foodchain

There are many philosophical ways to interpret reality that people actually do. Personally I think science does a bit of both, I think it can model and I also think it can explain. Sure nucleosynthesis might be a model, but it also explains why we get elements from the process, so you can understand that not only from a mathematical view, but a physical one also. I agree with you very much that science should be or is doing both in all of its various fields. Evolution is not modeled as just math in which only math can be used as descriptors of a process, yet via science we can understand it. With QM people would be lost without math, but physically the math is validated currently with physical experiments and it in itself is not a dead end in regards to further inquiry. Ultimately I think that both will come to work together rather well in environmental fields of study, such as environmental chemistry, or environmental biology, or anything environmental. It will have to be able to describe functions or interactions that make up any environment not only from a basis that can be modeled mathematically as possible, but also physically understood as much as possible simply because the environment itself and all of its various interactions are not perfectly linear for just one reason. OF course statistics and probability has already found a home in such for just one example. Plus if math can model something, and math being ultimately human in design, then of course the equations can come to be explained in non mathematical ways. I am also a bit confused on something, are you saying really that humans could never really know the truth about something? I would think such a statement to be a bit of a paradox giving how much advancement humans have made in understanding the natural world around them.

Well according to the laws of our known universe could everything pulled into a blackhole exist as matter or energy as we know it? I mean if everything that made up Jupiter fell into a blackhole it would eventually become or enter the singularity. So my guess means that something very weird has to happen there, or spacetime as understood such as representing the fabric of space is lacking something. Is a black hole hot or cold? I never understood how that works in regards to thermodynamics or if such a term is even applicable to them. As far as any quantum thought on the issue, I would have no idea what a quantum world would look like if the environment was a blackhole, I mean could you even have momentum in a singularity?

I think a lot of this has to do with the modern paradigm I would say lots of people hold of life. I am talking about in particular the genotype centered view. I would just like to make a simple example in that we don’t classify cars of course on number and placement of windows and or bolts typically. With that said I am not trying to reduce of course the role of genetics in biology just that life comes in organismal units typically. In which the whole is what makes up the living thing and its various functions. Also as far as I know science cant really support the concept of race, either from a hard science or soft science point of view. Different cultures, now that seems to exist, but human cultures themselves don’t seem to be static, homogeneous, or immutable.

I don’t know really. I just know from my past that java has extensive support in many forms. It also does not suffer many issues of compatibility across various computer systems, I also think garbage collection is a neat mechanism which could always improve maybe even at the interpreter level. It supports use with other programming languages and the existing code for use in say the libraries is also extensive. Plus I think that bean mechanism is neat for issues like scalability, or simply changing your program in time. Also its not restricted to being purely an internet language, you can make intricate fully 3D video games if you get bored for example, and then sell them to cell phone companies:D

Here is a concept I thought up. I would think that you could make smaller, say maybe melon size or grapefruit sized mini reactors. These can be used from a material point of view in construction to aid nuclear reactions of some type, I would hopefully think fission. Now that reason I hope you could use the nanotech is again to aid the reaction from any possible point on a material scale, but to aid in controlling it to possibly higher levels of detail. You could link of many of these say units of reaction to create or sustain a certain level of reaction by controlling the extent of the reaction. The containers could also be designed to integrate desires to handle nuclear waste and or minimize such. I would think that such an application could be used small scale along with say solar power to help generate a hydrogen economy. Its not only this but I would like to think that we could control the resulting products enough as to say generate particular elements maybe even for use as by products of the reaction. I don’t know if such is possible right now but is it possible? I have more to the idea but I think this is good enough for now.

Its been years since I have looked into it but have you gave any thought to .jsp or jsp pages. I think one of those two are the title. I think those were generated with the main issue being the internet really. Java also has a huge library of existing things to be used really for programming that don’t run into nearly as much faults from compatibility issues mainly because its an interpreted language. Not being a .exe file though does not limit java really at that same time. Java can also be used with a variety of hardware devices in which you can even obtain certification in I think.

I think I am in the same boat, sorry about the confusion.

I am not exactly sure but I don’t think you can give anything quantum a zero probability, such as with a barrier or well. I am not sure of course but I think this ties into uncertainty. That even in light of a barrier or a well, that you still deal with a non zero probability overall for some quantum phenomena to occur, example being quantum tunneling.

There is a debate on if physical constants could change without our senses or understanding being able to see or understand such. So in reality the current answer to that question I think is that it cant be answered yet by anything. Such as if the speed of light has changed, but really gives no noticeable way in the context of other physical constants or effects to determine such, its an actual debate(scientific) with a name I just don’t know it. As far as I know about BEC’S its opening up a new area for like solid state physicists and related. I am sure it would be used in a broad range of applications, like chemistry for instance, or heck maybe medicine and computing. When the stage of matter actually occurs you get its own phenomena overall I would think, thus the title, but it has effects similar to those experienced in other physical phenomena. One experiment that I have read about basically had a BEC explode or implode or both, in which half of the material had "disappeared" in regards to the measurement apparatus. The thing that is weird to me is if BEC really could be viewed as some kind of a reverse process or engineering of the current state. I also wonder that if when a BEC is reached that physical measurement does simply not detect "particles" that evolved from such rather then exploded material. In that context I think of conservation of energy, but why then the barrier to absolute zero? The only thing I can think of is the degree of entanglement that exists is currently beyond measurement. Such as why the universe itself is not in absolute zero. From this I would think conservation of energy and entanglement might need a BEC to reach absolute zero would require maybe the freezing of the universe:D Beyond that I think the professional view is its just uncertainty that is accepted currently as to why absolute zero has not been reached yet, besides that I don’t really know.

I like just being able to go to wiki and find introductory material on any question I might get. In regards to computers that would be great, more so if it was created to easily be modified by other people. Such as if you make a section on java, and in it you have quirks that maybe some person who builds mobile applications could inject some thought on or concepts about such an environment, even if its from a hardware view alone. I think that’s why the tagging or embedded linking of wiki makes it a powerful tool, simply put if you put in the links right to existing pages of information, you could simply click through the history of say cplus without have to make a page for just that particular topic. Which I guess would also require a good writer.

I like nanotechnology and I wonder about its applications to say nuclear technology. Its always a giant reactor, or a large reactor at least with the ability to greatly poison its surroundings, that chance for such an occurrence cannot be ruled out yet in regards to human control anyway. I think the problem with this is if science or engineering produced stable, operational for daily human life activities and lifestyles or culture, that it could easily proliferate a technology that has to many negative consequences that could be associated with it. I mean our highways could become packed carrying large quantities of nuclear waste. The then related economical scene makes it less likely. Your ability to get green technology to sell has many variables, one of them simply being cost. Cost is not always viewed in a life cycle sense, which I think is wrong. This simple concept could be viewed to contain any issue around standardized consumption, or large scale consumption. For instance a more efficient light bulb when used by say 100,000 people in there daily lives collectively is a nice piece of energy. So with that being said a lifecycle view of an object typically stops after it gets tossed in the garbage way to much, for anything even food. So to me greening of anything ultimately means something that can persist in the environment without altering it to any destructive point. At the base of this of course you deal with just energy and conversions of such really, so I guess that would be the place to start more so in the idea of producing any stable human society, economy, world, etc...

Well, to me QM is hard to define. It has its physical basis in experiment for instance, and then of course the math that can model it. I truly think that QM is far more natural in a classical sense as in having a nature, with that said I just think the variance involved in QM, such as probability alone, makes understanding this 100% close to zero currently. This is an idea I have about QM for instance, I would just like to know how to make it falsifiable. I don’t know enough about QM really in any sense to do it for myself. I think giving some postulates, one of probability and or one of entanglement, what bounds could you place on that as a nature? Being we can observe these effects in our classical world what does that mean for any other experience such as being able to see? Its really just an idea about trying to reduce any classical phenomena to a quantum one or ones, or possible ones. The one I would really like to test is conservation of energy. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms, then how does it go about this. Could QM always have to obey this law? To what extent, such as just entanglement? So how do you test well enough at a QM level to know that conservation of energy is an absolute for anything quantum? Even if you could prove it now, how do you know that it was not by some previous domain of QM that the probability to conserve energy even came about or evolved. What really is the bounds or nature of QM and how can we know or test such truly?

I think I am confused, what and how can you define something that is a constant and or nature of QM? How do you know if any property is anything that could be an intrinsic constant or nature of quantum mechanics? For instance wave particle duality seems to be the nature of anything quantum, but this is purely by measurement, meaning environment had to exist or can exist, else I would think you are saying absolutely no difference between observable and observer could exist or that a measurement could even take place, which I think then also describes then that any quantum system has constants and or a nature, like entanglement. I also think to answer this question really requires a definition of time, I mean could time be described as momentum in entanglement? Why do specific geometries seem to occur but are mutable in time? Could you attribute time to being an intrinsic nature of anything quantum. I mean if time did not exist and in a quantum superposition of say everything in the universe, everything I think would happen all at once. Such as with any physical action possible via quantum mechanics such as the classical world all occurring with no time, or at once. I think if any failure could exist that would truly ruin the classical world such as tunneling to a true vacuum would have had to already occur. In less time exists as a human perception that quantum systems are naturally environments or environment as much as why the double slit experiments produced the results it did. I know this requires me to postulate something, but why would anything last and how could a measurement even exist?

who cares about windows 95? Can you even use that on the internet? The current OS I run has no support really for my cpu(64) that I know of, when I bought it that was just the way it was. Now Microsoft, makers of the blue screen of death just to remind you says it has some new operating system for the 64. With modern desktop being 32 bit really, in concentration and in time on a computer timeline, what and how do you know the advances of the 64 bit cpu with various applications? would volume of information processed in a unit of time be the only real means to do that? Please elaborate?

Right so you are saying that a 64 bit processors main advantage would simply be the ability to execute larger programs based on the hardware? Or simply that it will have more functionality with that hardware based on available space on the pc for such in some form? That’s basically what I am getting down to. Microsoft of course historically have all been built for a 32 bit environment, as such I would imagine that a great deal of advance in hardware and software is around 32 bit. 64 such as the athlon is still somewhat new, as in having how many standard operating systems built around 64 bit cpus? So I just don’t understand I guess the test bench for what exactly and where is the impact of using a 64 bit processor over a 32 bit one in the real world? I am more on the hardware point of things because I am thinking of building my own computer using various vendors. I want to make a 64 bit based system in regards to the cpu, so I am trying to find out all I can about the best way to optimize a single 64 bit cpu with modern hardware such as a motherboard. This then of course would equate into the operating system of choice in which your options are not plentiful so I don’t understand again the glorious reality of 64 bit cpu based computing yet.

I have a pretty industry standard computer with a amd 64 running in it. I play online games in which I have no support in terms of a graphics card for instance. I get a decent frame per second or fps and can compete with duel core 32 bit intel chips and graphics cards. This though I find hard as to understand exactly what and if any impact having a 64 bit pc versus a 32 bit provides. I mean even if you strip out all the various programs that an OS or personal computer may be running, how do you get down to what impact a 64bit cpu has on modern gaming? I mean have any advances come in regards to motherboards really for the 64 such as the north or Southbridge chipsets for this reason or any real reason save just to be able to land a 64bit cpu on a motherboard and have it at least function? As far as ultimate gaming experiences go these days I think duel core intel pretty much owns the market really. I know amd is releasing a mulit core strategy that is also geared towards gaming but I have not heard much about it.

Its because of binary code, I have always hated that stuff:D I use a 64 but I cant really see any measurable difference in operation from various other computer systems I have used. I was interested in the 64 just to see what difference on that scale it would have really on the rest of software, and hardware overall. I also don’t know anything about vista as I view software with contempt in general, even some gaming interfaces appear obnoxious to me. Does the vista support for 64 actually mean anything, or is it a marketing ploy?

Metaphysics is not to be denoted as spirituality. This is a gross confusion really, simply put I know the definitions of the words, and that of course that they are two different words. Math is used on itself as long as axioms which do not require proof can coexist in peace. It gives the ability to model something, like the dynamics of flight or or genes functioning. Axioms are to me a postulate, something that is more then conjecture, that can sustain long enough in some system for its position, such as at the root, which can validate the system, such as a math formula being able to make sense, even if it just mere pattern.

You are grasping evolution in to far a deterministic tone. If quantum mechanics should teach us something its stick to the physical observables. RNA as in paramutation would become an individual layer of inheritable material in an evolutionary stance overall, just like individual genes. So would the course of this genetic material stay in line with genes, obviously if not it would die out(or vice versa?) which I am guessing in an evolutionary sense paramutation probably has existed for just about ever. Yet as you would have it RNA is not that but DNA in some weird way or it simply just does not qualify that RNA can on its own be inheritable material and cause change, and I would surely suggest experience some form of variance would it not? Yes, as far as mutation is concerned microbial life could blaze away on it at such a speed compared to overhead and remain bacteria, so does that mean what really, how do you even compute radiative values in that? Epigenetic inheritance is a separate term because its physically different. You are dealing with different variables of inheritable material now, yet on this basis you find that it deals with RNA. A recent paper, I am sorry I think discusses the reality of this at more detail in which an RNA tied to pigmentation mutated and also inherited in lab animals, I think mouse or rat, surely rodent. I will have to try and find it but that could be sometime if at all. Various epigenetic studies are of interest to me actually. Lastly RNA of various types can interact in gene regulation. Gene regulation is the mechanism in which genes are selectively controlled by various factors, one being an individual cell. So the impact of an RNA in gene regulation would require understanding, more so if this were not a very local or one time effect, oddity, etc... Plus remolding of histone has its own evolutionary impact, again as this would having the ability of RNA to become inheritable genetic material, which is all epigenetic right? You do know its not gene to automobile like a blueprint, real life organisms are not that simple.

Just look up paramutation for instance. From the wiki link on it. "Paramutation, in epigenetics, is an interaction between two alleles of a single locus, resulting in a heritable change of one allele that is induced by the other allele. Paramutation violates Mendel’s first law, which states that in the process of the formation of the gametes (egg or sperm) the allelic pairs separate, one going to each gamete, and that each gene remains completely uninfluenced by the other. In paramutation an allele in one generation heritably affects the other allele in future generations, even if the allele causing the change is itself not transmitted. What may be transmitted in such a case are RNAs such as piRNAs, siRNAs, miRNAs or other regulatory RNAs. These are packaged in egg or sperm and cause paramutation upon transmission to the next generation. This means that RNA is a molecule of inheritance, just like DNA." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramutation

That’s incorrect on the RNA aspect. While rare its not impossible for an RNA itself to change and inherit also that way. There are various epigentic factors at play dealing with inheritance overall studied mostly by evo-devo. I like the idea of how much importance they give to a phenotype. As for the use of the RNA aspect my question was just that. Basically giving the complexity of a genotype/phenotype or organism how would using RNA such as I guess siRNA to correctly gauge how to treat existing genetic ailments of existing organisms not actually cloned. Well simply put if you end a genetic basis for death in that one alone how many more people will be alive in the world? I mean if someone could genetically get rid of cancer for instance? The relevance comes into play as you are actually changing the genetic reality of the environment overall as it would relate to say a species or population. Going from ecology we know that organisms interact with both abiotic and biotic variables. So ultimately what you are doing in influencing the environment. I mean if we change genetic code, what will the impact be on say bacteria like the interaction such has with antibiotics.

I would just like to submit my understanding of decoherence to scrutiny. Basically does decoherence exist as a possible answer to the measurement problem of quantum mechanics from postulating that entanglement gives rise to environments or more of the same?

From my current understanding of genetic illness genotype variation currently exists beyond the realm of perfect matching with various phenotypes that do or can exist? I know RNA is also genetic basically on the same level of DNA almost and also it can pass heritable information as DNA would. I don’t however grasp interference-RNA as you are using it, could you elaborate? Is this some kind of specific property of a specific RNA as constant? The environment is the totality or sum of variables that makes up an individuals surroundings at any time. So as for any issue genetics will have an environmental impact, what exactly would that be in this case?

Short stories for environmental science? You see sci-fi for various scientific thoughts or ideas. Anything of course from time travel to even cybernetic things and beyond. Yet for the simple concept of some post nuclear war type scenario sci-fi based on environmentalism really does not exist. I think the definition of such and science overall have properties far to similar to dissociate and of course giving ecology for example or environmental chemistry for another the environment surely exists as far as people are could empirically concern. Now I have a few neat ideas on short stories and just wanted to bounce them around. One is in which people master quantum entanglement to an extent to control say physical environments. In which you find in the case of the story human behavior causing say self extinction or widespread damage, that such was possible even in such a society that could do something like I suggest. Another is a more human tragedy based one. What would life really be like if say global warming does bring serious and lasting change. I think you could combine modern themes into such also with say genetics and a population that grows in size and age. The relevance of any of these stories I guess would only come to bear if you could incorporate the scientific history of environmentalism or ecology into the stories. This becomes important as the environment itself as evidenced from human interaction with it on any issue is an issue that causes such simply by magnitude. Its of direct consequence on such a large scale that basically the ability to communicate on the issue becomes vastly complex. Explaining a graph to someone about CO2 I don’t really thinks to suffice for say oceans of understanding that could be missing that even allows the graph to have any functionality.

"Liberal senator Kay Patterson's private member's Bill will allow researchers to clone embryos using donor eggs and cells without sperm and extract their stem cells for medical research." Its from the link to the story. I would just like to highlight the donor aspect simply because there is not much detail giving to it from the story alone. What do they mean by donor? The story was somewhat paraphrased with the concept about this act going about to add those with say genetic diseases for instance in Australia. I don’t think random donor study would suffice enough for this or am I wrong? It just would seem that current genetic research into the basis of disease using cloning would still suffer from descriptions of genotype/phenotype in say a population, or family, not exclusively of course as in static. Also I think it would be somewhat a retardation to only allow for this act to work towards disease alone to be clear. I do however believe on reasonable physical bounds against genetic application in the real world based on overall ability to understand issues on an environmental level. I also did not see any mention of this in the story provided by the link.