 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/224/
Well, I didn't ask what it was made *with*, but what is it made *of*.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> What about the four fundamental interactions? Are they energy, or are
>>> they some property of the Universe distinct from energy?
>
>> They're energy in the sense that they're mass in the sense that they're
>> mediated by particles (assuming one finds gravitons, at least). The electric
>> force is photons interacting with electrons, for example, both of which are
>> energy.
>
> Isn't that like saying "sound is matter"? Sound is transported by matter,
> sound isn't matter in itself. Sound is a phenomenon.
Sound is made out of matter. The electric field force is an emergent
property of the interactions between electric charge and photons. I think if
you're going to disagree that sound is made out of matter, then it's a
question of semantics you're asking, unrelated to the universe at large.
> Likewise just because the fundamental forces are mediated by energy
> doesn't necessarily mean that the forces are energy.
"Force" is an emergent measurement. It's not an actual thing. It's a
statistic. Just like the acceleration you feel sitting in your chair isn't
a thing, it's an effect caused by the earth and your butt taking convergent
paths through space-time.
> I'm not saying the fundamental forces are not a form of energy, I'm simply
> wondering if they are (because I'm not a phycisist and I don't know).
Electrons repel each other because their statistical interaction with
photons they create is such that they're more likely to wind up farther away
from each other than closer to each other. The "force" is the fact that we
can measure this.
> I think in physics "information" is defined in terms of entropy, and as
> we know, entropy varies.
There's also "information" like "what color is this quark" or "how much
charge does this object hold" that don't disappear. That's why black holes
rotate: angular momentum is a form of information that doesn't disappear.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>> What about the four fundamental interactions? Are they energy, or are
> >>> they some property of the Universe distinct from energy?
> >
> >> They're energy in the sense that they're mass in the sense that they're
> >> mediated by particles (assuming one finds gravitons, at least). The electric
> >> force is photons interacting with electrons, for example, both of which are
> >> energy.
> >
> > Isn't that like saying "sound is matter"? Sound is transported by matter,
> > sound isn't matter in itself. Sound is a phenomenon.
> Sound is made out of matter. The electric field force is an emergent
> property of the interactions between electric charge and photons. I think if
> you're going to disagree that sound is made out of matter, then it's a
> question of semantics you're asking, unrelated to the universe at large.
That's like saying that text is just ink and paper. Text is more than
that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's like saying that text is just ink and paper. Text is more than
> that.
But text isn't a "thing" independent of the ink and paper. It's a pattern
and its relationship to human thought processes. Similarly, the
electrostatic force isn't a "thing", so asking what it's made out of isn't
really reasonable, beyond the answer "it's made out of the stuff that the
parts are made out of."
It's like asking "what is arithmetic made out of?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > That's like saying that text is just ink and paper. Text is more than
> > that.
> But text isn't a "thing" independent of the ink and paper. It's a pattern
> and its relationship to human thought processes. Similarly, the
> electrostatic force isn't a "thing", so asking what it's made out of isn't
> really reasonable, beyond the answer "it's made out of the stuff that the
> parts are made out of."
> It's like asking "what is arithmetic made out of?"
Would you agree that the information portrayed by the text exists?
We know the information exists because of the causality effects it can
produce. The outcome of events can be affected by the information that
is portrayed by the text.
If something exists in this universe, then it is part of it, and hence
the universe is made of it (among other things).
Also, if information exists, it cannot be the same thing as energy
because information can be created and destroyed (or, more specifically,
the amount of information can be changed, as it's basically tied to
entropy, while the amount of energy cannot, as it stays constant).
Hence there exists at least two different things in the universe:
Energy and information, and they are not the same thing.
The third thing I postulated that exists, and which is neither energy
nor information, is timespace. You would agree that timespace exists.
The only other question is whether timespace is distinct from energy.
As far as I can see, it is (although my arguments of why I think so
are admittedly less thought-out and thus weaker).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>bart <bar### [at] homeorg> wrote:
>> > > What else?
>> > pure consciousness?
>
> What is that?
You know what is that, everyone does.
>How do you define it?
The one can feel it as a kind of "self-existence".
>How do you measure it?
Perhaps, it is the main goal of this experiment with
the evolution of living creatures as tools for that exact purpose
- to find a way to measure it?
The answer "the U. was made of itself" rises another question:
what was originally used to separate one part of the U from the other?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Would you agree that the information portrayed by the text exists?
Now you have to define "exists." :-)
The text "exists" only because I look at it and the light from the ink and
paper stimulates the neurons in my brain into a different pattern. The
information represented by the text does not "exist" if there's nobody to
read it.
> We know the information exists because of the causality effects it can
> produce. The outcome of events can be affected by the information that
> is portrayed by the text.
Sure, in some sense. The arrangement of the atoms of ink and paper have a
surprisingly large causal effect when they are (for example) a declaration
of war. I don't know that you can say the *information* exists independent
of the text, for example.
> If something exists in this universe, then it is part of it, and hence
> the universe is made of it (among other things).
>
> Also, if information exists, it cannot be the same thing as energy
> because information can be created and destroyed (or, more specifically,
> the amount of information can be changed, as it's basically tied to
> entropy, while the amount of energy cannot, as it stays constant).
Entropy is order, not information.
> Hence there exists at least two different things in the universe:
> Energy and information, and they are not the same thing.
From lots of stuff I've read, information can't actually disappear. Or, to
put it another way, the "information" measured by entropy is only
"information of interest".
Certainly if you take a dynamic but deterministic system, like perfect balls
bouncing around inside a perfect box, and you start with all the balls on
one side and none on the other, entropy will increase even tho there is no
state of the box you cannot deduce from looking at any two moments of state.
QM does have a concept of "information" as well, and it's a symmetry (i.e.,
it might change form but the total amount stays the same). Indeed, that
gives rise to one or the other of the conservation laws that everyone accepts.
> The third thing I postulated that exists, and which is neither energy
> nor information, is timespace. You would agree that timespace exists.
My understanding is that spacetime (aka timespace ;-) doesn't actually
exist, and the lack of its existence is the difference between SR and GR. If
you reformulate special relativity in such a way that you don't have a
"background" coordinate system but only the interactions between what's
there, you get GR. (I may be misunderstanding this, tho.)
> The only other question is whether timespace is distinct from energy.
> As far as I can see, it is (although my arguments of why I think so
> are admittedly less thought-out and thus weaker).
I think that it's more a question of definitions than facts. :-) We have
names for all sorts of things that don't exist in the way they're defined,
like "meaning".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> >bart <bar### [at] homeorg> wrote:
> >> > > What else?
> >> > pure consciousness?
> >
> > What is that?
> You know what is that, everyone does.
I don't know about "pure" consciousness. It's pretty easy to understand what
self-awareness is, and hence get an idea of what consciousness is.
> >How do you define it?
> The one can feel it as a kind of "self-existence".
That's self-awareness, not consciousness.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> >How do you define it?
>> The one can feel it as a kind of "self-existence".
>
> That's self-awareness, not consciousness.
>
Probably a question of terminology;
here these terms were considered as synonyms
(pure consciousness = self-awareness, nothing more, no structures)
as in one of the definitions of consciousness on the Web:
"an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your
situation".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> >> >How do you define it?
> >> The one can feel it as a kind of "self-existence".
> >
> > That's self-awareness, not consciousness.
> >
> Probably a question of terminology;
> here these terms were considered as synonyms
> (pure consciousness = self-awareness, nothing more, no structures)
> as in one of the definitions of consciousness on the Web:
> "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your
> situation".
I think you can be conscious without being self-aware. I'm pretty sure that,
for example, chickens would be considered conscious, even tho they're
probably not self-aware.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
