" "nature"
being to act according to scientific principles as we have discerned by
our reason.) If you would read what I recommend, you would find
*existence* is an axiom.

Well, if _you_ would read what _I_ recommend, you would find out
that "reason" alone is insufficient to reach understanding. And
I've been reading, almost continuously, since mom sat me on
her lap 50 years ago and taught me how to read. I was reading
the encyclopedia recreationally at the age of 7.

And I remember everyfuckingthing.

Existence as an axiom is good enough, and kinda self-evident,
like, if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be sitting here questioning
stuff.

But there's an even more "fundamental" "axiom" behind this: That is, for
anything to exist at all, its opposite has to exist, if you assume that
the universe is infinite.

This is the part, I think, where ordinary thought processes
fall short of understanding the even more fundamental
principles, like, what's the thinking taking place _in_?
What's _doing_ the thinking? Like, if photons are waves,
what's doing the waving? If they're particles, howcome
they diffract?

Well, I claim there's an answer that ties up all the loose
ends of _all_ of the philosophies, from religion to
metaphysics to physics to biology to witchcraft. If this
new theory really turns out to be accurate, it would mean
that we have the power, right now, inherent in our beingness,
to do real magic.

What's the difference between a miracle and magic? Both
are outside known science, but is it like, one's good and
the other's bad?

But I digress. It's hard not to. ;-)
I have often wished I had studied the history of religion, philosophy
and science before thinking a lot. But using your own reason is very
good practice. When you get around to studying history, you find your
notions were refuted by others, and get new insights.

But studying without hypothesizing for yourself puts your mind into an
ideological blinder and stops you from exploring paths you would
otherwise scout.

Exactly!

And I claim to have found a doorway, as it were, to a "plane of
existence" beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Think Garden of Eden
With Toys.

And everybody has the powers of the Q.

And lots and lots of glorious sex.

And no rules.

Where even "good" and "bad" are "value judgements", but you
don't ever ever have to have anything bad happen to you or
anyone in your own personal reality, which can include anybody
who wants to play there. Everybody's so powerful, and there
is such mobility, that "good" and "bad" will naturally
gravitate to where each is in its "right place."

That sort of stuff.

And what the hell, I've been on this weird quest all my life
anyway, as if my spirit incarnated with some grandiose plan
of bringing magic to the world or something, so I ain't about
to go back into the box, thank you very much.

Of course, I do have to manage to keep from getting caught
and caged in the meanwhile. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe wasn't such as
it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine it. But that doesn't tell us
how or why the universe is, just that it is.

What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and the space-time
manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the fundamental constants of physics,
or how they relate to each other can't change? What if the value of Pi
were to change?

Pretty scary, huh?

;^j
Rich
 
M

Mark Fergerson

Jan 1, 1970
0
answer" exists. That way lies religion (pun intended).
Both science and religion are based on a premise.

The premise of religion is "because God says", so to know why,
understand God.

Then, it tells you that you're incapable of that level of
understanding, so bend over and shut up.
The premise of science is the universe acts according to principles
amenable to logic and reason.

That's a _hypothesis_. So far, it's been borne out.
Perhaps it could be said that in the course of Nature taking the path of
least action to thermaly equalize, structures and systems of particles
emerged which have the emergent properties of
consciousness and reason.

Sure, why not? Except, I'd insert "appear to" just before
"have the emergent properties...".
Living systems which optimize their logic and reason (philosophy) the
way lower organisms optimize metabolic processes, the way lower
molecules crystalize, the way lower particles form atoms
and molecules...

Careful, extending patterns is a very bad human habit.
So Nature gives us Reason, Reason gives us 1st religion
"because God says so" (based on crude reasoning and magical
thinking, which is cheap for me to say inlight of my 21st
century education), then later science gives us more
powerful tools (which we can use to refute much of
religion's sick magical reasoning & scientific conclusions).

Problem with religions is that they aren't amenable to
recursive analysis. Once you are given The Explanation,
you're supposed to nod (kneel, whatever) and shut the ****
up. Science requires you to keep asking "what causes _that_?"
It reduces to the Anthropic Principle - if the universe
wasn't such as it is, we wouldn't be conscious to examine
it. But that doesn't tell us how or why the universe is,
just that it is.

That's a circular argument, not worth discussing. It's
easy to point out that we have exactly one example of how a
Universe works to examine, and speculations about variations
on the theme are just that; speculations.
What if the principles of science change tomorrow, and
the space-time manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the
fundamental constants of physics, or how they relate to each
other can't change? What if the value of Pi were to change?

We do know that most systems exhibit inertia; for pi or
any other so-called constant to change for such a large,
self-consistent system, there'd have to be a cause.
Postulate some?

Mark L. Fergerson
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
Scott Stephens wrote: ....
the space-time manifold becomes chaotic? Who says the
fundamental constants of physics, or how they relate to each
other can't change? What if the value of Pi were to change?

We do know that most systems exhibit inertia; for pi or
any other so-called constant to change for such a large,
self-consistent system, there'd have to be a cause.
Postulate some?

Well, pi is always pi, and e is always e, but the ratio of
a circumference of a circle to its diameter is only pi
on a 2-D plane. :)

I think that what conventional 4-space is is simply the
surface of a 7-dimensional hypertorus which has both
major diameter and minor diameter of infinity. I'm not
sure if those are the "right" terms for those properties
of a torus, but I hope you get the idea.

;^j
RIch
 
R

Reg Edwards

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

The materials, atoms and quarks even, of what the body is made continue to
behave according to the universal, all pervading Laws of Nature, Scientific
Laws, the Laws of God, or whatever you choose to call them.

Eventually, everything returns to the Stars to be recycled until Eternity.

And there's nothing George or Tony can do about it. Except turn Saddat
loose and implore him to sort out the mess.
 
D

Don Pearce

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

The materials, atoms and quarks even, of what the body is made continue to
behave according to the universal, all pervading Laws of Nature, Scientific
Laws, the Laws of God, or whatever you choose to call them.

Eventually, everything returns to the Stars to be recycled until Eternity.

And there's nothing George or Tony can do about it. Except turn Saddat
loose and implore him to sort out the mess.
Not only has Saddat been dead a few years now, but there really isn't
any particular problem in Egypt.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
 
J

john jardine

Jan 1, 1970
0
Reg Edwards said:
There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

The materials, atoms and quarks even, of what the body is made continue to
behave according to the universal, all pervading Laws of Nature, Scientific
Laws, the Laws of God, or whatever you choose to call them.

Eventually, everything returns to the Stars to be recycled until Eternity.

And there's nothing George or Tony can do about it. Except turn Saddat
loose and implore him to sort out the mess.
Funny you should mention that ... I was thinking just the same.
Now he's had his wings clipped and wears a suit and tie, it's clearly
obvious he's by far the best man for the job.

regards
john
 
K

Kevin Aylward

Jan 1, 1970
0
Reg said:
There's no essential difference between the human living and dead
states.
Ahmmm:)


The materials, atoms and quarks even, of what the body is made
continue to behave according to the universal, all pervading Laws of
Nature, Scientific Laws, the Laws of God, or whatever you choose to
call them.

Eventually, everything returns to the Stars to be recycled until
Eternity.

Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.



Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
There's no essential difference between the human living and dead states.

Well, the live one can talk to you, and the dead one can't. I'd say
that's kinda essential.

Good Luck!
Rich
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.

It's both, simultaneously. Most people find this terribly discomfiting.

Cheers!
Rich
 
M

Mark Fergerson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Well, the live one can talk to you, and the dead one can't. I'd say
that's kinda essential.

Dead people "talk" to me all the time.

You don't read many books, do you?

Mark L. Fergerson
 
R

Rich The Philosophizer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dead people "talk" to me all the time.

You don't read many books, do you?
I've read almost all of them. And if you're talking about _that_ kind
of "dead," then we're going outside most peple's box right away.

God talks to me through everything and everybody, but Mother talks
to me by making me feel like dancing. ;-)

I'm working on a diagram of the seven-dimensional hypertorus that
we live on the four-space hypersurface of, which is kind of hard,
because the only medium for presentation that I have at hand at
the time is two-dimensional sketches of three-dimensional projections
of multidimensional interrelationships, many of which are valid
simultaneously.

But for a start, think of the point-contact between two interlocked
toruses.

That point is Everything That Has Ever Been. And I think that the
process of distinguishing that Point from the whole rest of our
torus-pair was, itself, the Big Bang.

As far as the toruses themselves, one is the Primordial Current
from Negative Infinity To Positive Infinity, and the other is
the Primordial Line Of Force that Creates a Place For That Current
To Flow.

We're just eddies.

In one way of looking at it. :)

;^j
Rich
 
P

Paul Burke

Jan 1, 1970
0
Kevin said:
Well, we don't know that yet. We don't know if the universe is open or
closed.

Will someone ring a big bell when it's closing time for the universe?
How long will we get for last orders and supping up?

Paul Burke
 
C

Clarence

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul Burke said:
Will someone ring a big bell when it's closing time for the universe?
How long will we get for last orders and supping up?

Paul Burke


2 Billion years!
 
Top