Posted on 06/23/2007 12:21:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
dougd: wellll ... if an [i]norganic system could, would it not be a 'living organism'?
I think the answer is: Maybe. It seems there are two major indices of "life": (1) the ability to store and access free energy; and (2) intelligence in some form. If a rock had these capabilities, perhaps then it really would be "alive."
WRT your second point, "To say 'everything is "life" demeans "life"'": One could just as easily say that "everything is life" dignifies the everything. But I know of no way to "prove" either statement; so they must remain in the domain of "opinion."
The idea of a living cosmos has a very long heritage, going back at least to Plato, who said that the cosmos is a ensouled living being possessing intelligence. But then, Plato was no scientist. To me, this could simply be interpreted as saying that the universe is "primed for life."
Putting on my "philosopher's hat," however, I deeply appreciate Plato's insight.
Thank you so much for writing, dougd.
Forgive me dougd, but it seems to me a proper analogy would hold that it's the swarm or colony of ants or bees that is the "organism," not the hive structure, which is the shelter, not the "body," of the colony. And it seems the queen would be part of that organism. Maybe I'm still not following you. Maybe try another analogy?
You wrote, "When you say all fields, I infer a conception that there can be no other fields wherein data and process are not separate and distinct - the kind of blindness which limits inquiry, understanding and discovery."
FWIW it seems to me that, although separate and distinct, data and process are co-extensive. You need both to get anything done; but they are not the same things. (Maybe I'm just suffering from the sort of blindness that you allege. However, I'm not so blind that I disparage "inquiry, understanding and discovery." Not at all!)
In any case, Shannon information theory is a tool, not an ontological statement.
Thank you so much for writing, dougd!
The "ether" may be making a comeback. To me, it is just the 19th-century name for the universal zero-point vacuum field of 21st-century physics.
In the natural sciences, so much has changed and is changing. I think we're due for a "paradigm shift" whose seeds were planted in the first decades of the 20th-century....
I'm just fascinated by all this.
Thank you so much for writing!
well, actually I was sort of conflating the structure and the swarm. I am presuming that the group 'hive' as defined (in the sense of 'enclosed by') the structure is analogous to our epidermis of our 'swarm' of cells. Destroying the structure of a hive scatters the swarm putting an end to the 'hive' as an 'organism' - assuming we agree that a swarm is in itself some sort 'organism' grouping of 'organisms' (a 'body' of 'cells) - .... but anyway, at this point I think I am close to pushing an analogy that obviously doesn't work for you, which is not the purpose of the analogy.
I shall try to implement your advice to conceive another that may communicate my counter to your 'aversion' (how is 'aversion' derived from 'aver' ??? strange how language convolutes over time) to considering DNA as being 'alive'
data and process ... are not the same things
... but perhaps they can be in some cases. I gave hosepipe an extremely simplified example of the set of words {FIRST LAST} which are an ordered set of 'data' as well as 'processing 'instructions' to transform itself into a data set {LAST FIRST} which in turns instructs a self processing to the set {FIRST LAST}.
Note that this example considers the pair of words to be instructions. It is also possible to consider each word an independant instruction such as {3 1 2} meaning the first datum instructs "replace 'this' with the 3rd item"; the second means "replace this with the 1st item" etc. which leads to the circular 'evolution' or 'self mutation' [{312} -> {231} -> {312} ... ], but other orderings lead to {123} which is unchanging, static, and in a sense 'death' or to one of {111}, {222}, {333} {122}, {133} etc. which are also static/death. In fact most orderings lead to 'death' and just a few cycle endlessly through a finite set of permutations
Anyway, I hope these simplistic examples illustrate an 'information processing' system in which "data is process; process is data" which I conjecture is how DNA and a neural system 'operate.' More importantly, such a system is extremely 'rich' - perhaps even 'more than the sum of its parts' in that changing even a single 'word' or transposing a single 'pair of words' leads to entirely different sequences - a kind of 'butterfly effect' on the whole 'paragraph'
Thanks again for writing!
We were speaking of null paths per se - no time passes for the object traveling at the speed of the light. If your twins are both traveling at the speed of light, neither experience time passing at all. At the end of their journey, they are the same age as when they began.
Possibly,but my understanding of ZPE is that it is part of the EM spectrum (beyond gamma rays), rather than something that mediates the EM spectrum as was the concept of an 'ether' - though perhaps 'ZP energy' is distinct from 'ZP field' as you referred to. ???
Truly, God is Light - and His first command was "let there be light."
I do not see this as a coincidence, nor the fact that sound waves are recorded in the cosmic microwave background radiation at the moment "when the universe had cooled enough so that photons could “decouple” from electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way." (The universe may be flat, but it is musical.
I have to admit that this is a new interpretation of special relativity from that with which I am familiar.
It was my understanding that something 'traveling at the speed of light' (which speed is only relative to an observer) is observed to be static in time. Just as their 'mass' is 'observed' to become infinite and length 'observed' to be zero. Your interpretation would indicate such a twin experiences no time, is infinitely massive and is 'compressed' into a 2 dimensional being his/her own point of view. ?????
Rather, I thought the 'traveling' twin, in their own frame of reference obeserved nothing unusual about their own situation, but observes the twin 'left behind,' who to them seems to be travelling 'at the speed of light,' is similarly timeless, infinitely massive and 2 dimensional.
I think the confusion arises from the 'resolution' that it is the twin who 'moved away' is the one doesn't age and therefore doesn't really experience time' But that's not what the math says. It is a paradox because neither one can tell which of them 'moved away' and reaches the speed of light. i.e. there is no absolute frame of reference. The supposed 'resolution' says "well, if your experience includes an acceleration, then it is your observation which s false." The trouble is, "acceleration" isn't a part of the math, so that 'resolution' isn't a mathematical explanation of the 'paradox' Worse, as I pointed out, if indeed acceleration is a factor in 'resolving' the paradox, then why not consider 'gravity' as equally nullifying 'truth' according to general relativity equivalence of the two ?
The real resolution is that acceleration - like gravity - is a bending of space/time or more like producing an alternate curvature of space time. Whether 'exisiting' in space/time curvature A or space/time curvature B, all appears perfectly normal over that curvature, while not quite normal outside that local curvature. The 'speed of light' is really nothing more than a 'bent' region of space time which is 'perpendicular' to another region from which it is 'observed'. The only question is in which 'curvature' the twins are reunited. If twin 1 travels from region A to region B and is later followed by twin 2, they will find they have both aged equally - not that neither has aged at all. However, travelling from region A to region B and back to A again ... OR from B to A to B again does nullify the time spent in the interim region. i.e. The passage of time in B IS NOT OBSERVABLE from region A nor the passage of time in region A observable from B - but time does not disappear in either one - they are just perpendicular to each other, out of view, beyond the horizon.
I'm not sure if that helps, but I think the idea of regions whose time dimensions are mutually perpendicular, but otherwise not unusual in any way might help understanding special relativity. It is like the 'event' horizon of a black hole which is nothing more than the circumference where the bending of space time becomes perpendicular to an observer sufficiently distant from that mass. Within that 'horizon' it is the rest of space time which appears to be a 'black hole' and 'beyond their 'event horizon'
Shannon’s Mathematical Theory of Communications concerns the processing of signals. In that regard, the information is the action not the message and therefore is portable to many applications including computing and molecular biology (pharmaceutical and cancer research.) More specifically, as mentioned before information is the reduction of uncertainty (or Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.
The formula for Shannon entropy is similar to thermodynamics – and the thermodynamic tab is paid by the dissipation of heat in the molecular machine as it goes from a before state to an after state.
The components in Shannon's model include sender, message, encoder, channel, noise, decoder, receiver.
Component functions in computing, on the other hand, are input, output, process and database. The “message” may be input via interrupt, input via cycle or derived from the database. And except for those processes which are hard-wired, the message itself may be “soft” instructions (“software”) which then affect the processing.
Herein we have a parallel to the DNA encoding. It also may be seen as containing a set of instructions, altering the process itself.
Nevertheless, when a message of any type is no longer being communicated successfully the cell, or functional subsystem of the organism, or organism or collective – is dead. And if it could never communicate successfully it is non-life in nature.
This of course is only speaking of things which occur in nature. Computers are not alive in this sense – neither are robots or artificial intelligences.
But using information to define “what is life v non-life/death” in nature accommodates any non-carbon based life forms we might run into in our space exploration.
As to soul and spirit, I echo betty boop’s remarks – science does not have the necessary “tools” to address these issues. They are more appropriately in the domain of theology and philosophy and metaphysics.
But math and science can go a very long way indeed on answering the origin questions before arriving at a point they must “give up.”
2. Origin of life.
3. Origin of inertia.
4. Origin of information.
5. Origin of conscience (sense of right v wrong, good v evil, etc.)
6. Origin of consciousness.
Figuring acceleration into it seems to alter the results. The implied premise seems to invole an instantaneous, or nearly so, acceleration to near light-speed and back. Under those condidions it would seem that the "traveling" twin will return, aged or not, at best a puddle of goo.
That theory seems to render matter as an information sink.
Another word needs definition.. "Speed".. as in the speed of light.. Speed implies linear-ness... Is speed a 3rd/4th dimensional attribute?.. or what?..
True thats why Mega-phors, Micro-phors, and Macro-phors even Mini-phors are figures of speech in that dialect.. (in my understanding).. The Bible is the only place I know where metaphor is used in this way.. (prophectic prose and metacouplets}
Please clarify.
Indeed, the terms velocity or acceleration or speed or momentum could be explored further.
Christ certainly hid many spiritual truths in plain site by using parables. And the prophesies are rich in metaphors.
Matter receives and retains information, and under the right circumstances, will emit it.
Good morning dougd!
May well be an excellent conjecture; possibly DNA does work this way. But this begs the question: What is the source of the instructions, or program?
Thanks so much for writing, dougd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.