Fred56

Comment: The word believe is not necessarily bound to the concept of an opinion. I believe I need to eat. I believe this because if I don't eat, I lose weight and so on. It has nothing to do with having an opinion of what food or eating is (although it's ok to have these). I'm saying that belief is a lot more fundamental than some seem to be implying. Opinion is something that 'comes from' belief, but people can distinguish between conjecture and actuality. In actuality, if I stop eating I will die (because of this). i.e. what I (or others) believe is what I know about things in the world around me (which includes, of course, myself). Is knowledge not believing something? P.S. I do understand that this particular word is overloaded with religious meaning (polysemantic), but belief is belief. Trying to nail some kind of strict definition onto it will not achieve the desired result, because language just isn't like that.

This looks, IMO, like a conclusion you have made. I posted a response (to yours) and I've managed to change the whole direction of the thread? I must be all-powerful or something... And I'm not "seeking the answer"; Nor am I trying to support a theory, I'm only asking questions. This is something we do --even if we think we know everything... Here's what I think I know about the whole enchilada: Change is inevitable. The Universe changes constantly, as Life does too. There is compulsion, but also striving, to this change; a contention, a constant egressing or extending (growing) and energy consuming process. Life is cursive: it excurs and incurs constantly. All life observes its environment. It is obliged to do this. It requires a store of energy, and has learned how to meet this requirement in gradual steps, that have yielded an ability to aggregate and communicate better with other lifeforms, and eventually develop, via this more efficient storage, "better communicating" lifeforms (with each other, and with the environment). Life observes. This is an active, energy requiring, and ongoing process. Information, in the form of photons of EMR, chemicals, and electric potential (in special cases), is collected, or received -in the case of prokaryotes via channels or pores (or simple gaps) in their outer wall, or sheath, that contains their substance (prevents it dissipating) and protects it. Life only samples the constant 'flow' of mass/energy and it then uses these samples to 'remember' or map its environment. In eukaryotes, there is more structure, and more 'sophisticated' transport systems (proteins embedded in cell walls). Also, these more developed cells have learned how to live as a single community, an evolutionary step which led to collections of differentiated cells becoming more dependent on the collective behaviour of all the others. Life began because conditions allowed it, and it has a goal-driven purpose, or purposefulness. Current thinking follows the logic that, since it is here, conditions must have been favourable for its existence. What these conditions were can only be modelled, or we can try to recreate the necessary conditions for something like a lifeform to 'come together', to start up, or emerge from a background somehow. Evolution has 'a' purpose - to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living, at exploiting available resources, gathering and accumulating information. The gene-space has or is a surface against which that measurement occurs. The process is some kind of operator, or set of operators, complex operators or functions, some as old as evolution itself, with a complex variable space; many 'variables' are their own complex system, or subsystem. Like a mesh or network, an organisation. This is bound (compelled) by any particular ecological situation, or, what the surface looks like that it's against at the time. Efficiency and its improvement is a goal. It changes its "tune" as the background harmonics change, but it's following an external conductor. Your turn.

Definitely there is a need for precise terms, and agreement on meaning. This, as we all know, is only a probability or a possible outcome that depends crucially on each individual's view of a particular terminology or phrase. It is, indeed, most difficult to "achieve communication" using a "language" as overloaded with semantics and polymorphism as a written and spoken 'algebra' (perhaps especially so where English is concerned), and explains why we develop alternative 'languages', such as math or music or programming code; we try to make the communication channels less "noisy". We desire conciseness and accuracy, but we're stuck with dodgy old language. Maybe when we can communicate directly (mind-to-mind), the problems with language will start to disappear, but somehow I feel sceptical about the possibility...

Um, just a thought, could (or might) you explain some of the EM phenomena, like current and charge density, like water in a pipe? Would it make the concepts easier for say, high-school types? The analogy would be tricky to extend to the frequency domain, but...

"Epistemologically, Science in its present state is concerned with the knowledge 'that occurs' and has no way of explaining 'how that occurs'. The end result is that we are left with the same contradictions that Aristotle found, in many new and strange ways --the same problem exists now as it did then. From my perspective, classically speaking, energy is defined as the motion of a body or the potential to move. In that respect, it is created by a force, and is not [itself] a force. However, during a collision, the energy of one particle can transfer to another, and that represents a force. Really, the momentum of one is transferred to the other. It may be arguable, that if energy as an incorporeal entity exists, say as a photon, where the particle nature of the photon is obscure and potentially nonexistent, that this represents a motion as well. Given that each photon has a linear propagation that is incorporeal, i.e., not [particulate] in nature, but an energy that is related to the wavelength, it may be possible that the photon has another internal motion that we are unable to appreciate. The question that evolves is what a particle is? Is it a body, with a physical size and is that a constant? Aristotle argued that substance, as a body, is generated. It follows that if there is a process which generates the body, that the process is a constant, whereas the body may be a variable. The question then becomes, what happens if the body is a minimum? Does the process vanish or does it still exist, and do we now treat the virtual state of a particle in terms of energy alone, since the definition of a particle no longer exists." --Sean Torrebadal physicsforums.com

Yes, the "expert", however, is usually a group. A doctor refers constantly to research and medical findings from the group that investigates this. No scientist works in isolation, and no isolated (individual) observation is given more status that that of a group, unless authority has been invested for whatever reason, in some individual, or subset of individuals (leaders). Unfortunately (or whatever), this also gives them status (power) which they tend to abuse (turn to individual rather than group benefit). But Life is kind of selfish, that way. (I hope this addresses 1veedo's post also)

That first sentence looks a tad shaky: do we just believe, are you saying? Everyone has a 'science' of some description, along with some philosophy, or explanation, of their logic (however flawed or deluded or incorrect it may be). The group (mind) is what points in some direction. Differences between 'knowledge' and 'belief' are philosophical concerns. The scientific method (which some appear to be saying is the sole definition of Science), is nonetheless a tool, a way to objectivise (as fully as possible). But it isn't like a Maxwellian daemon, so that Scientists must rub the magic lamp of 'method', and wait for the genie to appear. Then sit cross-legged on the lab floor while the "method-spirit" does its work. When it's found something, it goes back into the lamp, and the scientist puts it in its cupboard until next time it is needed... It's a logical construct, or analytical approach, if it looks like a flat-bladed screwdriver, it will possibly be useful for turning slotted-screws; it's a polymorphic kind of logic, which becomes different kinds of tool, but stays the same, or is derived from the same thing.

How likely that it was misunderstood, as well, would you say? What's poorly worded about: "does Life have purpose?" This looks like a Phil essay title, or something. Not that I didn't expect some to immediately assume that I am asking about some 'mysterious purpose" that Life has, people jump to all sorts of conclusions, in general. I mean, I try not to do this, but it seems to be a universal trait we all have (we don't look that hard at questions). The only mystery is that the purposefulness is the purpose... (I'm sure at least one person who reads this sentence will understand this). Yep, that looks like a valid kind of conclusion. Unless there is some ultimate purpose or goal that Life's evolution has up its sleeve. But let's not go there... If you mean evolution has produced lifeforms that can reproduce, and that's the only goal: why did evolution keep going once it had produced organisms that could reproduce? Why isn't the planet covered with prokaryotic lifeforms? What are we doing here? Or mammals, or vertebrates, or the annelids (why didn't evolution stop with nematodes) etc?

Yes, but who is "running" it? When do we give up and let some machine do it all? Do we write a program, run it, and go somewhere and forget all about it? Do we build things like measuring instruments, install them somewhere and forget all about them? I'd say no. they are just extensions, and they 'need' us as much as we 'need' to use them. I don't leave my Roland sitting in the corner with the power on 24/7. It can play demo tracks, but I have to interact with it (it doesn't do any decision-making). And if we design some robot or AI that can make decisions, much like a human, do we leave it all to itself, go home and watch movies for evermore, because this 'intelligent' machine is 'doing' some job for us? What happens if it develops some kind of fault? We don't do this (leave machines to themselves). Say in some future this is possible -autonomous AI. So will we not interact with them or want to know what they have 'discovered'? Will we leave them to themselves? To what purpose?

Another opinion: How about this guy? It looks a lot like he disagrees completely with what you are saying: I'll restate the argument he seems to be objecting to: Life certainly exhibits purposeful behaviour, or "has purpose", and one or two posters to this thread appear to agree with this. But not everyone. Especially not the one I just mentioned. Wonder if he might care to explain why he believes that evolution is being misrepresented. Evolution is definitely purposeful, and its goal appears to be "to evolve organisms that are more 'efficient' at living (and evolving). I would say I got that right, despite what some of you obviously have to say about it. I would say iNow is mistaken. But of course, he has every right to believe whatever he likes, as do we all (he doesn't have to explain why, even). I have no idea what counter arguments he might be talking about either, perhaps he also believes he has posted one or two that actually stand up, hard to say. Ad crassendo. Oh right, you guys don't know Latin... Also I have already said something about the difference between "Life has purpose (is purposeful)", and "Life has a purpose"; the latter would be a metaphysical issue or question. Maybe some don't get this either, not much I can do (or want to) about people's particular skills with their native language.

OK How's this? There is only one definition of the word 'copy', but this morpheme represents a noun and a verb. Otherwise it derives from the same Latin root, and means the same thing. It does not have multiple meanings. The right to copy (verb) is afforded to the original owner of any work. This is otherwise known as copyright (noun), or the right to own the or any copy (noun). Yes, No? Don't give a toss? (back under the bridge I go then)

That's one definition of copyright, there's another, according to Klaynos, who has claimed that the word copy has (at least) two meanings. So since he seems to be unwilling to substantiate this, does anyone else want to try? And you have just wasted your effort supplying this definition, because doG has said all we need to do is follow a link he posted. (this is an appeal for semantics --meanings of words, right?-- where are the ones I asked for, and why is asking someone to substantiate a claim such a big deal all of a sudden? you guys have just posted responses saying you see no need to substantiate. Does this mean I can say whatever I want too? Any unsubstantiated claim at all?)

So we formalise our science as some algebra (a computer program), with its own alphabet (that we need to understand to achieve the 'encoding' of our 'method'), and hand it to machines of some kind (robots). How does this not require our worldview? The robots don't know what to do unless we tell them. Once they've "got the idea", where does our worldview disconnect, at which point of this process? Do we leave them to it and show no further interest, even if one of them knocks on the door and wants to tell us something? How is this different from using a thermometer (installed inside a furnace, say)? Or using any machine (that we have expended energy and effort to build and 'program')? Unfortunately, it is not possible to disconnect from our individual and group 'worldviews', philosophies, beliefs about what we are doing (when we program a computer, for example), even when we employ objective reasoning, deduction, or any logic whatsoever. We can't suspend belief for very long, because we need to believe (certain things) just to function 'normally'. Despite what you seem to be claiming, I would say that you or any other scientist or experimenter, simply cannot do much without belief (call it learning or knowledge or experience, it's still believing something). Belief is here to stay, it isn't going to disappear from our experience (if it did, we would probably behave much like someone with severe amnesia, who has forgotten not just who they are, or where they were born, but that they were even alive, or what being alive means, etc, i.e. a 'tabula rasa' condition -no state of mind or even theory of mind, just like a newborn infant, I would say). If its an annoying word, or something, or if you seriously believe that it's the 'wrong' word to use, I'm not sure what I can say to that. I believe that belief is an ongoing part of experience and learning, or it is learning. Do you believe that you can remember things, or that you know how to 'apply' the scientific method? I know how to play a piano, I believe I can do this, and my method is most methodical and objective, at least while I'm learning some piece, and I know a few keyboard exercises (I believe these are good for my subjective ability at playing, or mapping my finger-movements to the different keys -remembering). What do you do when you want to learn how to use some equipment you haven't before, or are you confident (have some belief in your own ability) at using instrumentation, and so on?

You do realise that you have said this and not substantiated it? (like with the different meanings you're talking about) You think you're maybe able to tell anyone what you think it means? (instead of what the law says or some link, I mean)

What sort of detector would be needed assuming there's a weak interaction? I haven't really looked all that hard at dark matter/energy 'cause they aren't part of any consistent theory yet are they?

Where do the messages come from, or go to? --Dynamically Multivalued, Not Unitary or Stochastic, Operation of Real Quantum, Classical, and Hybrid Micro-MachinesA.P. KIRILYUK Institute of Metal Physics, Kiev, Ukraine What's my brain doing? The brain is in a similar environment to most other organs. This 'background' -the mesomorphic structure that supports all our organs, is essentially thermodynamic. The brain, 'made' out of of special cells that use electric charge (separation of ions like Ca++, and Na+), to communicate, operates on a different level to the cellular background; but hormones, synapse signalling, and other processes mean there is a need to understand the way the neurons control the background (and vice-versa). It's a complex problem, or one for the complexity theorists. Some theories (not many) appear to claim what the brain does is due to its quantum nature (it's a quantum processor). What they don't perhaps realise is that entanglement simply wouldn't have a chance of surviving all the thermal noise. All that can really be said about what's happening in a brain is that "something emerges" from the electrical signalling network. The network requires a structure, or an architecture, to do what it does, and it relies on the background "system" for signalling (its "working principle"), and feedback (hysteresis). Feedback processes are everywhere, and keep chaos, as it were, at bay. This is something the early Greeks figured out... Quantum entanglement is a very unstable property. Several different quantum states can be entangled at once, or superposed (multi-entangled), but this doesn't last very long in the ordinary world. You have to isolate a system (at close to absolute zero), for entanglement to "emerge" from the background. [/me] But "emergence" is the result of a complex system of biological structures and the electro-magnetic discharges they produce. All of this is intricately dependent upon the geo/climatic conditions of the environment for optimum conditions and survivability. This emergence is simply a form of the "sum of the parts" and a result of the "synergy" built between those complex parts. Its symbiotically entrenched in physicality. So, using the term "emerge" really doesn't say anything "magic" or even remotely specific about thought processes or the weight of conscious-awareness. Does an em wave have a weight? [/him] Weight is something we measure, and is explained by a (condensed) bit of matter under the influence of a gravitational field. It's ok to say that weight "emerges", because of this (simple) fact... Photons are massless, but are: energy/momentum (their rest mass is zero, but since they are never at rest, this is a "short cut" we make to determine something about the nature of photons). Or alternatively we are reluctant to leave the term out of any equation, because physical theories deal with the momentum of physical (inertial) mass. Photons have a mass/energy equivalent, which means that information (the photons that we "see") has mass/energy also...

A. You would be unable to 'hold' such a thing. Dark matter does not interact with the EMR spectrum, so there's no electric or magnetic device we can use to 'see' it. You are probably surrounded by some though. How much, and 'where' it is exactly are kind of meaningless, because there's a big problem observing or measuring it. It doesn't interact with ordinary matter, except, presumably, it has mass, and therefore inertia. If you could build a hand-held gravity wave detector, your chances might go up a bit. It's a theoretical explanation for some observed behaviour of distant gravity-bound objects (galaxies and galaxy clusters).

What about neutrino energy or momentum as it's used to explain 'missing' mass, or does this not have an equivalent (in photon energy)? Can you call any kinetic energy equivalent to radiation energy? And is it really a 'mistake' to say equivalent energy is energy (a commonly used 'shortcut')?

Surely Iran's intention (apart from the energy issue) is to join the nuke club? You know, the one they don't let you in unless you've (secretly) developed NWT (the door pass)? They have observed certain doors open for India, Pakistan (which country could be more of a worry as a nuclear-capable state with an uncertain political status), and others.

YT: you're referring to a (not very nice) periodontal disease that results in the death (necrosis) of bone. Bone necrosis can occur anywhere in the skeletal frame (it's common in hip joints or leg bones in the elderly), as a result of infection, injury, or sometimes surgical procedures. In the oral cavity, it can happen because of a decayed tooth (if it's a root-canal you don't feel anything, or it's asymptomatic), or sometimes because those injections they like to give you decrease blood supply and the bone dies. I heard a story about a coke addict who ended up losing most of the left side of his face (and there really isn't a lot maxillo-facial surgeons can do because the bone is too thin for metal plates and reconstruction isn't possible). Lovely... Also it makes your breath stink (rotting bone doesn't smell so good). My advice to lost,helpme would be get to an oral surgeon pronto, or at least the maxillo-facial (ear, nose, & throat, maybe) dept of a hospital. Has a doctor diagnosed anything? P.S you will possibly be given a bottle of chlorhexidine to gargle with. It's pretty foul, and you can't taste anything else for a couple hours, but it keeps those bacteria at bay (for a while). P.P.S don't assume I know what I'm talking about here either, I don't have a M.D. or anything. But go see one, is the best advice I can offer. You could have a chronic sinus infection of some kind -but that smell sounds suspicious.

Come on, of course the US is in Iraq to stay, and this was the intention all along. Just how many billions worth of equipment and construction (of bases and airfields, etc) would they need to leave behind, again? A permanent and 'stabilising' presence is the doctrine. The regime has changed, but the political and sociological, educational, administrative, and so on entities are still very much learning to walk. They need help, and unfortunately the very presence of foreign troops is a (big) part of the problem. But then, I would say that there have been one or two 'unforseen' outcomes already. The additional troops (calling it a 'surge' makes me think of a washing machine, for some reason), may have achieved something. I think this is probably a lot harder to estimate or measure than many politicos want us all to believe. Maybe Iraq is sorting itself out or following its own post-apocalypse recovery, and the US military is like, redundant, for all we (or anyone else) can tell. By which I mean that claims about success (in any war) definitely require a large pinch of salt.

Answering that question is indeed fraught with much philosophising and usually some inanity. However, the question "does Life have purpose", or alternately "does Life exhibit purpose?", is a but easier on the brain cells, because purposeful behaviour -i.e. purpose, is something we observe all the time. In fact it's how we generally tell living things from non-living things. But then, some appear to have a problem with this too (except I can't honestly see what the big issue with something as obvious as purposeful, or directed, or goal-driven behaviour is). Just adding in that one little pronoun makes the picture shift a whole lot.

OK, just for the hell of it, you all realise that the word "copyright" is a compounded word? It's made up of two different, independent morphemes: copy, and right, i.e. the right of copy, or the right to claim copy, which implies the right to copy (especially if you're the 'original' owner). So what does "own" mean?

Blogging seems to be the way it goes, sometimes, I guess. My previous comments about this, and my "thinking out loud" approach, appear to ensue from the outcome that people don't always respond, so I just keep going, as it were. The above from superconducting.blogspot.com is about a quantum processor they are designing, and I will no doubt stay with this story... Efficiency certainly seems to be a natural thing that happens in any system that commutes or changes energy state, or microcanonical partition-wise states. Relaxation of coupled oscillations, superposition (of both quantised and analog waveforms) usually 'tries' to find a state of lowest entropy, or it 'self-adjusts' or whatever. Randomness and chaos appear to be linked to this somehow, also. A surface 'appears', and we seem obliged to look at its structure and sometimes this looks quite complex.

What, exactly, is the "complete difference" between "photons = energy" and "energy = photons"? I'll say it all over again. Photons are energy and energy is photons. All energy has a photon equivalent. Alternatively all energy has an energy equivalent. Mass is equivalent to energy. Etc. Photons have a mass equivalent, Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect clinched this particular theory. (This is all wrong huh?) Of course. He said this instead: Can you please tell me, and can JaKiri get around to responding at some point to my question about his claim (you know, the one I have been referring to since he made it)? Can you explain why energy is not photons and why they do not have a mass equivalent, as he is so obviously claiming? Or why exactly his claim agrees totally with E=mc^2? This I must see... (And I'll grow up when all the other children do, ok?)