Fred56

He didn't see the sucker punch (he he he...).

Yes, time is a given, but it isn't a real physical "ontic" thing that matter 'requires'. We however, do require it. This is because it's the way we measure change, and matter definitely is something that changes (all the 'time'). Space is what happens when energy condenses and separates, so yes, it is 'there', and indeed it emerges, or is changing (increasing). We can 'remember' this.

As a total aside, did you know onions have lots more genes that we do?

I have to admit, the idea of an elected "Commander" who then has absolute and arbitrary power over the military is a little scary. Like some others, I wonder if it is, in fact, true (as a certain poster would have us all believe) that Congress can only prevent a 'warmonger' pres. by disallowing any money for their adventures. Surely the world's greatest 'democracy' has a little more finesse on such a thing as commitment to a war, or executing an act of war (an invasion say)?

Any bridge will do, we aren't picky about these things... We just have to keep an eye out for dudes with shiny badges, or glowing swords...

Here perhaps we see at least a heuristic conundrum: Assuming that we are defeated before we start --by our own ignorance-- isn't going to (and hasn't anytime in the past) get us very far. There are certainly problems, and we might be looking down the barrel to see that it is pointed back at us: for the first time in our history our 'disregard' for the planet we live off/on is maybe catching up with our concepts of 'unbridled growth' and human 'development' and learning. But anytime in that past we have hit an environmental (resource-wise) wall we have usually found a way to exploit a "new" resource (e.g. agriculture), and now perhaps the new resource that will "save" us is the (so far) most "magical" (of the characters in the universal cast). Perhaps the only thing that "really" exists is energy, and everything else (that we perceive) is an outcome of its existence...

No, I mean hiding under my bridge, waiting for unsuspecting noo b's

Actually I've just been hiding...

You mean how can something change if it doesn't ...change?

The thing about time is, it can't be a physical requirement, because we "invented it". It's a measurement which means its 'existence' (in our ontology) is the only real property is has. Time isn't "out there", it's in our heads (and any other lifeform that grows and dies). But, like a "static frame of reference", the universe doesn't 'require' it to keep doing what it does. Mass is conserved, an invariant property of the universe. It's real because it exists (presumably) without life (observers) being around to "observe" it into existence.

If anyone's interested in the logic, or what I call the logicalism, behind some of it, this from the 'International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design'. http://www.ctmu.net/

Martin: thanks for the compliment (sorry for not responding earlier)... The obscurity of NZ is a bit of a problem -the only connection to astrophysics is the SKA project (which is happening because of our big neighbour -The Aussies are getting to build a pretty big chunk of it, and we get a whole 3 dishes. But the project is about radioastronomy and BH research. I still haven't managed to find out very much. As far as I can tell its all still drawings and ideas. I would really like to know if there will be anything on offer research-wise, or if I need to be a Ph.D. student or what. The internet is really the best link to all the research at the mo, but as we all know, up-close, hands-on stuff is what science is about...

Sort this out: A universe without Life is not a universe without change. Life without change is death. A universe without change cannot have change. Death is without Time. A universe without Time is not a universe without change, it is a universe without Life. A universe does not have change, a universe is change.

Hmm. You might need to explain what you mean by 'physical thought' -thought "emerges" from biology, we surely aren't the only lifeforms who can think or have a conscious notion of "self". Studies have indicated that some other animals (orang-utans, chimps, dolphins?) have a "theory of mind", because they react to their reflection in a mirror, for instance. A blue-green alga would not have anything like this (no neurons, in fact only chemical "communication"), but must have some sort of 'map', or it would not be able to respond (as it does) to external stimuli... The concept of a model of the universe without life is interesting if you consider that a model needs to be 'remembered' in some consciousness.

You appear to be asking about duality. I.e that there is no 'singular' thing that exists, because to exist, its non-existence must be possible. There is no 'thing', or notion of a thing, that can be considered "by itself'. You can't be in a group unless there are "others" who are not in the group. I don't think there's anything we can consider that doesn't have an inverse notion...Of course I could be wrong. This 'principle' does seem to be unavoidable though. What sort of question do you think it poses about observation, for instance?

The Science/Philosophy thing is a bit skewed, methinks. I've met scientists who scoff at philosophers (because all they do is think), and I've met philosophers who doubt that Science can do more than 'classify' things. Personally I don't see how anyone who "studies" either can claim to be on one side or the other, because everyone is a scientist, and also a philosopher. I don't honestly think anyone can avoid this, despite what they might say about it ...

Just in case anyone thinks my rants about a problem with our 'view' of information are out the window, heres something I found about quantum superposition used measure of information content: He is talking about the informational "potential" of entanglement, and he seems to be saying there might be a (mathematical) problem... This guy is saying we need to redefine a certain "well-understood" principle -which incidentally projects straight to 'classical' information. And some questions (I know everyone just loves questions...): Maybe he thinks there are some problems with our current definitions of things, like, certain information...

Righto, I admit to posting in a blog-style which says stuff in a declarative way rather than posing questions. What I've been doing is "thinking out loud' and seeing if anyone can follow it. If questions arise, ok, otherwise its up to me to pose some of my own. But I feel already that there is a big lack of understanding in general about what I'm on about (...what observation is, what do we mean by 'information', and what is "quantum" information), so I look into what other researchers think we need to do about the "problem", and try to work out what they're on about. So far I haven't found any definitive formulas or descriptions, so my conclusion (so far) is that we humans still need to nail this down. My discussions with other SFN members indicate that they are mostly busy thinking about their own stuff. The intersection of ideas isn't guaranteed by a forum like this... Nonetheless I shall try to be more enquiring in my posts. P.S. BTW do you think that Science and Philosophy are separate disciplines, or that Philosophy can't be scientific? P.P.S. Being a Kiwi means we get lots more Antarctic weather lately. Not sure if that gives me an advantage...

I don't think I'm confused about heat, or thermal energy, I think you guys are... My above post is trying to point out that someone said "heat is not a thing". Maybe they meant it isn't static, but it certainly isn't "not a thing". This can't make sense, surely. If anyone really wants a look at what someone doing research with nanomechanics thinks heat is, I have truckloads of stuff. But if we are supposed to be being careful with definitions of 'scientific' terms, I really can't see yet what I've posted or commented on that is inaccurate or not correct (about heat, entropy, or that other thing, temperature). So there. P.S. please don't think I am being even a little bit serious...

Actually it doesn't matter what it is, this is a 'pseudoscience' thread so this could all be total crap (but actually there is such a thing as the Cognitive Theoretic Model). I can post whatever the hell I like because nobody is interested (or maybe intelligent) enough to tell me I'm talking a load of rubbish. Or maybe I'm not intelligent enough to say anything meaningful, so noone's interested, I don't really give a monkeys, to be honest... It doesn't matter to me if anyone else agrees or disagrees, or ignores it completely -except once it's posted, its probably there forever. Even if this site goes down the tubes one day, it will probably survive in some fashion. Information has its own way of existing. The whole concept of controlling or censoring it is patently absurd, but who cares? The way we view information is changing. A need has been seen to get a better grip on it, evne though we all believe we know what it is, hte quantum world has shaken the tree a bit, and we're waking up to the possibility that we might not know something important about observation and information. Reading about what other people and researchers are doing in regard to refining their view is an absorbing thing to do, but its only a part (though a very important part) of what up ahead in terms of information and what it represents as a resource. If quantum processing opens the door to 'instantaneous' computation, which is looking lots more likely, the changes this will usher in will make the industrial revolution look like kids with buckets and spades at the beach. Which reminds me, I was planning to head over to a beach for some r&r. but the bloody weather's been stink...

after reading the tutorial on Latex, it's fairly straightforward...

Quantum "processes" that we are observing with unparalleled precision currently seem to violate Bell's Law and so unitarity. But there seem to be mathematical ways (possibly) around this. There are researchers who are already seeing a need to redefine, or at least define more precisely, what is meant by information, regarding what is known about a system, classical or otherwise, and what the difference is between ontology and epistemology. I read something about a team who define information about some external system which has say, Newtonian mechanical properties as ontogenic, or ontic (i.e. observation is because of the systems character), and information which is projected, as epistemogenic, or epistemic, since it comes from within us. I think that analysis misses the point that both are projections, axiomatic in that neither is 'available' ontically or epistemically, without an observer and an observed. Others are looking at a "Cognitive Theoretic" model of reality. They have described something called "infocognitive potential", which is supposed to be some unbound property which is modified by 'reality' in a process resembling a telic response. I found it interesting that they consider the dualism of measurement (observer/observed) to be an axiom of this 'reality', and that dualism is the "problem". Not sure about the rest of it though. They describe a need to define the separation between mind and external solid matter, and cognition and measurement or observation. Certainly there are differently applicable semantics all over the place... (Language is information and all observers must use some internal language regardless of the size of their 'brain' or their place in the evolutionary scheme. All observers must posses a "phenomenological syntax" to be able to explain the world to themselves...) Also they describe the "language" of external reality (Nature) as its 'obvious' properties (regular recurring events, etc.). The goal is to eliminate the mind-matter distinction and reveal the cosmos as a self-sustaining, self-organised and deterministic 'organism' which is evolving toward some 'intelligent' end. I don't know that the "intelligent design" crowd can claim any brownie points from what is a serious looking philosophical dissertation on the nature of information and measurement -the same stuff I've been banging on about.

Sorry, Jim, but this is not logical. The proposition is that there are an infinite number of somethings. By definition, there is no way to count these somethings, so if they look different (or are 'observed' to not be identical) then there is necessarily an infinite number of each different kind. If you started to count them and found they were all different (as far as you could tell not a single one is identical), this would not allow the conclusion that there are a finite number of any of the varieties (found up to then). Because the number of them is infinite, you need to count all of them to determine that there is only a single representative of each kind...

OK, in terms of predictions I don't think my "theorising" is anywhere near something like that. I'm really just kind of thinking out loud. Most of what I post is stuff I've gone over and edited in some file already. I really want to know if it makes sense or if someone maybe thinks, y'know, I need to take my medication more often. I'm basically seeing if my insights are skewed, at all. If I can see a simple picture of something it can make it easier to see a simple connection -along the lines that the whole thing really is simple, and the "unknown" properties have a simple explanation. But I know it can look like there's a connection when there isn't. And I'm interested in feedback (but responses never are anything like you expect). But as a sample of where I am: Imagine humans back before we developed records. What observations and measurements did we make then without any record except the memory of an individual, and would the observations have eventually presented a situation where it became advantageous to record them a better way, i.e. externally. And how would we have observed it? What ideas were available, and then what would a "primitive" mind make of modern-day observations, would they be able to 'see' them? How would they compare (if they noticed anything) the observation with their "usual" set? Things like that. Or you could consider what sort of observations (of time, distance, motion of objects, warmth, etc) a species other than humans makes of its world. In short, what do we really observe when we measure the world?

Why is "thermal energy" a different thing from heat?