Re: Geometry and G-d...
"Cha Cha, La La La. Cha Cha, La La La. Boom boom, shaka laka, boom boom." That's just the sound of Creedo in the background learning his new dance steps. My error, I told him to learn the Maramba. Obviously I meant for him to learn the hip, new Latin dance craze, the Roomba. It's got a heavy vacuum AI beat to it! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
And speaking of dancing, Trollface, are you ready to do some more? You've been keeping up so far, but I am about to mix in another beat. Just to make sure you're on your toes. MmmmmmKay?
The paddles would lose no efficiency because they would still be moving water backwards - still doing the same amount of work, however that work would not be being translated into forwards motion of the steamer because my hand would be preventing it.
I've been waiting to see if you were going to change, further explain, or qualify this little bit of analysis. Maybe I should be a sport and give you the chance to do so, before I inject that new, hot, latin beat into your dance programme? Want to say anything with respect to what you've typed here, especially with regard to the mathematical definitions of Work, and, ohhhh, maybe also the definition of Heat?
Creating the snowflake is the act of creation.
So now you presume to be able to define the boundaries of Creation? Gee, only a God has full purview to do that. I mean, in a real, as opposed to your hypothetical sense of what you are saying. The final event of the appearance of the snowflake does NOT constitute the sum-total of creation. Creation includes the Energy, Entropy, and Enthalpy of all the processes that lead up to it, as well as the physical mechanism that makes it possible. Creation is the one constant in this universe, and it is simply not as limited as you say with your words.
This is an autonomous system, ergo the act of creation is not proof of intelligence.
It is when you don't ignore certain elements of systemic energy and entropy, which your definitions and limitations on creation do. By drawing your boundary to only the final act of the snowflake's creation, you are excluding other energetic elements that permit and lead-up to that final event. This is your crucial, crucial error in not understanding the maths, nor the applications, that I am describing. I've said it before, and it is a large clue to what I am talking about, and it is also a pertinent statement, thermodynamically: There is no such thing as a "closed system, sufficiently far away from thermal equilibrium". That is because of the ultimate interconnecteness of all energetic processes in the universe. This means, the fundamental basis for current theories of entropy, which use this in their definition, are based on an incorrect assumption.
If I programme my computer to randomly assign notes to 15 bars, and then save that off as a song, then leave it doing that while I go out, I cannot claim to have composed those songs. I did not create them, my computer did. If I set my alarm-clock to go off at 5 in the morning, when it sounds, I am not creating the sound, my alarm clock is.
Don't you realize how silly that reads, especially when I bold your key arguments? Would you like a nice glass of wine, Troll, maybe to calm you down and re-think this? You say you programmed your computer to do something, and then you deny that you had any hand in the computers creation? That is precisely what you are saying in the above words, and it is...well, pretty contradictory, if not the result of some really sloppy thinking, pardner.
You seem to think that Creation can be sliced-up and limited to nice little, organized and manageable packets. Like individually-wrapped cheese slices that you put on your cumcumber and tomato sandwiches. Surely you must know that analysis of continuum mechanics does not permit you to say "creation starts here and stops there."
In fact, in both of yor examples above, you are not only part of the eventual Creation (computer song and alarm sound), but you can easily be seen to be the "Uber-Creator". Or some other words we use to identify higher-level creative processes would be "Prime Mover". Ever heard it called "First Cause"? Well, I've got some news for you sonnyboy, each and every "Uber-creator" process that leads to later physical results possesses levels of Energy and Entropy that it applies in the Chain of Creation. You can't only analyze and describe what you call the "direct" part of creation. For when you do, and you ignore the Energy and Entropy effects that went into you creating the programme, and some factory creating the alarm clock, you are NOT accounting for part of the energetic effects that lead to the final result. That is a no-no, and you would receive major points off in any of my engineering courses for leaving energy terms out of your system analysis. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
It was an example of the same type of logical fallacy, not what I was directly claiming Rainman was saying. I outlined his reasoning quite clearly.
The hell you did. That's pretty much a stinking pile of BS. What you did is change my words. What you did was respond to a re-shaping of my words and thoughts that you created. You did not responsd to my actual words.
And look, I am sick of you constantly exhibiting your hipocrasy on this matter. You change my words by offering your "logical equivalents" to what I am saying, and then you wave-off the plain fact that you changed my words. Yes, you did. And then, when I do the same thing...I change the words you state, to describe what I hear you saying, you whine like a wounded little lamby. Therefore, from this moment on, when I see you stating words other than what I am saying, I will point them out, kind of like that little "debating tactic" phase we went through awhile back. I mean, it is only fair, since you are the one whining about me not responding to the exact words you use. So I will stop you whenever you twist my words. K?
My point is that just because something contains information does not make it sysnonymous with that information.
Stop. Well, we really didn't get very far, did we? Please tell me who, other than you, said or is claiming this? I surely didn't. Just as I would not claim that just because something contains mass means that it is synonymous with that mass. The fact that you want to argue this point is more evidence that you do not understand the maths, or the physics, when I discuss closed-loop and non-linear system concepts.
So, just because energy can contain information, it doesn't mean that the terms "energy" and "information" are therefore interchangable.
So here is one of your logical fallacies, that is incorrect. It may not mean the TERMS "energy" and "information" are interchangeable, but that is only a facet of language. For we know from past experience, measurements, and product developments that indeed, energy and information are interchangeable. And I have given many examples to prove your belief wrong. In fact, one could easily claim that a primary description of my job is to "design systems that use information to reduce their total energy requirements." In other words, I am putting into practice in developing more advanced (smarter) air vehicles the principle which you deny exists above. I use the relationship between Information and Energy to create a more efficient system.
Proof is in the pudding: Take any physical aircraft in combination with its engines. If there are no closed-loop, internal control systems on this air vehicle, it could still be flown. It would still accomplish its mission. However, the total fuel burn data would clearly show how much Energy that airplane required to accomplish that reference mission. Now, the only thing we will change about this airframe is that we will install an integrated, computer-based information processing system. In fact, on the project I am now working on (Unmanned Combat Air System), we call this the Vehicle Management System. It has been shown that doing this results in significant fuel savings. And, uhhh, that's Energy pal. All we did was add lots of closed-loop, intelligent, information processing systems to the vehicle, and we have a measured reduction in total Energy required to operate he system.
How's that Irish Jig of yours? Are you gonna do me a little dance with that one, Trollface? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Because you are obviously incorrect in your thoughts about the interchangeability of information and energy. I told you I was an expert in these things. But you want to keep on believing I don't know what I am talking about, when it is quite clear I do. I analyze, design, and implement closed-loop control systems, and I have studied non-linear mathematics quite a bit. My knowledge in this area, and its link to thermodynamics that I keep talking about, is a bit deeper than yours, I'd say. But beyond that, we can just look at the fact that many companies produce physical systems that falsify your belief about energy and information.
Yes, in your case, the hidden information was put there intentionally. That still doesn't mean that any messages found in religious texts were.
Keep your mind thinking...don't cut it off there. Now I want you to consider if the messages found in such texts align and correspond with physical and scientific principles that we have verified over the past 100 years, and with principles we are finding out about today (e.g. Dark Energy, Dark Matter). The more such messages correlate to "how the universe really is", the higher the probability that those messages WERE put there intentionally. Exactly the same as OvrLrd placing his hidden messages in his posts.
If you codify the truth in a "hidden code" within a message, and someone several millenia from now uncovers those codes, and can see how they align to physical truths, why would it be more reasonable to believe they are just an accident?
RMT
