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.

  Likewise just because the fundamental forces are mediated by energy
doesn't necessarily mean that the forces are energy.

  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).

> > (Another point which would indicate that information is not
> > energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but information can.)

> Actually, there's good reason to think information cannot be destroyed. 
> That's what lead to postulating the holographic principle and hawking 
> radiation. The basic problem is that the QM theories preserve certain kinds 
> of information that GR does not, so matter falling into a black hole 
> violates quantum mechanics in a very fundamental way.

  I think in physics "information" is defined in terms of entropy, and as
we know, entropy varies.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

bart <bar### [at] homeorg> wrote:
>  >  What else?
> pure consciousness?

  What is that? How do you define it? How do you measure it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/2010 2:59 PM, Warp wrote:

> >
> >    What else?
> >

> Entropy :D

  If I'm not completely mistaken, information (in physics) is defined in
terms of entropy, so they are just describing the same property of energy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/3/2010 10:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 11/2/2010 2:59 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>>>
>>>     What else?
>>>
>
>> Entropy :D
>
>    If I'm not completely mistaken, information (in physics) is defined in
> terms of entropy, so they are just describing the same property of energy.
>

That's what I was thinking ... A bit tongue-in-cheek.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> 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