E=MC^2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 12-19-2004, 01:24 PM

This is just a brief musing that I have time and again and is not original or new.

It also relates somewhat to Artelevision's thread on intelligence in the Universe.

Have you ever pondered this equation and it's theological implications?

Consider that Einstein's simple equation means that the self aware beings that are writing and reading this are coalesced energy that has somehow managed to organize itself to this state.

Since our thoughts are manifestations of this matter/energy in the form of electrical impulses dancing among neurons and are thus energy itself, is it unreasonable to posit a being for whom the organization and self awareness exists but without have to have been condensed to a matter state?

What would such a being be capable of doing?

1010011010 · 12-19-2004, 09:55 PM

I think it was Shannon or Wiener...

Anyway, in a similar bit of mental masturbation, they had their readers perform a thought experiment in which it is slowly laid out how a rainstorm can be viewed as an information store (I.E. information is encoded based on the precise positions of individual raindrops at a given instance in time) or as a computational engine (I.E. as raindrops change position, information processing is occurring).

I'm pretty sure it's in The Human Use of Human Beings. I've been looking for the original essay, but I've had no luck so far.

tiberry · 12-20-2004, 03:03 AM

http://a.parsons.edu/~steck/2004/10/...an-beings.html

http://www.technomanifestos.net/inde...f_Human_Beings

You probably already have these, but they're a good jumping off point.

Consider for a moment if we are but just one unimaginably tiny component of a larger universal entity - one that by its very nature cannot be observed (to do so would require an observation point outside the universe...

Kind of along the lines of what Art is getting at I think.

ARTelevision · 12-20-2004, 06:41 AM

I'm thinking this through and will have a comment at some point, I'm sure.

The thing is, I'm reluctant to go much farther in my own speculation because I see how difficult it is for people to even accept the fact that we - as intelligent beings - are proof positive that "intelligence is a part of the universe."

The kind of resistance to accepting this most simple formulation does stun me - although I see us making some real progress here in this Forum and that may be historic in itself!

martinguerre · 12-20-2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I'm thinking this through and will have a comment at some point, I'm sure.

The thing is, I'm reluctant to go much farther in my own speculation because I see how difficult it is for people to even accept the fact that we - as intelligent beings - are proof positive that "intelligence is a part of the universe."

The kind of resistance to accepting this most simple formulation does stun me - although I see us making some real progress here in this Forum and that may be historic in itself!

i'm not sure that there isn't a confusion on what you mean. I read "intelligence is a part of the universe" to mean that there is a quailty that is active outside of individual instances of intelligence. you make it clear that you aren't referring to a "god" like being...but that's what i read it as. Lebell's material as well...isntantly conjures the concept of diety.

i could say "blue is a part of the universe" since there are instances of blue. in that sense, yes, you're correct. If i wanted to say that there was a fundamental blueness to the universe...i'd be on different ground.

ARTelevision · 12-20-2004, 01:32 PM

From me to the rest of you, it's a question - nothing more. I make some statements because I see it a certain way. But I'm most interested in pursuing it through dialog here.

And considering that it is ourselves - imbued with this quality, indeed suffused with it - who ask the question, I do expect the answer to be something that should reflect this situation and not something that requires belief in the myth of "objectivity"...

ARTelevision · 12-20-2004, 01:37 PM

...as to the fundamental blueness of the universe, blue is defined as the perception of certain wavelengths of light - electromagnetic radiation. It's not a long shot to go from blue to an intrinsic component of the universe. I don't see intelligence as being much different than the example of "blueness" actually.

martinguerre · 12-20-2004, 02:18 PM

see...what i'm objecting most to is the way in which it seems that a spiritual type observation is getting shuffled in to science.

those of us on the boards that are theists, specifically Christians, have made a great effort to distinguish what we know, and what is the mystery of faith.

i go from "love" to "Love"

you're going from "intelligence" to "Intelligence"

this, from my eyes, is the same genre of question. what is logically provable? what is the mystery of faith? my example was poorly worded...i chose blue nearly at random, but the issue of it being both a color and range of EM radiation confuses the issue.

there are tables. everywhere it seems. we make them, the earth makes platous. there are instances of tables. tables are a part of our universe. is there a "table" principle written in the laws of physics? is there a fundamental "tableness" to the universe?

i realize that the example is absurd, and i don't mean it as a slight. i just wanted to pick something that was very one-definitional.

just be honest about the assumptions involved....all i really ask.

ARTelevision · 12-20-2004, 05:07 PM

Well, in just about every post here - especially in ones where I introduced my interest in the topic, I have taken great pains to state as clearly as possible that I am interested in this as a non-theistic notion. That's about all I can do. A thorough reading of the threads I've posted to about "intelligence" should make that clear. At least, I hope it makes my intention clear. That being said, I'm quite aware of how many of the responses to my posts in these threads seem to infer theistic or god-type assertions. That's what I've been spending my time responding to, in the main here.

fckm · 12-20-2004, 05:57 PM

I'm not sure what it means for something to exist as energy. Energy is a property of Matter. Matter has energy. You can't be energy. That doesn't make sense. The only time the term "Energy" has any significance, is when matter interacts with other forms of matter.
The thoughts in our brain isn't "Energy", it's electrons moving around, chemicals reacting with other chemicals, particles creating fields influencing other particles. It doesn't make any sense to talk about "a being made of pure energy". No offense, but people watch too much Star Trek, and don't take enough physics classes.

martinguerre · 12-20-2004, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Well, in just about every post here - especially in ones where I introduced my interest in the topic, I have taken great pains to state as clearly as possible that I am interested in this as a non-theistic notion. That's about all I can do. A thorough reading of the threads I've posted to about "intelligence" should make that clear. At least, I hope it makes my intention clear. That being said, I'm quite aware of how many of the responses to my posts in these threads seem to infer theistic or god-type assertions. That's what I've been spending my time responding to, in the main here.

understood. i get it that you don't want to think about this in God terms. but what i'm saying is that you have the exact same problems, theistic or not. You're taking a pattern and inferring a cause.

What if we are the only intelligence around? Or us and some other folks chilling on the opposite sides of the galaxy? These instances in no way logically demand a pattern or intrinsic quality to the universe that's "Intelligence."

/sorry lebell...this is thread jackage. maybe move it back to art's thread?

ARTelevision · 12-21-2004, 04:29 AM

If we are the only intelligence around?

Then we have a couple of problems. The first, of course, would be this myth of objectivity that we promulgate. We'd get better explanations of things by including that absolutely unique quality in all of our conceptualizations - especially those that are attempts to describe the world, since this totally unique quality we have is the instrumentality we use to quantify and qualify it.

If we aren't the only animal with intelligence, then the most fascinating question for me is where exactly in the material world does this arise? I've addressed this in a previous post.

In general, the issue does remain as a central and crucial concern. Either it is the very definition of ourselves - in which case our measurements should be known as "intelligent inches" and "intelligent pounds," etc. Because as I said, not including the metric in one's measurements promotes a false premise of objectivity. We wouldn't want to think that the world we are describing would be the same world without our intelligence-based perception of it. We tend to do this now and it gets us into all sorts of trouble. We end up having to invent non-observables, such as "dark matter," and populate the majority of the universe with it in order to make our schemes work out, etc.

Again, to not make the actual tool we use to measure things integral to our measurements and descriptions of things does not seem an enlightened method of description at all. To my way of thinking it seems only blindly anthropocentric.

Finally, if we are the only place where intelligence resides, then we'd darn better be calling our desription of the universe "intelligent"

A universe described by man must be called an intelligent universe. To think otherwise is to suffer from hubris.

Lak · 12-21-2004, 06:25 AM

Hmmm, not sure about this one. I don't really know enough string thoery, but it seems to me that its not totally implausable to have some particles of energy interact in a way that represents the interaction of matter particles. If, after all, matter does exist on spectrum the same way electromagnetic energy does, as in string theory, then perhaps this is true, however fantasically unstable such a being might be.
I think that if I were a being made of energy particles, I should be very, very careful not to annihilate myself on passing x rays.

Lebell · 12-21-2004, 08:22 AM

fckm,

No offense, but I've been through phys1&2 and am a trained scientist

and I think maybe you missed my point.

First, energy isn't a property of matter like mass or velocity, Einstein clearly showed us that they ARE THE SAME THING, much as ice and steam are the same thing. Matter can certainly have different energetic states, but that doesn't detract from the original supposition.

12-21-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

What would such a being be capable of doing?

Very little i would guess - at least in terms of things that me might be able to observe. Matter may be a condensed form of energy, but it is far more diverse in how it manifests and interacts with other forms of energy and matter. Energy itself is much more uniform, and less able to interact in as many ways. If this is the case, and intelligence is a function of complexity, then a being composed of energy would have to be stretched out over a much vaster area than one composed of matter in order to share the same order of complexity. The problem with this is that most energy patterns dissipate in an inversely proportionate manner so any inter-reacting energy sources are unlikely to have a strong enough effect on one-another to perform any form of useful feedback function. In addition, any new sources of energy would be highly disruptive to such a being and cause further functional problems.

The long and short of it is I don't think such a being could exist, and if it did, it would be a delicate whispy fog stretched out over the gulfs of space with very little capability of manipulating the physical world.

N.B. I've been a bit glib here in using the word complexity as if all that's needed for a functioning being is a complex enough bunch of interacting units - I'm not saying it's necessarily the *only* thing, but I do think it is most definately a pre-requisite.

fckm · 12-21-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

fckm,

No offense, but I've been through phys1&2 and am a trained scientist

and I think maybe you missed my point.

First, energy isn't a property of matter like mass or velocity, Einstein clearly showed us that they ARE THE SAME THING, much as ice and steam are the same thing. Matter can certainly have different energetic states, but that doesn't detract from the original supposition.

Einstein showed us that Mass has energy simply by having Mass. Mass and energy are equivilant. In a sense, we are beings of pure energy. Since Mass is energy...

What I meant was that energy doesn't interact with energy. Matter interacts with other matter, during which things like energy and momentum exchange. I'm not sure what energy is, all by itself. What does it mean to have "some energy" just floating around? You can have photons, which have energy, but photons are particles. You can have electrons, which have kinetic/potential energy, and rest mass energy. But how can you just have "energy"?

stingc · 12-21-2004, 02:58 PM

First of all, E=mc^2 does not apply in all situations (depending on how you make your definitions). Second, mass is not matter. It takes much more to describe matter than its mass. Mass is a property of matter. Energy is also a property of matter.

There is no such thing as "pure energy." Fields (such as the electromagnetic one) carry energy and are usually not considered to be matter, but they once again require much more than their energy to describe them. So they cannot be called pure energy either.

fckm · 12-22-2004, 07:52 AM

I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 does apply in all situations.
I'm aware that mass isn't matter. The standard model is pretty incomplete, but I take matter to mean any combination of the elemetary particles.
My point is that "Energy" doesn't exist outside of interactions between "matter". The term "pure energy" isn't part of a physicist's vocabulary.
Why is mc^2 considered energy? Because mathematically, it must be taken into account to comply with energy conservation. "Energy" is a term that is used to describe a specific property of some object; it's a mathematically useful tool in calculating the interactions between objects. E=mc^2 is simply Einstein's revelation that to achieve energy conservation, you have to take into account the object's rest mass when undergoing a lorentz transformation.
Thus, in my oppinion, it doesn't make any sense to have a being of "pure energy". The term is not scientifically valid.

EDIT: i see that stingc is replying to Lebell. oops

roachboy · 12-22-2004, 08:25 AM

i assume that the equation of relativity theory to matters theological operates by associations grouped around the term "energy", yes?

a autobio moment: i work in improvisational music, which is all about the focussing of what is called energy for a lack of a better term. the explanations for this kind of work tend to run toward metaphysics simply because it involves modes of functioning that otherwise have no available coherent vocabulary built around them. from the outset, this verbal slippage made me uncomfortable, for a host of reasons that started with not corresponding to how i understood what was going on to trivializing the whole undertaking by quarantining it in a peculiar social space. i do not think religious terminologies either stage or explain much of anything, either about what happens in this type of performance space, or more generally about questions pertaining to "energy"---what they do is recapitulate the extent to which these matters have been marginalized by western philosophy since the late 18th century (only to be occaisionally recuperated by fascists here and there under doctrines of vitalism, etc.)--that this happens points more to the limtiations of that phiosophical tradition than they do to the necessary link between this kind of matter and religious discourse/patterns of thought.

so my answer to something of what lebell posted at the outset:

Quote:

Since our thoughts are manifestations of this matter/energy in the form of electrical impulses dancing among neurons and are thus energy itself, is it unreasonable to posit a being for whom the organization and self awareness exists but without have to have been condensed to a matter state?

within religious discourse, it is not unreasonable.
but that discourse is itself unnecessary
so it is not necessary that thinking about this kind of question run you in this direction.

1010011010 · 12-22-2004, 09:00 AM

How is E=mc² actually used?

The only time I've ever used it is when converting between gamma eV to mass defects or vice versa. Does it has some other more mystical uses?

Drayab · 12-23-2004, 12:03 AM

E=mc^2 is usually used to find out how much energy is released/required in a given high energy reaction. There's nothing mystical about that.

On the question of beings made of pure energy, I doubt that could happen. There aren't any particles with zero mass that I can think of that could be used to make anything intelligent because intelligent things are complicated and they hang around a long time. Generally speaking, particles with zero mass travel at the speed of light and I doubt you could convince them to hang around long enough to build a sentient being out of them.

Nope. I don't think it could happen. It's an interesting thought, though.

fckm · 12-23-2004, 07:48 AM

E=MC^2 is used in two ways
1) At relativistic velocities, E=MC^2 is used to maintain invariance in the momentum-energy four vector.

2) In fission or fusion reactions, where mass is converted to energy, it is used to calculate how much energy can be released by the conversion. The energy is released as heat, kinetic energy, and gamma radiation.

Lebell · 12-23-2004, 08:33 AM

After a slow start I am pleased how this thread progressed.

It's been about 25 years since I read Fred Hoyle's "Black Cloud" so my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but as I recall the beings described aren't exactly pure "energy", but he did posit some interesting views on an alternative life form that more closely meets the original post than we do.

tecoyah · 12-23-2004, 08:34 AM

In my opinion, Energy simply Is..........it is a name we have given to that which constitutes the observable. There are many ways to interpret this term, and likely they are all accurate when taken in context. Does this mean energy is God.....sure, whatever turns your crank.

Relativity theory, is but one way to express the percieved values of energy, and should be taken as such. Quantum mechanics has yet another spin (pun intended) on the properties of energy, and is as accurate , although in some ways contradictory to, relativity.

Drayab · 12-23-2004, 11:52 AM

Sure, energy is kind of a ghostly thing, but there are some things which energy certainly is not. For example, saying that God is energy seems nonsensical to me. I would agree that all scientificly observable things have an 'energy' property that we can measure and/or define. At least I can't think of anything tangible that doesn't have energy.

Quote:

Relativity theory, is but one way to express the percieved values of energy, and should be taken as such. Quantum mechanics has yet another spin (pun intended) on the properties of energy, and is as accurate , although in some ways contradictory to, relativity.

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you said that. What contadiction are you talking about?

Quote:

It's been about 25 years since I read Fred Hoyle's "Black Cloud" so my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but as I recall the beings described aren't exactly pure "energy", but he did posit some interesting views on an alternative life form that more closely meets the original post than we do

Really? What kind of stuff were they made of? By now pretty much everybody has heard about the deep sea vent worms which demonstrate how life can be found in seemingly unlikely places and sustaining itself in a way very different that we are used to, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea of life made out of anything other than normal protons, electrons, and neutrons.

John Henry · 01-08-2005, 10:36 AM

I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure that thinking has a lot to do with neurons. Until we see at least the slightest shred of evidence that uncondensed energy is capable of thinking, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that it is. Quite a lot is understood about where our awareness, self or otherwise, comes from, and although energy is involved, matter is pretty fundamental.

It's important not to be confused by words. Intelligence isn't so much something which exists in us so much as something we do. We can use legs to walk and are made of organic matter. Not everything made of organic matter can walk and walking isn't something which exists in the leg, or an inherent property of the universe.

Also, there is no reason at all to assume that something in one form shares the qualities of that thing in another form, or that anything shares the behaviour or qualities of its composite. Uncondensed energy cannot think any more than steam can melt, bricks can be lived in or trees can be sailed.

CSflim · 01-08-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drayab

Really? What kind of stuff were they made of? By now pretty much everybody has heard about the deep sea vent worms which demonstrate how life can be found in seemingly unlikely places and sustaining itself in a way very different that we are used to, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea of life made out of anything other than normal protons, electrons, and neutrons.

It was a work of fiction.

Hain · 01-24-2005, 08:42 PM

I have never read the book "Black Cloud" that has been introduced... but if memory serves it was a giant ort cloud (yes... made up of the familiar protons, neutrons and eletrons) that acted like a brain that ate up systems.

And as for a being made of pure energy, it doesn't make sense that a beam of light will be intelligent. I think it's just about time some one introduced M-Theory into this conversation. Image a being that is capable of interacting with the universe in the higher dimensions that are curled up into the other three that we percieve.

What can a being do that can manipulate electromagnetic force, nuclear strong, nuclear weak, and gravity to the flick of their wrist or blink of an eye? Travel space in the curled up realms that we can hardly even see in our mind?

supersix2 · 01-24-2005, 09:20 PM

The energy in E = mc^2 is the nuclear strong force or the force that holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. This is the energy that is released in nuclear reaction which give you the idea of the strength of that force.
The funny thing is, we have no idea how any of these forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) actually work. Gravity is atraction between two objects with mass. We have no idea why massive objects atract but we know they do. The electromagnetic force is an atraction between charged particles but we actually have no idea what this charge is and why it is like that. We call it positive and negative charge but it really means nothing. And those are the two forces we know the most about. As for the nuclear strong and weak forces, the weak force is actually the strong force ironically. The strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together and the weak force actually holds protons and neutrons together (the hold together the quarks that make up protons and neutrons).

stingc · 01-24-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supersix2

The energy in E = mc^2 is the nuclear strong force or the force that holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. This is the energy that is released in nuclear reaction which give you the idea of the strength of that force.

You're talking about a specific case. Just because popular books often illustrate E=mc^2 by discussing nuclear reactions does not mean that the equation only relates to that. It is much more general.

Quote:

The funny thing is, we have no idea how any of these forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) actually work. [snip]

We know an amazing amount about how they work. To even be able to categorize things like that is a major acheivement. It means that we've classified essentially all observed interactions in terms of only three basic types: gravitational, electroweak (they're actually one force), and strong. Each of these has a precise and elegant mathematical formulation. To me, it is almost absurd that such a simple model can describe all that it does.

Of course physics has some axioms that must simply be accepted, but my point is that there are really very few of these. Their number is also steadily decreasing.

By the way, your description of the weak force is incorrect. The strong force is responsible for binding both quarks and nucleons.

Suave · 01-24-2005, 11:42 PM

I believe that intelligence, or more accurately, consciousness/sentience is a separate force in the universe. If I had to make an analogy it would be akin to "the force" in StarWars, yet different. Very difficult for me to explain actually.

Also, I have come up with a new equation for E:

E = > D < F

Yakk · 01-25-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I'm thinking this through and will have a comment at some point, I'm sure.

The thing is, I'm reluctant to go much farther in my own speculation because I see how difficult it is for people to even accept the fact that we - as intelligent beings - are proof positive that "intelligence is a part of the universe."

The kind of resistance to accepting this most simple formulation does stun me - although I see us making some real progress here in this Forum and that may be historic in itself!

The resistance tends not to be that simple statement, but rather the unsubstantiated inferences and implication-laden language you dress that statement up with, art. Going from "there exists blue" to "the universe is blue" or "we live in a blue universe" is silly, as is going from "there exists intelligence" to "the universe is intelligent" or "we live in an intelligent universe". Adjective positions signify meaning.

If you mean a null statement by your statement, then I'll agree with you. I'll agree with any null statement that is clearly a null statement. =p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Since our thoughts are manifestations of this matter/energy in the form of electrical impulses dancing among neurons and are thus energy itself, is it unreasonable to posit a being for whom the organization and self awareness exists but without have to have been condensed to a matter state?

Just to be clear, what do you mean by 'matter' and 'energy' here? If you mean matter as in 'particles known by particle physics', then mankind has never even found energy that isn't in the form of (or 'carried by') matter (and vice versa).

If you mean bayronic matter, this changes things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

We tend to do this now and it gets us into all sorts of trouble. We end up having to invent non-observables, such as "dark matter," and populate the majority of the universe with it in order to make our schemes work out, etc.

The postulated Dark matter isn't a non-observable: it was postulated to explain observations, and makes various predictions. And it isn't nessicary, it is just a working hypothesis: non-uniform gravity, and other alternatives to Dark matter, are also out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

A universe described by man must be called an intelligent universe. To think otherwise is to suffer from hubris.

Once again, you wander off on an unjustified tangent, or have redefined terms to fit your arguement. You changed the meaning of using "intelligent" as an adjective in order to make your arguement true. Semantics is a fun short-term game, but boring in the long term.

I object to your arguements and statements because they appear to be semantic, circular and empty of implication. At the same time, they are worded in inflamatory ways. "Intelligent universe", read without the semantic juggling you have done, is an article of faith or insanity. "Intelligent universe", once reduced to a null-phrase by your semantic juggling, is meaningless.

Going back to the original post, I suspect Intelligence is a property of types of information processing, rather than a direct property of energy or matter.

All known information processing requires energy and 'matter' of one kind or another. Pure photons (if that is what you mean by pure energy) have issues processing information, because they have issues interacting with each other. They move too fast, mass too little, and don't have charge. A purely attractive force (gravity) might also have problems facilitating information processing (sort of like how you can't sail without two mediums providing non-parallel forces). With only gravity to process information with, I could see there being not enough 'traction' to 'think' with, if that makes sense. This is, however, just a postulate, nothing concrete.

ARTelevision · 01-25-2005, 10:27 AM

There is nothing even faintly inflammatory in my statements. Your responses are what they are.

The statement below does summarize my thoughts on this matter:

"A universe described by man must be called an intelligent universe. To think otherwise is to suffer from hubris."

I take it to mean that - as "intelligent" beings ourselves - all of our descriptions are essentially self-descriptions. This is axiomatic for me. I don't expect to convince anyone of its rectitude.

I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. I state my thoughts in instances where I do not see them being represented in ongoing dialogs in order to place them into the continuing context as they may have some value to others.

Thanks for yours.

roachboy · 01-25-2005, 10:49 AM

tarkovsky's solaris is quite elegant in demonstrating the basically kantian point you raise above, art.
all that and the soundtrack is great.

Yakk · 01-25-2005, 11:57 AM

My summary:
"If a universe described by intelligence is an intelligent universe, then you redefined the English language, because that isn't what 'intelligent universe' means in English."

And redefining phrases like "intelligent universe" willy-nilly doesn't make your position correct. When people think of "intelligent universe", they don't think of what you are describing (which is, in the end, a universe observed by any intelligence). The same is true of your made-up terms "intelligent kilograms" etc.

"Any rock observed by a human must be an intelligent rock"

The existance of a rock, revealed by red light, does not make the rock a red rock, nor a red-light rock. Not in the English language, other than possibly in some physics-jokes. Your entire position is just semantics, and your choice of word-meanings is poor, and doesn't help communication, in my opinion.

Call the universe the "intelligence-observed universe" or "intelligence-described universe", and modify the rest of your language along the same lines, and I think people will accept your position as self-evident. Your reluctance to continue your speculation can then go away.

Redefining English words at the core of an English discussion is inflamatory.

ARTelevision · 01-25-2005, 12:18 PM

Actually your responses are more inflammatory than mine here, Yakk. And that fact is duly noted as of now.

I am done with my posts in this thead - as far as posting my own thoughts on the subject.

I will be paying attention to it from a moderating perspective and one of the things I pay attention to is baiting other members by accusation - such things as calling perfectly normative statements "inflammatory," etc.

CSflim · 01-25-2005, 01:38 PM

For what it's worth, I agree with Yakk.

One can prove just about anything, If one is allowed to redefine words in any way one pleases.

Observe:
Proof of the existence of God:
1. God is the universe.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore God exists.

Perhaps Yakk and I just don't get it?
Yakk seemed (to me at least) to show how Art's position coould be used to prove that rocks are intelligent. This is clearly false, so in what way did Yakk misapply Art's position?

Yakk · 01-25-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

For what it's worth, I agree with Yakk.

I agree with the Yakk above as well, just not with the frustrated venom-filled language that Yakk used!

/bonk self. Bad Yakk. Go eat some oats. Mmm oats.

I apologize CS and ART (and anyone else interested), I believe I killed the discussion.

John Henry · 01-25-2005, 03:38 PM

Let's see if we can bring her back, Yakk:

Hand-waving magniloquence and airy speculation aside, would anybody like to postulate a mechanism by which energy could be capable of understanding?

CSflim · 01-25-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Henry

Let's see if we can bring her back, Yakk:

Hand-waving magniloquence and airy speculation aside, would anybody like to postulate a mechanism by which energy could be capable of understanding?

Sure. It coalesces into matter. Bobs around in a primodrial swamp for a while, clumps together, evolves into life, and a few billion years later you have walking, talking, thinking blob of energy.

Or is that cheating?

We are talking about "pure energy" here right?

I am still in the dark as to what "pure energy" actually is.
I can understand what kinetic energy is. I can understand what heat energy is. And potenial energy, chemical energy, electric energy and all the rest. But I don't know what pure energy is.

E=mc^2 shows us that matter can be anhilated, and when that happens, energy is given off. So when we detonate a nuke, matter dissappears and energy is given off in the form of heat and light (primarily). But no "pure energy".

12-19-2004, 01:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	E=MC^2 This is just a brief musing that I have time and again and is not original or new. It also relates somewhat to Artelevision's thread on intelligence in the Universe. Have you ever pondered this equation and it's theological implications? Consider that Einstein's simple equation means that the self aware beings that are writing and reading this are coalesced energy that has somehow managed to organize itself to this state. Since our thoughts are manifestations of this matter/energy in the form of electrical impulses dancing among neurons and are thus energy itself, is it unreasonable to posit a being for whom the organization and self awareness exists but without have to have been condensed to a matter state? What would such a being be capable of doing? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-19-2004, 09:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	I think it was Shannon or Wiener... Anyway, in a similar bit of mental masturbation, they had their readers perform a thought experiment in which it is slowly laid out how a rainstorm can be viewed as an information store (I.E. information is encoded based on the precise positions of individual raindrops at a given instance in time) or as a computational engine (I.E. as raindrops change position, information processing is occurring). I'm pretty sure it's in The Human Use of Human Beings. I've been looking for the original essay, but I've had no luck so far. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

12-20-2004, 03:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
tiberry Insane Location: Location, Location!	http://a.parsons.edu/~steck/2004/10/...an-beings.html http://www.technomanifestos.net/inde...f_Human_Beings You probably already have these, but they're a good jumping off point. Consider for a moment if we are but just one unimaginably tiny component of a larger universal entity - one that by its very nature cannot be observed (to do so would require an observation point outside the universe... Kind of along the lines of what Art is getting at I think. __________________ My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

12-20-2004, 06:41 AM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'm thinking this through and will have a comment at some point, I'm sure. The thing is, I'm reluctant to go much farther in my own speculation because I see how difficult it is for people to even accept the fact that we - as intelligent beings - are proof positive that "intelligence is a part of the universe." The kind of resistance to accepting this most simple formulation does stun me - although I see us making some real progress here in this Forum and that may be historic in itself! __________________ create evolution

12-20-2004, 01:32 PM	#6 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	From me to the rest of you, it's a question - nothing more. I make some statements because I see it a certain way. But I'm most interested in pursuing it through dialog here. And considering that it is ourselves - imbued with this quality, indeed suffused with it - who ask the question, I do expect the answer to be something that should reflect this situation and not something that requires belief in the myth of "objectivity"... __________________ create evolution

12-20-2004, 01:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	...as to the fundamental blueness of the universe, blue is defined as the perception of certain wavelengths of light - electromagnetic radiation. It's not a long shot to go from blue to an intrinsic component of the universe. I don't see intelligence as being much different than the example of "blueness" actually. __________________ create evolution

12-20-2004, 02:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	see...what i'm objecting most to is the way in which it seems that a spiritual type observation is getting shuffled in to science. those of us on the boards that are theists, specifically Christians, have made a great effort to distinguish what we know, and what is the mystery of faith. i go from "love" to "Love" you're going from "intelligence" to "Intelligence" this, from my eyes, is the same genre of question. what is logically provable? what is the mystery of faith? my example was poorly worded...i chose blue nearly at random, but the issue of it being both a color and range of EM radiation confuses the issue. there are tables. everywhere it seems. we make them, the earth makes platous. there are instances of tables. tables are a part of our universe. is there a "table" principle written in the laws of physics? is there a fundamental "tableness" to the universe? i realize that the example is absurd, and i don't mean it as a slight. i just wanted to pick something that was very one-definitional. just be honest about the assumptions involved....all i really ask. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-20-2004, 05:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Well, in just about every post here - especially in ones where I introduced my interest in the topic, I have taken great pains to state as clearly as possible that I am interested in this as a non-theistic notion. That's about all I can do. A thorough reading of the threads I've posted to about "intelligence" should make that clear. At least, I hope it makes my intention clear. That being said, I'm quite aware of how many of the responses to my posts in these threads seem to infer theistic or god-type assertions. That's what I've been spending my time responding to, in the main here. __________________ create evolution

12-20-2004, 05:57 PM	#10 (permalink)
fckm Insane Location: Ithaca, New York	I'm not sure what it means for something to exist as energy. Energy is a property of Matter. Matter has energy. You can't be energy. That doesn't make sense. The only time the term "Energy" has any significance, is when matter interacts with other forms of matter. The thoughts in our brain isn't "Energy", it's electrons moving around, chemicals reacting with other chemicals, particles creating fields influencing other particles. It doesn't make any sense to talk about "a being made of pure energy". No offense, but people watch too much Star Trek, and don't take enough physics classes. __________________ And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be. Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

12-21-2004, 04:29 AM	#12 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	If we are the only intelligence around? Then we have a couple of problems. The first, of course, would be this myth of objectivity that we promulgate. We'd get better explanations of things by including that absolutely unique quality in all of our conceptualizations - especially those that are attempts to describe the world, since this totally unique quality we have is the instrumentality we use to quantify and qualify it. If we aren't the only animal with intelligence, then the most fascinating question for me is where exactly in the material world does this arise? I've addressed this in a previous post. In general, the issue does remain as a central and crucial concern. Either it is the very definition of ourselves - in which case our measurements should be known as "intelligent inches" and "intelligent pounds," etc. Because as I said, not including the metric in one's measurements promotes a false premise of objectivity. We wouldn't want to think that the world we are describing would be the same world without our intelligence-based perception of it. We tend to do this now and it gets us into all sorts of trouble. We end up having to invent non-observables, such as "dark matter," and populate the majority of the universe with it in order to make our schemes work out, etc. Again, to not make the actual tool we use to measure things integral to our measurements and descriptions of things does not seem an enlightened method of description at all. To my way of thinking it seems only blindly anthropocentric. Finally, if we are the only place where intelligence resides, then we'd darn better be calling our desription of the universe "intelligent" A universe described by man must be called an intelligent universe. To think otherwise is to suffer from hubris. __________________ create evolution

12-21-2004, 06:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lak Insane Location: New Zealand	Hmmm, not sure about this one. I don't really know enough string thoery, but it seems to me that its not totally implausable to have some particles of energy interact in a way that represents the interaction of matter particles. If, after all, matter does exist on spectrum the same way electromagnetic energy does, as in string theory, then perhaps this is true, however fantasically unstable such a being might be. I think that if I were a being made of energy particles, I should be very, very careful not to annihilate myself on passing x rays. __________________ ignorance really is bliss.

12-21-2004, 08:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	fckm, No offense, but I've been through phys1&2 and am a trained scientist and I think maybe you missed my point. First, energy isn't a property of matter like mass or velocity, Einstein clearly showed us that they ARE THE SAME THING, much as ice and steam are the same thing. Matter can certainly have different energetic states, but that doesn't detract from the original supposition. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-21-2004, 02:58 PM	#17 (permalink)
stingc Psycho Location: PA	First of all, E=mc^2 does not apply in all situations (depending on how you make your definitions). Second, mass is not matter. It takes much more to describe matter than its mass. Mass is a property of matter. Energy is also a property of matter. There is no such thing as "pure energy." Fields (such as the electromagnetic one) carry energy and are usually not considered to be matter, but they once again require much more than their energy to describe them. So they cannot be called pure energy either.

12-22-2004, 07:52 AM	#18 (permalink)
fckm Insane Location: Ithaca, New York	I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 does apply in all situations. I'm aware that mass isn't matter. The standard model is pretty incomplete, but I take matter to mean any combination of the elemetary particles. My point is that "Energy" doesn't exist outside of interactions between "matter". The term "pure energy" isn't part of a physicist's vocabulary. Why is mc^2 considered energy? Because mathematically, it must be taken into account to comply with energy conservation. "Energy" is a term that is used to describe a specific property of some object; it's a mathematically useful tool in calculating the interactions between objects. E=mc^2 is simply Einstein's revelation that to achieve energy conservation, you have to take into account the object's rest mass when undergoing a lorentz transformation. Thus, in my oppinion, it doesn't make any sense to have a being of "pure energy". The term is not scientifically valid. EDIT: i see that stingc is replying to Lebell. oops __________________ And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be. Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

12-22-2004, 09:00 AM	#20 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	How is E=mc² actually used? The only time I've ever used it is when converting between gamma eV to mass defects or vice versa. Does it has some other more mystical uses? __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

12-23-2004, 12:03 AM	#21 (permalink)
Drayab Upright Location: Chapel Hill, NC	E=mc^2 is usually used to find out how much energy is released/required in a given high energy reaction. There's nothing mystical about that. On the question of beings made of pure energy, I doubt that could happen. There aren't any particles with zero mass that I can think of that could be used to make anything intelligent because intelligent things are complicated and they hang around a long time. Generally speaking, particles with zero mass travel at the speed of light and I doubt you could convince them to hang around long enough to build a sentient being out of them. Nope. I don't think it could happen. It's an interesting thought, though.

12-23-2004, 07:48 AM	#22 (permalink)
fckm Insane Location: Ithaca, New York	E=MC^2 is used in two ways 1) At relativistic velocities, E=MC^2 is used to maintain invariance in the momentum-energy four vector. 2) In fission or fusion reactions, where mass is converted to energy, it is used to calculate how much energy can be released by the conversion. The energy is released as heat, kinetic energy, and gamma radiation. __________________ And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be. Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.

12-23-2004, 08:33 AM	#23 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	After a slow start I am pleased how this thread progressed. It's been about 25 years since I read Fred Hoyle's "Black Cloud" so my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but as I recall the beings described aren't exactly pure "energy", but he did posit some interesting views on an alternative life form that more closely meets the original post than we do. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-23-2004, 08:34 AM	#24 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	In my opinion, Energy simply Is..........it is a name we have given to that which constitutes the observable. There are many ways to interpret this term, and likely they are all accurate when taken in context. Does this mean energy is God.....sure, whatever turns your crank. Relativity theory, is but one way to express the percieved values of energy, and should be taken as such. Quantum mechanics has yet another spin (pun intended) on the properties of energy, and is as accurate , although in some ways contradictory to, relativity. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

01-08-2005, 10:36 AM	#26 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure that thinking has a lot to do with neurons. Until we see at least the slightest shred of evidence that uncondensed energy is capable of thinking, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that it is. Quite a lot is understood about where our awareness, self or otherwise, comes from, and although energy is involved, matter is pretty fundamental. It's important not to be confused by words. Intelligence isn't so much something which exists in us so much as something we do. We can use legs to walk and are made of organic matter. Not everything made of organic matter can walk and walking isn't something which exists in the leg, or an inherent property of the universe. Also, there is no reason at all to assume that something in one form shares the qualities of that thing in another form, or that anything shares the behaviour or qualities of its composite. Uncondensed energy cannot think any more than steam can melt, bricks can be lived in or trees can be sailed. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit." Last edited by John Henry; 01-25-2005 at 03:17 PM..

01-24-2005, 08:42 PM	#28 (permalink)
Hain has a plan Location: middle of Whywouldanyonebethere	I have never read the book "Black Cloud" that has been introduced... but if memory serves it was a giant ort cloud (yes... made up of the familiar protons, neutrons and eletrons) that acted like a brain that ate up systems. And as for a being made of pure energy, it doesn't make sense that a beam of light will be intelligent. I think it's just about time some one introduced M-Theory into this conversation. Image a being that is capable of interacting with the universe in the higher dimensions that are curled up into the other three that we percieve. What can a being do that can manipulate electromagnetic force, nuclear strong, nuclear weak, and gravity to the flick of their wrist or blink of an eye? Travel space in the curled up realms that we can hardly even see in our mind? Last edited by Hain; 01-24-2005 at 08:45 PM..

01-24-2005, 09:20 PM	#29 (permalink)
supersix2 Insane Location: Houston	The energy in E = mc^2 is the nuclear strong force or the force that holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. This is the energy that is released in nuclear reaction which give you the idea of the strength of that force. The funny thing is, we have no idea how any of these forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong, and weak) actually work. Gravity is atraction between two objects with mass. We have no idea why massive objects atract but we know they do. The electromagnetic force is an atraction between charged particles but we actually have no idea what this charge is and why it is like that. We call it positive and negative charge but it really means nothing. And those are the two forces we know the most about. As for the nuclear strong and weak forces, the weak force is actually the strong force ironically. The strong force holds the nucleus of an atom together and the weak force actually holds protons and neutrons together (the hold together the quarks that make up protons and neutrons).

01-24-2005, 11:42 PM	#31 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	I believe that intelligence, or more accurately, consciousness/sentience is a separate force in the universe. If I had to make an analogy it would be akin to "the force" in StarWars, yet different. Very difficult for me to explain actually. Also, I have come up with a new equation for E: E = > D < F __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

01-25-2005, 10:27 AM	#33 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	There is nothing even faintly inflammatory in my statements. Your responses are what they are. The statement below does summarize my thoughts on this matter: "A universe described by man must be called an intelligent universe. To think otherwise is to suffer from hubris." I take it to mean that - as "intelligent" beings ourselves - all of our descriptions are essentially self-descriptions. This is axiomatic for me. I don't expect to convince anyone of its rectitude. I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. I state my thoughts in instances where I do not see them being represented in ongoing dialogs in order to place them into the continuing context as they may have some value to others. Thanks for yours. __________________ create evolution

01-25-2005, 10:49 AM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	tarkovsky's solaris is quite elegant in demonstrating the basically kantian point you raise above, art. all that and the soundtrack is great. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-25-2005, 11:57 AM	#35 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	My summary: "If a universe described by intelligence is an intelligent universe, then you redefined the English language, because that isn't what 'intelligent universe' means in English." And redefining phrases like "intelligent universe" willy-nilly doesn't make your position correct. When people think of "intelligent universe", they don't think of what you are describing (which is, in the end, a universe observed by any intelligence). The same is true of your made-up terms "intelligent kilograms" etc. "Any rock observed by a human must be an intelligent rock" The existance of a rock, revealed by red light, does not make the rock a red rock, nor a red-light rock. Not in the English language, other than possibly in some physics-jokes. Your entire position is just semantics, and your choice of word-meanings is poor, and doesn't help communication, in my opinion. Call the universe the "intelligence-observed universe" or "intelligence-described universe", and modify the rest of your language along the same lines, and I think people will accept your position as self-evident. Your reluctance to continue your speculation can then go away. Redefining English words at the core of an English discussion is inflamatory. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

01-25-2005, 12:18 PM	#36 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Actually your responses are more inflammatory than mine here, Yakk. And that fact is duly noted as of now. I am done with my posts in this thead - as far as posting my own thoughts on the subject. I will be paying attention to it from a moderating perspective and one of the things I pay attention to is baiting other members by accusation - such things as calling perfectly normative statements "inflammatory," etc. __________________ create evolution

01-25-2005, 01:38 PM	#37 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	For what it's worth, I agree with Yakk. One can prove just about anything, If one is allowed to redefine words in any way one pleases. Observe: Proof of the existence of God: 1. God is the universe. 2. The universe exists. 3. Therefore God exists. Perhaps Yakk and I just don't get it? Yakk seemed (to me at least) to show how Art's position coould be used to prove that rocks are intelligent. This is clearly false, so in what way did Yakk misapply Art's position? __________________

01-25-2005, 03:38 PM	#39 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	Let's see if we can bring her back, Yakk: Hand-waving magniloquence and airy speculation aside, would anybody like to postulate a mechanism by which energy could be capable of understanding? __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."