Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc.

Posted by: samwik

Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/25/07 06:52 AM

LANGUAGE:

What does it mean?
How is it used?
Where did a word come from?

How is language used to conflate unrelated issues?
How does language become "...a distortion of facts and riddled with 'half truths'." -RicS
How is language used "manipulatively, or... [as] a very handy hook to divert the debate...?" -Ellis

A gaggle of geese; a clutch of eggs; a lock of hair; a retort of reports; a pod of peas; a month of Sundays....

There's a book, An Exhaltation of Larks, that even goes into the history of this curious behaviour of language (or its speakers).


What are your insights?
Add comments, or develop into new Topics/threads.

~ smile
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/25/07 10:31 PM

And how and when did language develop? Did all human languages develop from a single original one? Or don't we want to go there on this thread?
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/26/07 12:08 AM

Excellent topic. Let's get the ball rolling.

Some initial thoughts (subject to change without prior notice grin )

"How is language used to conflate unrelated issues?"

The answer to this is, of course, in the preceding thought processes. It has to begin with a process of logic, concrete thinking and abstract conceptualisation.

For example, when we read this:

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones",

what meaning do we see in it?

Applying logic, and thinking in concrete terms, we can deduce that if one's house is made of glass, one shouldn't throw stones because some irate target might destroy it by doing likewise. Then, by a process of abstraction, we can expand that understanding into a general concept, i.e., if one has a vulnerability, one should avoid taking antagonistic action that exposes it to similar, retaliatory, action.

When the thought processing is complete, the appropriate language may be constructed by which to (attempt to) communicate the conclusions. Language is nothing more than the result of an attempt to encode thoughts and feelings into communicable terms.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/26/07 04:00 AM

Rede wrote
Language is nothing more than the result of an attempt to encode thoughts and feelings into communicable terms.

Language is so much more than that. It is possible to communicate without language-- but it is in the aquisition of words, (spoken, signed or written) that our human-ness is defined.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/26/07 04:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Rede wrote
Language is nothing more than the result of an attempt to encode thoughts and feelings into communicable terms.

Language is so much more than that. It is possible to communicate without language - but it is in the aquisition of words, (spoken, signed or written) that our human-ness is defined.

- Yes, perhaps we do communicate without language, but language, specifically, is the topic, is it not?

- True, the degree of language capability of humans is unique on this planet, but how is that relevant to its function?

- In what way is language "so much more than that"?

If, in fact, we are to discuss language beyond the written and spoken forms, as in 'body-language', then I could clarify my sentence by restating it:-

'All written, verbal and non-verbal forms of language are the result of conscious and subconscious attempts to encode thoughts and feelings into communicable terms.'

There's nothing in that sentence that wasn't covered in the earlier version, but any rational modification would be welcome.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/26/07 09:51 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur...from Is Science the answer?
...causes indignation among a populace that's very comfortable with those illusions "thanks, anyway, Professor Chomsky".

The point is, people are happy with their illusions/delusions - whether they be political or religious. It's unscientific, it's short-sighted - at it's worst it's genocidal - but it's understandable.

Excellent summation, once again redewenur.

Speaking of Norm Chomsky,
the original syntactician....

Your summation reminds me of an interview with Susan Moeller.
Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death by Susan D. Moeller
She talks about how the media is concerned with retaining the audience (americanize the news, among other things) and media is afraid its audience will suffer from Compassion Fatigue (audience will turn the page/channel).
....ultimately leading to "compassion avoidance."
Also, she mentions conflation of chemical & biological weapons with nuclear weapons (i.r.t. lead in to Iraq war), like Norm and Al.

Articles in Summer 1999 issue of Journal of Political and Military Sociology (another cool link!)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_199907/ai_n8841489

"Compassion Fatigue, Moeller asserts, "is not an unavoidable consequence of covering the news. It is, however, an unavoidable consequence of the way news is covered" (p. 2). This pattern of coverage involves prioritizing stories where American political, cultural or commercial connections are involved, and failing to cover fully (or to cover at all) events where American interests are not evident; offering simplistic, formulaic presentations; employing sensationalized language and imagery; relying on Americanized metaphors and references to tell the story; and radically reducing or terminating coverage of an event the moment something new occurs that seems more likely to attract audience (consumer) attention.

....After a few weeks of horrifying, didactic images appear to overload viewers' senses, the media are on to the next crisis. But whatever that next crisis is, media coverage will have trained its public to want even more sensationalized details; it must appear more threatening and more aberrant.

The lesson to be learned, the media reported, was the lesson of Vietnam: the United States should not get involved in faraway crises when its own security is not in danger. Largely pre-empted by the Somalia coverage, famine in Sudan, Africa's largest nation, never produced significant media interest. Sudan remained "just another one of those stories about starving black people."
...

Originally Posted By: ...from a RELATED LINK
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_2_31/ai_54772894
Carter, a white South African, spent only a couple of days in Sudan. According to Susan D. Moeller, who tells Carter's story in Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death, he had gone into the bush seeking relief from the terrible starvation and suffering he was documenting, when he encountered the emaciated girl. When he saw the vulture land, Carter waited quietly, hoping the bird would spread its wings and give him an even more dramatic image. It didn't, and he eventually chased the bird away. The girl gathered her strength and resumed her journey toward a feeding center. Afterward, writes Moeller, Carter "sat by a tree, talked to God, cried, and thought about his own daughter, Megan."


....
For the American media, the most important deaths (assassinations) are those of leaders of countries where the U.S. has substantial commercial, political or cultural interests and people who have high personal status in this country. Such fallen leaders are characterized as martyrs, peacemakers and great historic figures. Such language was used in coverage of the assassinations of Israel's Yitzhak Rabin (1995) and Egypt's Anwar Sadat (1981), but not in media accounts of the murders of India's Indira Gandhi (1984) or Pakistan's Zia UI-Haig (1988). Reports of the killing of "important" leaders employ extensive reference to the mythic Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. The media also use partisan and emotional language to tell their assassination stories in order to forestall anticipated compassion fatigue. The stories are framed as compelling dramas of family and nation, hero and villain, grief and misery, and the reassertion of established political and social order."

~samwik
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/30/07 05:17 AM

I wonder how many US citizens still believe their administration took them into Iraq to introduce "peace and democracy". The second of these words is probably the word most frequently "used to conflate unrelated issues" for "...a distortion of facts and riddled with 'half truths'" used "manipulatively, or... [as] a very handy hook to divert the debate...?". It has a certain ring to it though, don't you think?

We should have known. The first word of the pair is the second most frequently used for the above purposes.
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/31/07 12:14 AM

Silly me. He said "Freedom and Democracy". But freedom is an even more loaded term than peace.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/31/07 08:11 AM

Word Play o' the Day:
Ethics Reform: Is this something Congress is supposed to do; or are we just supposed to "re-think" our ideas about what ethics should be applied to Congress? smile [thanks Colbert Report].

Hiya Terry,
Ahh, yes! Freedom does evoke a larger response.

As I recall, the phrase used to be "Freedom and Justice" (maybe it was liberty and justice), but when did "Democracy" get substituted in there?

...and what happened to Justice? My wife blames Reagan for deregulating the Media (making News a profit oriented [ratings dependent] part of Media).

Most people in the world are Free (or at least real cheap) to be poor, exploited or blown up. For them, Justice is a much more important factor.

~SA

Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/31/07 11:27 AM

Yes, 'justice' is a good word. It belongs with 'equality'.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/01/07 12:36 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Yes, 'justice' is a good word. It belongs with 'equality'.

I don't worry so much about equality (diversity, random variation, etc.), but I think too much inequality is unjust.

Excessive opulence at the cost of sustainability elsewhere is unjust.

~SA

p.s. ...and not very smart in the long run; profitable, but....
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/01/07 03:46 AM

samwik: "I don't worry so much about equality (diversity, random variation, etc.), but I think too much inequality is unjust."

Ah! Very interesting. This is a suitable subject for citing subjective semantics, samwik - excuse the alliteration! grin

The question is often raised, "If we're all different, how can we be equal?"

With reference to justice, the particular 'equality' I have in mind is social equality, as in 'civil rights', 'equal rights' and 'justice for all'. There's certainly a vast social diversity, hence the tendency to the notorious discriminatory trends that gave rise to those phrases. In a literal sense, "different" means "unequal" and by that definition we are all unequal; but in the humanistic sense, "equality" is an ethical concept meaning "of equal intrinsic worth", as opposed to the utilitarian concept "of equal usefulness".
______

To avoid (semantic) confusion about my meaning: -

Utilitarian:

1. believing value lies in usefulness: relating to, characteristic of, or advocating the doctrine that value is measured in terms of usefulness
2. practical: designed primarily for practical use rather than beauty

My meaning is "1". ("2" applies to aesthetics, and is irrelevant to the issue.)

Likewise, the meaning of utilitarianism as applied to the above: -

Utilitarianism:

1. ethical doctrine of greatest good: the ethical doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the criterion of the virtue of action
2. doctrine based on value of usefulness: the doctrine that the value of an action or an object lies in usefulness
3. utilitarian quality: the quality of being designed primarily for practical use rather than beauty

My meaning is "2", not "1", but substitute "individual" for "object" ("3" applies to aesthetics, and is irrelevant to the issue.)

Definitions are from Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
______

If there is to be true justice - and, indeed, if the human race is to have a long term future - it's not enough that "all people are equal in the eyes of God". The future lies in the realization of the phrase "all people are 'of equal intrinsic worth' in the eyes of society" - in which 'all people' means (focusing once more on semantics) ALL people, EVERYWHERE.
______________________

It might be interesting to examine the nature of human diversity.

What are the major sets and subsets of diversity (a) on a global scale (b) between cultures (c) within cultures?
Does each of these have ethical and/or utilitarian value?
...etc.

Perhaps there might be interest in pursuing those questions in another thread?
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/01/07 10:00 PM

A Peter Tosh song from way back. Maybe you know it:

"Everyone is crying out for peace yes
None is crying out for justice
(2x)

(CHORUS)
"I don't want no peace
I need equal rights and justice (3x)
Got to get it
Equal rights and justice"

Complete lyrics at:

http://www.lyricstime.com/peter-tosh-equal-rights-lyrics.html
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/02/07 03:21 AM

Thanks for the link, Terry. Time to expose my ignorance, yet again. I'd never heard of Peter Tosh. His lyrics are perfect.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/03/07 12:31 AM

All agree, it'd be awful and atrocious to avoid an awsome alliteration, as arrived above.
Thanks rede-

...more later on justice... and....

Just want to say that there's a panel discussion including Stephen Colbert and others, notably Christopher Hitchens, tonight on BookTV (CSPAN2).

I can't imagine a more promising scenario, and I've SEEN stuff that's better than I can imagine, involving these folks individually, so I'm hopeful (Pythonesque comes to mind)!

Later,
~Samwik
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/03/07 08:09 AM

Redewenur wrote:

"I'd never heard of Peter Tosh."

Not surprised. I'm a guitar teacher and play in a band so I get to hear of most guitarists. Tosh was a Jamaican Reggae performer. Great voice. Along with Bunny Livingstone he was one of the original Wailers as in Bob Marley and the Wailers. Real name McIntosh. Like most musicians he recorded some less than brilliant material but try to hear his version of "Johny B. Goode", (the Chuck Berry song). Great. And "Mamma Africa".

Nice biography at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tosh
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/04/07 01:03 AM

I knew that name was familiar, but I was picturing a pop idol. Thanks for reminding me about that Reggae I used to enjoy so much. Now I remember; who could forget Get Up, Stand Up.

Speaking of Get Up, Stand Up:
*_*

Disbelief in Evolution:

Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?

Have =49% ; Not Sure =6% ; Have Not = 45%

...from a...
Harris Poll; June 2005; N=1000 Adults

(Video of a poster in an HHMI lecture.)

See, I just think that's a poorly worded question.
Who commissioned this poll?
Who wrote the question?
Did they have to use the word "believe," after also using the word "disbelief" which really has a religious connotation.
*_*

Anyway, I'm copying the above from the Noah's Ark post.

Today I was watching (partially) a CSPAN filming of a focus group/poll process. This guy sat around asking questions of a (I'm sure) randomly selected group. It was a political thing and involved both national issues and candidates.

It was Peter Hart of Hart Research Associates. He had sitting around the table a:
child care center director
dental hygienist
car salesman
homemaker
security analyst
loan officer
insurance broker
legal assistant
systems analyst
minister
college senior
retired biologist

Only the retired biologist had any comprehension of what is going on in the world, it seemed to me. Based on his answers, I thought he had an understanding of how problems are related and solutions can't be simple.
Everyone else sounded like a Jay-walker. Their answers showed that they were aware of the headlines, if lucky; and just reflected the generalized platitudes that are distilled out of the media fluff/angst mills as time evaporates.

Is it because he's retired and has the time to figure stuff out, or is it because he's a biologist and is trained to figure out messy organic situations? Are both free time and education necessary?

~samwik
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/04/07 03:56 AM

samwik: "or is it because he's a biologist and is trained to figure out messy organic situations?"

That's a good way to put it, and I think it's probably right.

I guess biology encourages an understanding the of interconnectedness of systems and their components, and just how extraordinarily complex a single living unit is, let alone the whole living planet. It's probably a concept that can provide insght into social systems.

From a review of the book, "Signs of Life: How Complexity Pervades Biology" by Ricard V. Sole, Brian C. Goodwin and Ricard Solé:

"Deep down, we all know that living things are profoundly weird. Chaos theory and the life sciences are a natural combination."

From the book:

"The idea that a random event can change history has been a great source of inspiration for both scientists and writers alike. We live in a universe with strong laws and much contingency."
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/08/07 09:36 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
and....

Just want to say that there's a panel discussion including Stephen Colbert and others, notably Christopher Hitchens, tonight on BookTV (CSPAN2).

I can't imagine a more promising scenario, and I've SEEN stuff that's better than I can imagine, involving these folks individually, so I'm hopeful (Pythonesque comes to mind)!

Later,
~Samwik

I don't know who picked Stephen Colbert to be the host of the author's panel on BOOKTV last Sunday, but they should either be fired or given a big bonus. I'm leaning toward the bonus side; but wow, it was difficult to transition from the heart-wrenching stories told through tear-strained voices over to the usual Colbert wit.

I did enjoy:

"...mindless, in the present, consumerism that keeps us from understanding the ways in which we have so much in common, and the ways in which this mindless consumer society divides us apart...." -K. Burns

...and a reference to Arthur Schlesinger's "Too much pluribus, and not enough unum."
...also....
"Stitched together by words...and their dangerous progeny, ideas." -Ken Burns (Sunday 6/3/07)
talking about why Americans "agree to cohere." It sounded as if he was quoting (maybe his book) the "dangerous progeny" part also, but I enjoyed the image.

Eric Sevareid was also referenced:
"War happens inside a man; and that is why, in a certain sense, you and your son's (from that war), will be forever strangers. If...."
-wow....
-transcribed quotes so, may not be totally accurate....

...other than that....

Don't know if you caught the recent (6/5, 6/6) Colbert Report's comments on the Hansen controversy. It's probably available on youtube. "It ain't the Heat; it's the Hubris."

Terry, I thought of you when he said that the climate is evolving (w/ "ice caps recessive").

Hansen's boss talked about the arrogance of people who decide what the "best" climate should be. Some comment was made about how we shouldn't be deciding if islanders want to live above sea level. I hope you get to see this, Wolfman. You might also enjoy his concept of "meteorological colonialism."

I especially enjoyed the comments about Eskimos not needing so many words for snow anymore...
...but "beach" would translate as "hot snow."

Busy week,
Later,
~SA
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/22/07 09:28 AM

Happy Sunday Morning!

This is inspired by way of the "Philosophy of Religion...." thread {I'm meaning to get back on that}. I've been asking around on 'myspace' about "spirit," and got this back in a response.

Without relating this to the other topic (yet), I wonder if others are as impressed as I am by this. So...

Just for Sunday Morning Musings:

[...in response to a point about the illusion of love, "j" wrote....]

"That's exactly it, samsara. The illusion of Maya... In some views of Hinduism, anyways. I was actually studying this just a few days ago, and then a friend pointed out to me a more important point about it that I'd been seeing clues about for months, but never completely pieced together. Fred's point was good, but just because the physical world we observe is an illusion, that does not mean that it is all false. Underneath the illusion is the cause of the illusion, what truly "is", and what we observe tends to reflect the essence of it. Regardless of the physical illusion, spiritual/emotional love still occurs, and I think that's what Fred's point was. But in regards to everything else? I think the point is simply to realize that what we observe is not what "is"... And once we realize what "is", we'll be able to know how to really observe what "is". I'm only just recently getting back to my spiritual path, but my opinion is that it's information, and information, by definition, yields information. The realization that we cannot observe what truly exists with eyes that do not truly exist.

Could I get your take on the two sides: Physically tangible, derived from G0d (religious); or an illusion or artifact of evolved mental consciousness development (secular)? -[my original question on myspace]

I think it's a mixture of both. An illusion that was evolved through consciousness, yes, but derived from God in that the spirit of true reality, is God. I don't think anything that composes us, or rather our ideas about it gained from stimuli, is tangible. I think it's solely an illusion based on the stimuli that it sends out. But something exists, something only observable by something that also truly exists, and I think our consciousness can allow us to do just that. Because our consciousness is kind of like flipping the reflection back over. It's an illusion created by an illusion from reality, going back to spiritual composition as opposed to physical composition. That's my take on it anyways... I believe that the essence of God is contained in this information, what truly exists... The information is what allows all phenomena to be possible... It's what sets down the rules for interaction based on its structure, and if the purpose of information, as observed, is for change, motion, and existence, then it must be God, by the loosest definitions. Not the anthropomorphic God, mind you, just a will... The will to do, to be, to exist. I'm not doing a good job of explaining this...." -j, with permission

...as I say, just for Sunday Morning Musings....

~SA
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/22/07 08:00 PM

Originally Posted By: samwik
Could I get your take on the two sides: [...is "Spirit"] Physically tangible, derived from G0d (religious); or an illusion or artifact of evolved mental consciousness development (secular)? -[my original question on myspace]


Just to clarify:
The above question (in red), from the previous post, is about "spirit," and it's nature.
*_*

My goal was to point out that there are words used that have wildly varying definitions on a personal basis, yet these words still are functional in language because we focus on the consequence or manifestation of the word (not it's definition) in our daily lives.

In addition to words such as spirit, joy would also be an example.

Each person might have a different definition of what brings them joy, but when a person is joyful or enjoying something, that manifestation is universally understood.

Perhaps usage of these words could benefit from a different kind of definition (a meta-definition) that focused on consequences of a word/concept, rather than particulars of a subjective experience.

As an example, one might define "Creation" by what it motivates people to be interested in, rather than the details of how or when Creation happened.

Meta-definitions? Well, as I said, that was my goal; but I sure liked the logic behind the integration of those two aspects of "spirit" in that last paragraph quoted in the previous post.

smile

~SA
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/23/07 09:32 AM

Thanks Samwik. I've often wondered what people mean when they refer to someone as being "spiritual". I now see it means they believe in "an illusion created by an illusion from reality, going back to spiritual composition as opposed to physical composition'. It's now as clear as mud.

And if it's "Not the anthropomorphic God" then what the heck is it? What does the word "God" mean? Does it all mean that chimpanzees, for example, believe in their own sort of God?
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/23/07 10:05 AM

Terry: "And if it's "Not the anthropomorphic God" then what the heck is it?"

42 ? frown
Posted by: terrytnewzealand

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/23/07 10:16 AM

Of course. Silly me.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 01/14/08 07:22 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
LANGUAGE:

What does it mean?
How is it used?
Where did a word come from?

How is language used to conflate unrelated issues?
How does language become "...a distortion of facts and riddled with 'half truths'." -RicS
How is language used "manipulatively, or... [as] a very handy hook to divert the debate...?" -Ellis

A gaggle of geese; a clutch of eggs; a lock of hair; a retort of reports; a pod of peas; a month of Sundays....

There's a book, An Exhaltation of Larks, that even goes into the history of this curious behaviour of language (or its speakers).


What are your insights?
Add comments, or develop into new Topics/threads.

~ smile


The more I think about whether Economics is a science or not, the more I think that what we need is a...
Science of Civilization. ...Civinomics?

A Topic, may have started out with a discussion about the origins of the words economy and ecology.

Economy: Latin, oeconomia = household management: => from the Greek, oikonomia => from oikonomos = a steward (oikos = house + nemein = to manage).

Economic: Latin, oeconimicus = orderly, methodical: => from the Greek, oikonomikos = economical (oikos = house + nomikos = ?).

Ecology: from the Greek (oikos = house + ology = science of).

~just fyi
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 01/23/08 04:04 AM

Writing the supreme name: Theists write, God; Orthodox Jews write G-d; as a unitheist/panentheist, I write GØD. To make themselves better understood I suggest agnostics could write, G???d; atheists write, Gawd?; the rich and powerful write, G$d; the profane write Gawd!!!, and dyslectics, write doG. smile

In the http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18351&hl= where there is lots of room for a signature, I use the following, currently:

GØD is the one with all that is;
the one with cosmos, earth, sky, sea;
GØD's one with time, the eternal now,
And all pervasive gravity.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/28/08 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Writing the supreme name: Theists write, God; Orthodox Jews write G-d; as a unitheist/panentheist, I write GØD. To make themselves better understood I suggest agnostics could write, G???d; atheists write, Gawd?; the rich and powerful write, G$d; the profane write Gawd!!!, and dyslectics, write doG.
Nice G0dPuns....

...meanwhile, Webster says....

nihilism: (Latin, nihil; nothing)
1.Philos.
a.) A doctrine which denies any objective or real ground of truth.
b.) The doctrine which denies any objective ground or moral principles; -called also 'ethical nihilism.'
2.Secular.
a.) The doctrine that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake, independent of any constructive program....
b.) In loose usage, revolutionary propaganda; terrorism.

...be careful how (and where, or around whom) you use this word... these days.
smile
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/28/08 06:05 AM

faith: (Old French, feid, feit; Latin, fides)
1.) Belief in God; revelation, or the like; as soundness of faith; esp., orthodoxy in theology; in a practical religious sense, trust in God.
2.) Fidelity to one's promises, or allegiance to duty, or to a person; loyalty.
3.) That which is believed; esp., a system of religious beliefs.
4.) Complete confidence, esp. in someone or something open to question or suspicion.

"Faith," comes after "fairy tale" in Mr. Webster's book.
smile
Faith comes after nihilism (see previous post) ...IMHO
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/28/08 04:40 PM

Sam,
The interesting thing about scientific principles is that being subject to them is not related to your faith in them, or even your awareness of them. Balls, the moon, the Earth itself, and Sol, planes, birds - all are susceptible to gravity.

The effects are direct, quantifiable, and falsifiable.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/28/08 04:55 PM

belief: (Anglo-Saxon, geleafa, or unknown; -[believe] -belefan, belifan)
1.) The state or habit of mind of one who believes; faith; confidence; trust... as belief in God.
2.) A conviction or persuasion of truth; intellectual assent... as claims unworthy of belief.
3.) The thing believed; specif., a tenet, or the body of tenets; doctrine; creed....
4.) Ecclesiastical creed....

Belief comes after belie (another Anglo-Saxon word; hmmm... re: origins?)....
Belief comes before belittle... in Webster's.... smile

Faith (#4) and Belief (#2) seem linked by the see-saw of "evidence vs. lack of evidence."
Faith is like belief, but without the need for evidence.
Belief is like faith, but with the need for evidence.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/28/08 04:57 PM

TFF,

Yep... and susceptible to the laws of heat transfer, albedo, ice dynamics, absorption spectra of CO2, etc.

Even for "Laws" yet to be elucidated, the physical mechanisms still operate.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/28/08 10:22 PM

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away." - Philip K. Dick.

Some people think that belief = reality. I guess it's arrogant for us to feel pity or revulsion at the Heaven's Gate incident, or even for us to refer to it as a tragedy.


Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 04/29/08 03:00 AM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people think that belief = reality. I guess it's arrogant for us to feel pity or revulsion at the Heaven's Gate incident, or even for us to refer to it as a tragedy.

I don't think pity, revulsion or a sense of tragedy would necessarily be an indication of arrogance. We can see such events from perspectives based only on our own understanding of reality, even though we may be aware that others may have a different understanding. Depending upon our own 'reality', their understanding may, logically, be regarded as a pitiable and tragic misunderstanding.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/10/08 07:10 AM

Quote:
It is shown that the resulting three dimensionality rests on two factors which have been hitherto ignored, viz., a Machian or holistic property and the stochastic underpinning of the universe itself.
However the dimensionality is scale dependent in the sense that at very large scales, or at very small scales, we encounter a different dimensionality, as indeed is borne out by observation and experiment. ....Finally it is shown how fractal dimensions can emerge....

A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic... (Think also: Free Will, Newtonian, Quantized, prehension & concrescence).

Stochastics is one of the main research areas at the Department of Mathematics and Statistics of the University of Helsinki. The areas studied are Markov processes, Gaussian processes (especially fractional Brownian motion), self-similar processes, martingales, stochastic analysis, large deviations, dynamical systems and mathematical statistics. Stochastic models are studied in connection to economics, actuarial and financial mathematics, queueing and telecommunications theory.
"...self-similar processes" (fractal) (...translate 'in G0d's image')?

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
Stochastic, from the Greek "Στόχος" which means "aim, guess", means of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture and randomness.
A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state does not fully determine its next state. Stochastic crafts are complex systems whose practitioners, even if complete experts, cannot guarantee success. Classical examples of this are medicine: a doctor can administer the same treatment to multiple patients suffering from the same symptoms, however, the patients may not all react to the treatment the same way. This makes medicine a stochastic process.
Additional examples are warfare and rhetoric, where the successes and failures cannot be certainly predicted.
Mathematical theory
In mathematics, specifically in probability theory, the field of stochastic processes has for some decades been a major area of research.
A stochastic matrix is a matrix that has non-negative real entries that sum to 1 in each column.
Artificial intelligence
In artificial intelligence stochastic programs work by using probabilistic methods to solve problems, as in simulated annealing, stochastic neural networks, stochastic optimization, and genetic algorithms. A problem itself may be stochastic as well, as in planning under uncertainty. A deterministic environment is much simpler for an agent to deal with.
Natural science
An example of a stochastic process in the natural world is pressure in a gas as modeled by the Wiener process. Even though (classically speaking) each molecule is moving in a deterministic path, the motion of a collection of them is computationally and practically unpredictable. A large enough set of molecules will exhibit stochastic characteristics, such as filling the container, exerting equal pressure, diffusing along concentration gradients, etc. These are emergent properties of the system.
Biology
Stochastic resonance (see oscillators)
In biological systems, introducing stochastic 'noise' has been found to help improve the signal strength of the internal feedback loops for balance and other vestibular communication. It has been found to help diabetic and stroke patients with balance control.


Nobody but a Stochastic Wonk (try that one, next time someone cuts you off in traffic) could understand this stuff.
Fortunately we can know there is meaning and significance behind something, even if we don't fully comprehend that something.

Whitehead's Metaphysics can be seen as an attempt to delineate how we (as stochastic beings) interact with a stochastic universe. IMHO
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/21/08 08:20 PM

Quote:
Whitehead's Metaphysics can be seen as an attempt to delineate how we (as stochastic beings) interact with a stochastic universe. IMHO
And a stochastic GØD. You make and excellent point Sam. I also like your acronym, G0d. I see you use '0' zero.

BTW, if people don't like what you see here, I invite anyone to create your own way of naming what the theologian, Paul Tillich called, "the ground of all being". One recent writer, Kauffman, uses Creativity. A poster in BrainMeta uses, Nature. INterestingly, every language has its own name. For example, the French use (Dieu based on the Latin Deus) probably meaning the highest 'idea'; The Poles use, PanBog. I think it means the "all good".
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/21/08 09:20 PM

Etymology of 'atheist'
=====================
Quote:
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".

The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".

Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic".

As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/22/08 12:21 PM

We need to know about anomie. Questions about it: What is it? What are its physical, mental and spiritual roots? What can and ought we to do about it--individually and collectively?

Here is what it is:

From www.answers.com
Quote:
1. Social instability caused by erosion of standards and values.

2. Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals: “We must now brace ourselves for disquisitions on peer pressure, adolescent anomie and rage” (Charles Krauthammer).

[French, from Greek anomiā, lawlessness, from anomos, lawless : a-, without; see a–1 + nomos, law.]
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/23/08 04:34 AM

I have two observations.

Is this discussion about language or vocabulary?

Would the meaning be the same in another language?

There are many examples of this last one. eg. The supposedly many names for 'snow' in some languages. The lack of words for quantities past 2 in some Aboriginal Australian languages (hence the repetition of the noun... as in Wagga Wagga, Yarra Yarra meaning a lot of waggas and a lot of yarras). When translating from one language to another it is sometimes difficult to show shades of meaning from one to the other. There are often multiple meanings in a simple sentence, and a lot of misunderstanding can come from this if this fact is unacknowledged.

Sam - I really don't understand what stochastic means, but I have a feeling that language would conform to the definition given as language can be both flexible and rigid at the same time, and the term 'fractal' seems apt too, as the language runs along with a life of its own (thinking out loud here, and brain hurting). To apply 'fractal' or 'stochastic' to god would, on the other hand, perhaps limit the limitless nature usually ascribed to him/her/it I think---maybe---perhaps---?

Actually I'll agree with Rede--42!
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/23/08 12:15 PM

Ellis: "To apply 'fractal' or 'stochastic' to god would, on the other hand, perhaps limit the limitless nature..."

Good point; and since we are discussing the unknowable, it seems that the words 'stochastic' and 'fractal' are simply two more contributions to the sizeable collection of hypotheses and answers regarding the unanswerable. But who knows? ! smile

For those whose indoctrination into an off-the-peg belief system - i.e., ready made formula for answering unanswerable questions - has failed, there is a tendency to look into themselves and out at the world and try to make some alternative sense of it all. Different people favour different answers, usually, it seems, on the basis of what they feel most comfortable with. Some will be admirably honest and state that they simply cannot know the unknowable, concluding that there may be many possibly correct answers. 42, for example! grin

Apologies for deviating somewhat from a discussion of the semantics.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/23/08 05:58 PM

Ellis comments:
Quote:
To apply 'fractal' or 'stochastic' to god would, on the other hand, perhaps limit the limitless nature usually ascribed to him/her/it I think---maybe---perhaps---?
Panentheism/unitheism does NOT think of the "ground of all being" as a him/her, or as limitless.

The ONE creative power--referred to in my signature--is ever an ever expanding and improving one--not yet complete. As a person, I have the choice of being a part of this, or of rejecting this; but, like Rene Descartes, in no way can I deny that I am, and that I live within Creativity--Nature, Existence, All-that-is, whatever.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/24/08 05:12 AM

The concept of god has to include immortality, never-ending and thus limitless--- otherwise that which is god-- corporeal or spiritual-- would have the ability to cease, or die. Which begs the question.. can that which is defined as god die?

And since 'god' embodies perfection the thing or state or divinity that defines god cannot 'improve' either.

Whatever is defined as 'god' just is-- existing because belief is also there. The belief, which creates god (in whatever manifestation) is necessarily limitless.... (or. it has just occurred to me, perhaps not, as god can be whatever you believe!)
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/24/08 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
The concept of god has to include immortality, never-ending and thus limitless--- otherwise that which is god-- corporeal or spiritual-- would have the ability to cease, or die. Which begs the question... can that which is defined as god die?
Just a reminder: Unitheism does not require that god be a person--a three dimensional being.

You say, "And since 'god' embodies perfection the thing or state or divinity that defines god cannot 'improve' either." Theists appear to believe this, and they have every right to do so.

If theism was the only option, my sense of reason and logic would force me to be an atheist. If there is a God who is supposed to be all powerful and all loving, there is no rational that I can imagine and believe that "He" allows all the pointless suffering pain, misery and death there is. Need I mention the thousands on people, including innocent children, who are victims of the disasters in Burma and China. No loving, personal and real God would allow this. To me, theism requires one to have a blind faith and no imagination.

My option is unitheism, or panentheism--GOD is in the process, with us.

BTW, have you read about them in Wikepedia? If so, I would welcome your critique. As a untheist I say that GOD is not perfect, yet. And we "children" of GOD, or GØD, are part of the process of helping this happen. Even the Bible (Paul) calls us "co-creators with God."

Have you checked out Process Theology and the work on Alfred North Whitehead?
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/25/08 01:16 AM

I have just posted a similar post to yours, Rev, on the About death etc topic. We agree on the basic facts but come to different conclusions.

I understand that you do not personalise your idea of god (but many do). I like the idea of God as in the old hymn-- "Immortal, invisible, God only wise..."and the lines.."in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes". For some reason I find that an amazing description, and also a challenging one.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/25/08 02:21 AM

Quote:
"Immortal, invisible, God only wise..."and the lines.."in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes". For some reason I find that an amazing description, and also a challenging one.

Challenging? In what way? I can accept that GOD is "in light"; but I would add: and in all things--visible and invisible.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/25/08 07:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I like the idea of God as in the old hymn-- "Immortal, invisible, God only wise..."and the lines.."in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes". For some reason I find that an amazing description, and also a challenging one.

Yes, I think it's a beautiful description, with the metaphorical 'light of God' beyond our understanding. And I suspect you mean "challenging" to the atheistic viewpoint.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/25/08 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
"in light inaccessible, hid from our eyes"

Yeah, think 'dark energy'' and hidden dimensions'....
smile ...but that's not why I called....
===

Can someone be a "shoe-in" for the job?

Webster says,
shoo: An exclamation used in frightening away animals....

...meanwhile (etymologically)....
A group of jockey's, in fixing a horserace, would hold their horses back and "shoo" in the longshot.

Hence, he is a "shoo in" for the position. [It just doesn't look right, does it?]

smile
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9399&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No
with podcast....
"...not that she's a congenital liar; but I think I called her a congenial lawyer."
Thanks, William Safire [author of "the nattering nabobs of negativism" (on BookTV; May/6/08)]!
smile
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/27/08 07:03 AM

Don't you 'shoo' things with gesture too? As in "Shoo! Shoo! go away!" to animals or a child hovering too near the cake tin. At the same time you flap about with your arms too! So you could shoo someone along to anywhere I think- certainly over the finish line of a race. Shoe-in sounds too much like Cinderella.

I'd prefer a congenial lawyer to a congenital liar any day, though the possibility exists that they could be one and the same.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/27/08 09:07 AM

Ellis,
Certainly we're not hoping the fly will hear us as we "shoo" it away, with a wave of the hand. That exclamation is more for us, socially, to explain the wild gesture.

But....
I'm sure those jockeys were using mostly body language on that longshot;
Along with a bit of hissing and shooing, if within earshot.
They won their race;
But lost their face;
So see, when the shoos fly, all the jockey's were bought.
....But there's a better rendering, somewhere, of this lame aught.
~~~
smile
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 05/31/08 09:44 AM


Authority:

Originally Posted By: Webster's
1. Legal or rightful power; a right to command or to act; jurisdiction.
2. A person, board, or commission having power in a particular field.
3. Government; those exercising power or command.
4. One claimed, or appealed to, in support of opinions, actions, measures, etc.; hence:
a. Testimony; witness
b. A precedent; previous decision of a court
c. A book or its author
d. Justification; warrant
5. Power due to superiority, or the like. [Syn. See Influence.]

===

While surfing on the net one day,
In the merry merry month of May
....
I came upon a site to rely
But then, a librarian did cry!

What's this we see, of authority
Are we now the Nut; or the Nutee?

Well I guess it depends on just what, from some web site, we choose to cite as a basis for authority.
Authority has to do with what the librarians call a verifiable, primary source.
Secondary sources don't have as much authority....
hmmmm.... now I'm being a secondary source. I should stop talking off the top of my head about authority and get a citataion!

...or maybe an example will work as well.
Below is what I'd consider as a secondary source:
===

...recorded earlier tonight; but then came onto this tangent....
===

John, thanks for the biocab link:

My goodness, these guys are a veritable gold mine of topical information.
Just to be clear, this is not a mainstream academic site. It looks like a laudable attempt to do good work, but I'd want any major conclusions that I made here to be verified with a more traditional resource.

I especially like Nasif's "Definition of Life:"
Originally Posted By: By Biologist Nasif Nahle, Council Leadership/Researcher Biology Cabinet Org., New Braunfels, Tx., CONFERENCE PRESENTED BY BIOLOGIST N. NAHLE... Theory published on November 14, 2002.
EXCERPTS from:
http://biocab.org/Abiogenesis.html#anchor_14
Life is a delay of the spontaneous diffusion or dispersion of the internal energy of the biomolecules towards more potential microstates.
Perhaps, the whole Solar System was synchronized at a frequency of vibration that would be normalized by an intermittent intensity and density of the electromagnetic energy emitted by an "embryonic" Sun and with the influence of the gravitational force.
It is realistic to deduce that the life's instant was promoted by the interaction of the Intergalactic Cosmic Energy, the oscillation in the density and the intensity of the energy emitted by the Sun, the correlation in the frequency of vibration of photons and molecules (resonance) and the gravitational waves with protobionts.
....
Sorry to say that I do not know the frequency of vibration of protobionts' molecules. It could be the same frequency of vibration of the chlorophyll molecules. If my hypothesis is demonstrated as true by experimentation, the conclusions will be extraordinary and productive.


http://biocab.org/About_Us.html
Who we are:
Biology Cabinet is an institution based in New Braunfels, Texas, USA and San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Our intent is to publicize updated information on Biology and issues of related sciences as well as describing the methods of science as clearly and simply as possible. The members of Biology Cabinet are active researchers in Life Sciences. Our central mission is to provide the latest advances in biological research. We also carry out research in a variety biology-related fields, such as ethology, botany, ecology, recurrent and emerging plagues and diseases, evolution, and uncorrupted science. We disdain pseudo-science, antiscience, solipsism, cultural relativism, non-science, and dogmatism.

http://biocab.org/Privacy.html
With respect to information available from this web page, neither the Biology Cabinet Organization nor any of its workers, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed; nor represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
BIOLOGY CABINET: Institute of Scientific Research and Education on Biology, 614-C S. Business IH 35, New Braunfels, TX. 78130 USA

...the cabinet guys, doing good work!

Despite the lack of warranty, there is a great deal of insight and inspiration on this site, if not good data also.
.
.
.
.
Although as I look further, it seems to also be a tool for blatant Climate Change denialist spin.

WE HAD TOLD YOU... NO GLOBAL WARMING SINCE 1999 NEW!
"This page has been registered properly like an intellectual property of Biology Cabinet®, thus it is forbidden its partial or total reproduction, by any means, without the consent by writing of its author."

...hmmmm, well let's try clicking on "CLIMATE CHANGE":
http://biocab.org/Discrepancies.html
Originally Posted By: APPROVED-BY-CONSENSUS UNSCIENCE
The occurrence of the warming of the Earth and other planets of the Solar System is science based on facts that were observed in the last century. The Climate Variability and the Global Warming are natural phenomena. As a scientist, I am obliged to catalogue like pseudoscience, lies and dogmatism the attribution to the human beings of a 100% natural phenomenon. The climate science has been distorted and manipulated to instill fear on people.
MEANING
Global Warming refers to a cyclical positive tendency in the variability of the tropospheric temperature on Earth due to multiple natural factors. Those changes always happen and always have happened in the history of our planet. The difference is that today we have to a political class and to some owners of the oil who have founded nexuses with bad scientists to create a fictitious climate and to maintain the terror on the world’s people.


Oh, I see now....
.
.
.
...it's always good to check the authority of your sources....
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/01/08 04:27 PM

Dear Samwik,

When we added the disclosure to our pages we had some links to online stores, so we had to be appart of their offers and or information they were offering through their websites. Now we have taken off those announcements and the "warranty" does not apply; so, we will erase it from the page.

If you want to talk about the article "We had told you... No Global Warming since 1999", go ahead. Read the article and you'll find that we are not talking only about our own work, but on the work of other scientists that has been published in Nature and Science magazines. We had noticed since 2005 that global warming had stopped in 1999; now other scientists have noticed the same phenomena. I reccommend you to check the references that we include in each article.

We are not denialists of global warming or climate change; however, we adhere to the scientific methodology, and the scientific methodology says that neither the global warming nor the climate change are or were produced by humans.

Cheers,

Nasif Nahle
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/01/08 11:04 PM

Hey! Thanks for noticing!

Yes, it was a cheap shot; as obviously that is a standard format disclaimer commonly used for commerce purposes.

This was mostly about my library lingo coming out. Creating and using quality authority files is an important part, in the acquisitions and cataloging process, of maintaining a research library's collection. I'm a bit of a fanatic for that kind of stuff; so if you have need of a research assistant, or simply some editing work, I'd be happy to be considered as a contributor.

I really am impressed with the breadth of topics on your website, as well as the depth in many of them. I look forward to some great inspiration as I browse through your wondrous site. Your webpage has me envisioning a commune of cheerful, free-thinking intellectuals. I happen to travel yearly, to a retirement village, east of Casterville. Is there any chance that you host tours?

I think a website like biocab is a great idea. Helping "to publicize updated information on Biology and issues of related sciences as well as describing the methods of science" is a noble goal and undertaking. I've been honored to do no more myself, in my library career. Is there any chance one can get funding for doing this sort of web-work, from some of the "think tanks" or foundations that are out there?

Thanks,
~samwik
smile

p.s.
Without changing the "wording" of your concluding sentence,
"The difference is that today we have to a political class and to some owners of the oil who have founded nexuses with bad scientists to create a fictitious climate and to maintain the terror on the world’s people." -NN

...I think it would read a little better, written as:
The difference is that today we have too, a political class; and too, some owners of the oil who have founded nexuses with bad scientists to create a fictitious climate and to maintain the terror on the world’s people.

p.p.s.
Y'know, I think I'd agree with that idea completely, if you define a "fictitious climate" as one that is changing faster than climate really, normally changes (except following sudden events such as volcanoes, meteor hits, geologic shifts, etc.) .
It does seem to be a nexus of politics, big oil economics, and badly applied science that has led to our current unreal, "fictitious" climate.

smile
Posted by: paul

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/09/08 06:36 PM

Nasif

That is quite some web site there , I particularly liked the visual Pyramid Energy depiction below.

I have inserted it , hope you dont mind.

ENERGY PYRAMID



the part that I like so much is the portion at the top right
just under the sun where it states that the suns irradiance is
1366 Watts per square meter.

this single square meter would power 52 (26 watt 100 watt luminancy equiv cfl bulbs).

on average a 2 bedroom house with a roof side that faces the sun that is apx 18 ft x 50 ft or 900 square feet
could generate 48000 watts and power 4 houses that use 10 Kw each if solar pannels were 100% efficient.

they are at present only apx 50% efficient using the newest
high efficency solar pannels , but times they are a changing.

so that cuts it down to 2 houses that use 10 Kw each.

I look forward to examining the different charts and information available on the site although I do not agree with the titles of some of the links , mainly because I believe that the current predictiment we are in is a direct result of human
interaction via its usage of fossile fuels.


looking forward to this.

also as anything that I might want to discuss on Climate Change should be located under the Climate Change forum , I will post any further replies there accordingly.

sorry for getting off topic

Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/12/08 07:17 PM

I did a bit of googling just now and thought this might be the best place to put these cosmic surfings....
cool

Just happened to catch a few words from this guy on PBS.
IMHO, it sounded very much like "process" theology/philosophy.

http://viewfromthecenter.com/biographies/primack/index.html

Quote:
Joel R. Primack, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, specializes in the formation and evolution of galaxies and the nature of the dark matter that makes up most of the matter in the universe. Primack received his A.B. from Princeton in 1966 and his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1970. He was then a Junior Fellow of the Society of Fellows of Harvard University. After helping to create what is now called the "Standard Model" of particle physics, Primack began working in cosmology in the late 1970s and he became a leader in the new field of particle astrophysics. He is one of the principal originators and developers of the theory of Cold Dark Matter, which has become the basis for the standard modern picture of structure formation in the universe.
...In 2004 he chaired an APS committee on NASA funding for astronomy. He has also served as an advisor to and participant in the Science and the Spiritual Quest project, and as chairman of the advisory committee for the AAAS Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion 2000-2002.

http://scipp.ucsc.edu/personnel/profiles/primack.html
Joel R. Primack's Home PageJoel Primack's research has mainly been in relativistic quantum field theory and in cosmology and particle astrophysics, a field that he has helped to create.
scipp.ucsc.edu/personnel/profiles/primack.html - 12k -
...

Amazon.com: Joel R. Primack: BooksThe View from the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos by Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams (Hardcover - April 6, ...
www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type...mack&page=1 - 119k
...

primack joel r joel r primack physics department
"Einstein's Idea of God," by Nancy Abrams and Joel Primack, in God for the 21st Century, ed. Russell Stannard ( Philadelphia : Templeton Foundation Press, ...
physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primackabrams.html - 11k
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primackabrams.html

Gotta run now, but will review this....
~Later
smile
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 06/13/08 10:18 PM

SamW, This afternoon I took some time to listen to
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primackabrams.html
As one who has had a life-long interest in cosmology, I was very impressed.

IMO, Joel Primack, with his short reference to Cabala, was talking about what I mean when I talk about GØD. Great stuff!!!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/26/08 01:20 AM

Dear Paul,

The Standard of the Total Solar Irradiance is 1366.75 W/m^2. From this amount, 683.5 W/m^2 are the non-monochromatic incident Solar Radiation upon Earth's surface, from which 1.28 W/m^2 is "stored" in ecosystems. If we talk about shortwave IR, then the Incident Solar IR upon surface would be about 341.75 W/m^2.

It would be fine if you suggest more appropiate titles for some articles. Thanks for your observation.

Best,

Nasif Nahle
Posted by: paul

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/27/08 08:02 PM

Nasif

I have replied on the Climate Change forum.

Please redirect any further relavant responces.



Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/28/08 06:38 PM

OK, when I first started reading this thread I thought it was a discussion on Linguistics and philosophy of language. But as usual it has been reduced to the usual internet dribble about, religion, politics and global warming. So im going to get back to the thread theme and ignore all the posts before.

Language can be broken down to many forms but the most interesting is Pragmatics. Pragmatics deal with the intention of the sentence/phrase.

Like previously mentioned sentence:

"People who live in glass houses..."

First of all there is the literal translation. What is more interesting is the metaphorical tranlation. From pragmatics point of view we can brake a phrase into three parts, the intent of the speaker, the actual phrase said and the intent recieved by the listener. If a speaker utters the sentence previously mentioned he/she will be implying the meaning that you should not expose your weakness. When the sentence is uttered it doesn't have that meaning anymore, just the direct meaning. Then when the listener hears it it takes meaning again. But by no means does that meaning is quivalent to the meaning intended by the speaker. Rather the meaning is approximated by the listner as to his/her expectation of the intent of the speaker.

To make it clearer imagine someone tells you: "Can you bring me that book over there". There is no real way for the listener to know for sure that the book he/she is thinking the speaker is refering to is the same as he/she is thinking that the utterence refered to. While the meaning of the sentance on its own has no reference at all as you must be in the locale of the speaker to make a reference.

So as an Enlish speaker and can both generate and understand an infinite number of utterenses. But it is impossible for me to ever be certain of the intended meaning of an utterance.

Sorry for no references, blogging from work and dont have my Pholosophy of Language text handy. But Russel, Frege and Gryce are good starts for these questions
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/28/08 08:37 PM

Gravity is the ultimate capitalist principle. In astronomy, a "rich" region of the universe is one that has more matter, a "poor" region less matter, than average. Gravity magnifies differences that already exist. Denser regions expand more slowly, and less dense regions more rapidly, than average. The inevitable result is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.Yep, this is quite insightful article. I can try to explain it on background of Aether Wave Theory (AWT), because it can illuminate deeper, how the gravity is working.

By AWT the universe is completely random particle stuff and everything, what we can see from it are the density gradients. This is quite analogous to observation of dense gas or supercritical fluid, from which just a spongy density fluctuations are visible.



Such system appears like foam and it fact it behaves like foam, too. Every foam gets more dense during shaking reversibly. This is because the foam is composed of density gradients and energy wave introduces an new gradients into system, because every wave is gradient driven atemporal element. You can check this behavior on the Java applet herein.

Therefore, with respect to energy spreading, every place, where the energy wave appears is behaving like less or more dense place of environment, i.e. like "blob" or particle. From this aspect of foam behavior the well known principle of particle-wave duality follows and the AWT makes it quite trivial to understand.

Such blob is behaving like optical lens as well and it focuses the another energy density waves from its neighborhood. It's in fact the analogy of gravitational lensing as well. It means, every perturbation inside of our Universe has a tendency to propagate itself by avalanche-like mechanism - and this occurs just because we are concentrated to the observation of gradients, not the chaotic fluctuations.

We can interpret the same phenomena on background of the so called omnidirectional expansion of Universe. What the omnidirectional really means? It means, every place expands with the same speed, no matter, from which position we are observing it. A well known consequence is the so called Hubble red shift. But we can go a slightly deeper and we can ask, what will happen, if some large density fluctuation will expand. In this place the expansion of Universe will be faster, which effectively leads to the further increasing of the local gradient here. We can imagine, the light is spreading from the center of distant galaxy by the gradually slower speed, because the neighboring space will expand during this time. This leads to the observation, every source of light effectively freezes in the expanding space, so it behaves like less or more dense blob at very end (the MOND theory is based on such insight, by the way). And this is what the material particles, the stars and galaxies really are - the areas of information frozen. From AWT follows, these areas cannot be never fully randomly arranged, which in consequence leads to all laws of observable Universe.



Believe it or not, these models are experimentally testable and they can have their observable consequences. For example, the complete unexpected weight lost or dilatation of the iridium kilogram prototype can have a deep meaning from the above perspective, because from this model follows, every piece of dense matter is "precollapsed" already and it expands and "dissolves" in the expanding space-time. You can consider the Expanding Earth theory, dimming standard candle supernovae and acceleration of Universe expansion for further intriguing consequences of this model, which we can discuss later in the thread dedicated to Aether model. It means, a trivial concept of omnidirectional Universe expansion opens whole new cosmology for us.

Please feel free to ask, if you don't understand something, because these insights couldn't be understandable at the first sight, especially in connection with my poor English and my tendency to condense many themes into single place.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/28/08 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: samwik
...LANGUAGE - What does it mean?, How is it used?, Where did a word come from?
The concept of nested density fluctuations of Aether is quite general and it can be applied onto every energy spreading. We should realize, the words and ideas are abstract concepts, which are helping to intensify the mass/energy spreading through civilization by the same way, like the density fluctuations/gradient inside of dense gas are helping to spread the energy. So we can consider the words, ideas and theories as a nested fluctuation of causal space-time, which is represented by quantum foam of electrochemical waves inside of our brain - they're all real energy waves, in fact. The fundamental concept is the gradient concept here: every semantic unit is in fact the denomination of relation between nodes of such foam, i.e. the places of different semantic potential. The notions, ideas and theories are behaving like 0D, 1D, 2D... branes in causal space-time, connecting two or more semantic elements. From this perspective, the speech or exchange of information in general is a sort of electromagnetic inductions between electrochemical waves inside of our neural network mediated by wits.


We can met with many analogies of common wave mechanics during information spreading - for example, we can experience the analogy of gravitational lensing above explained at the moment, some important idea (like the AWT) attracts the another ideas by avalanche-like mechanisms, simply because it focuses the neighboring thinking into it by the same way, like dense vacuum near gravitation body. At the case, this synergy is sufficiently intensive, it can lead to so called information singularity and to the formulation by completely new ideas and concepts in analogy with condensation of ordinary particle matter. Everything in this extent is the consequence of non-linear behavior of gradient driven Aether foam.


In addition, the concept of Aether foam condensation can explain many archetypes and aspects of sacral geometry, (i.e. the Uroboros model of Universe, Tao of five elements and many others) on background of classical Newtonian mechanics and hidden dimensions concept of string theory - but I don't want to interfere this topic by redundant physics - so feel free to find / ask the further explanation here.



I'd like to discuss just a consciousness and semantical aspects of Aether Wave Theory here. The fundamental question in language understanding is, how exactly our brain and neural network works and I'll try to explain it in more detail later.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/28/08 10:25 PM

The basic concept in brain understanding from AWT perspective is, the neural network is nothing less, then the effective analog simulator of Aether foam. In fact it's a piece of supercritical particle foam, which we are bearing inside of our heads with the exception, the density fluctuations aren't formed by particle gas, but by gradients of electrochemical ions concentration (the calcium ions in particular). These gradients can propagate by large speed along synapses of neuron cells like inertial waves along surfaces of foam. And they're making it less or more dense by the same way, like the propagation of waves makes the soap foam more dense.

Here are three or four mechanisms, how to achieve the dynamic density changes inside of neural network, and they're all based on the concept of memory. If we try to simplify this concept, the neural cells are getting "tired" when serving for propagation of many electrochemical waves in single place, so they increase the density of synapses at this place correspondingly to achieve the most effective energy spreading. The resulting dense place (blob) fixes the route of most effective information spreading into hardwired nodes, which can serve as channels for preferential spreading of electrochemical waves in the future. Such activity occurs in sleep only, when the positive feedback function of neurons is suppressed, or it would lead into neurosis. By such way, the neurons are learning the most successful paradigms of energy spreading, so they're not required to develop them further again and again. The motion of electrochemical waves inside of learned neural network appears something like this by my assumption, it means every wave of electrochemical activity involves many hundreds of neural synapses:



This concept of neural brain isn't very new and we can find it in the work of Pribram and R. Penrose in particular. It gives good meaning with respect to Aether Wave Theory, because the waves of electrochemical activity are behaving like density fluctuations of foam inside of dense particle gas. But heres a difference, because the Penrose considered, the quantum waves are smaller the neurons, being restricted into microtubules by real quantum mechanics effects, while by my opinion they could be much larger then single neural cells. This has an interesting consequence in explanation of many psychic phenomena, like telekinesis and telepathy in particular, because such waves of large amount of collectively moving ions can have a tangible electromechanical effects at the distance on the background of Aharamov-Bohm effect and gravitomagnetic interaction. I will try to explain this concept later in more detail.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/29/08 08:49 AM

Yikes! Those graphics might cause seizures! smile
...and I haven't even read the immediately preceding post yet....
===

Paul,
Thanks for moving the solar stuff over to the Climate Change Forum.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27329#Post27329
===

Anon at Work,
"...when I first started reading this thread I thought it was a discussion on Linguistics and philosophy of language."
Yea, I had high hopes; but in the end it has served well as a place to define some of the key terms used in other Topics. Illustrating "authority" with that over-the-top example was ...well, over-the-top; but occasional digressions can be very enriching, ...blah, blah, blah....

As for how "...it is impossible ...to ever be certain of the intended meaning of an utterance,"
I enjoy writing just because it allows for the extra time to craft a more comprehensive and illustrative verbal equation; but the point is still valid and well-taken. Receiving feedback and reiteration are good ways of honing in on a fuller mutual understanding, don't you think?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/
Quote:
Principia Mathematica, the landmark work written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, and published in three volumes, in 1910, 1912 and 1913. Written as a defense of logicism (i.e., the view that mathematics is in some significant sense reducible to logic) the book was instrumental in developing and popularizing modern mathematical logic. It also served as a major impetus for research in the foundations of mathematics throughout the twentieth century. Next to Aristotle's Organon, it remains the most influential book on logic ever written.

Logic, however, may not be singularly best suited for achieving that mutual understanding of meaning.

The mythic and evocative nature of language allows for a quantum realm of possibilities in meaning.
Can this help take us beyond logic to more gracefully "embrace our inevitable ignorance as we live our lives forward?" *

* Stuart Kauffman: Reinventing the Sacred
===

Originally Posted By: zephir
I'd like to discuss just a consciousness and semantical aspects of Aether Wave Theory here.

I think AWT certainly confirms the self-similar, stochastic (and? ...the non-deterministic, creative, & emergent -beyond logical) nature of the universe; and hopefully this can serve as a heuristic analogy for seeing common principles and enhancing mutual understanding of meaning.

Thanks,
~ smile
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/29/08 09:42 AM

The Aharamov-Bohm effect is well studied example of quantum non-locality. It's connected with the Aether model of vacuum, which is similar to the boiling fluid, composed of nested density fluctuations, similar to recursive foam. The main point here is, these fluctuations are influencing the density of the foam even though their local motion are compensated at the distance, because they're forming so called density (probability) waves.

The Aharamov-Bohm effect is related to so called quantum double slit experiment, during which was observed, the long coil (solenoid) is able to influence the trajectories of particles, even though its magnetic field is confined into small space inside of solenoid, so it's virtually impossible, the tiny localised particle can pass through it directly.



In Aether theory such observation has a deeper meaning, because the motion of many dispersed Aether fluctuation in hidden dimensions is additive and it can behave like single giant fluctuation. We can met with this behavior in many other places of quantum mechanics, for example at the case of "quantum coral" or "quantum mirage" phenomena, during which the image of atom is restored from many reflections, which could compensate mutually. In this connection, an anomalous interaction of DNA fragments at the distance was reported (the DNA is large organized structure of ions) and many related, less or more controversial biophysic phenomena (DNA phantom).

Therefore we can consider, the collective motion of many ions inside of human brain is possible to invoke a tangible macroscopic effects at the larger distance, although the motion of these ions would compensate mutually at short distance.

In addition, we shouldn't underestimate the collective kinetic energy of these ions, because the human brain is able to consume at least of one tenth of energy of human body, being a quite effective "microwave oven". At the case of dolphins it's believed, their brains to body mass ratio plays an active role in body thermoregulation. So, at the case of human brain we're facing to energy of roughly 30 - 150 Watts hidden mostly in collective motion of charged ions, confined by neural cells membranes. By my opinion this energy is sufficient to make a temporal changes in density of neighboring vacuum, analogous to those, which we can observe during A-B experiment and which can induce a number of mechanical and electromechanical effects, like the telekinesis and telepathy, the reports of which we can met with often on the web.

The fact, the electromagnetic interaction of ions at proximity is compensated mutually shouldn't distract us from many subtle phenomena, which are indicating the nested, multidimensional character of vacuum. For example, an anomalous effects in inertial mass deviations ("scalar waves") during current changes in the caduceus bifilar coil have been reported, as well as a one-dimensional line of information regarding the cancellation along the axis of the cylinder. This one dimensional line seems capable of recreating the original current "canceled" by a another coil which is critically aligned upon this line with the first, as is a pair of LASER cavity mirrors aligned to a critical precision.

These observations are strange, just because the caduceus coil was designed to compensate the electromagnetic field of coil at distance, which usually covers these subtle phenomena near electrical conductors of electrical current. We can see a close analogy to behavior of DNA double helix wire here, so we can expect a whole range of underestimated electrochemical and physical phenomena in this area.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/29/08 10:31 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
...AWT certainly confirms the self-similar, stochastic (...the non-deterministic, creative, & emergent -beyond logical) nature of the universe..
Yep, in fact the AWT proposes a testable model of this emergence, based on the model of nested density fluctuations of Boltzmann gas. You can simulate it by using of computer and we can deduce the geometry of some important structures (E8 Lie group) and the related phenomena.



This concept is demonstrating clearly, every piece of observable reality is composed of large number of another units (unparticles), which are interacting at distance. So that every attempt to describe these gradients by language of consecutive logic (i.e. by the math) is necessarily incomplete and limited, because the reality is fuzzy, which results in Godel incompleteness theorem and quantum uncertainty.

On the other hand, if we can observe a chaos, we can always deduce some regularity from it, because the pure chaos is invisible for us. By AWT the Universe is completely chaotic by its true nature, but the limited speed of information spreading constrains the number of available states in this chaos (like the number of colors in chaotic gas composed of color molecules), so we can always see some scale invariant patterns inside of this chaos (we can say, our ability to see something is cause by our inability to see everything at the same moment).



From the above perspective, the pure chaos can be never observed by the same way, like we cannot met the absolute order - these two things are always in mutually dynamic equilibrium or duality.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/29/08 10:54 AM

How the concept of infinitely chaotic universe is related to the God concept? Isn't God to be considered as a highest order unique entity? In fact, both these concepts are dual in AWT

Here's a geometric trick in the way, by which the chaos can be interpreted. For example, if we project the regular motion of rotating rod onto plane, the motion of projected image will not remain so regular for us, because the projection of 3D motion into 2D plane removes some information and causality from that motion and the image of rod will be shorter, from long term average perspective. If we would observe the rod, rotating in, says, 20 dimensions into 3D space, the image of rod would be nearly completely chaotic for us and it would appear as a tiny particle.

As another mechanical analogy of many dimensions (directions of motion) can serve a double pendulum. This thing is composed of two pendulums, whose motion is highly stochastic. We can imagine the triple, quintuple, ... etc pendulum and we will face the complete chaos. We should understand, the double pendulum is closely related to the concept of nested rotators of quantum mechanics, which are undulating in nested Hilbert space and to the motion of particles at phase boundaries inside of nested density fluctuations of Aether, they're conceptually the same things.



This concept is contained in the idea of holographic universe, which considers, our reality is formed by projection of another reality into our 3D spaces. We can see, the projection of surface waves undulating in 3D space on the 2D bottom of pool is pretty similar to the density fluctuations of 3D space.




So, we can interpret the chaotic motion of Aether particles as a projection of infinite reality into our 3D space, i.e something like harmonic wave, which is undulating in the infinite number of dimensions, i.e. like omnipotent, fully harmonic God (or the surface of black hole, which we are living in into black hole interior). From this point of view the AWT is basically the Newtonian mechanics of harmonic motion in infinite number of dimensions, which appears completely chaotic from our limited perspective - from this the name of AWT follows.

But i consider the chaotic approach to reality as somewhat better understandable, then the concept of hidden dimensions, because it remains more close to everyday human experience. The philosophic interpretation of AWT is up to you, I'm interesting only about falsifiable connections of reality.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 07:20 PM

We can met with many examples of inertial character of information spreading, which exhibits the behavior of quantum waves, when spreading through civilization. This behavior can learn us a lot about physics and sociology as well.

For example, we can met with so called total reflection phenomena. This effect occurs at the phase interface, where the energy wave travels through environment of lower energy density into more dense one.

One could expect, the information will spread along energy gradient the more easily, the stronger such gradient will be. But the reality is quite opposite above certain level. The speed of learning cannot exceed certain critical level. Above this value, the object will start to behave like informational black holes and it will lose the ability to radiate it's energy/information (nearly) completely.



For example, we cannot learn a dog a difficult task, because its neural system is of low information density with respect to our. The dog in human society is behaving like reflecting bubble filled by air, when immersed into liquid with high refraction index. The dog could learn a lotta things from human society, but in fact he will learn nothing, mostly due the excessive entropy gradient, generated by millions years of human brain evolution.

On the other, the space shuttle wrecked in the middle of bush is behaving like informational black hole, when surrounded by savages, because of too high gradient of information. The analysis of plane technology would help these people in many ways, but they cannot cross its informational barrier.

Therefore the people, who are proposing a new ideas cannot retreat from the target reality (advance its time) too much, or they're risking, their information will be refuted and reflected back again. It was a destiny of many farseeing people, who have had forgotten the basic rules of energy/information spreading .

In addition, we can observe the dispersion and reflection phenomena on the phase boundaries and gradient. Every new information is violently opposed by proponents of old system of thinking. We can decrease such condemnation by surface treatment of the phase boundary: by scratching and making holes, for example by publishing it in many separated places and by using of viral marketing techniques. The same approach (surface undulations) can be used to excerpt energy from black holes.

We can met with the superconductivity phenomena inside of systems of very low energy density, i.e. at the case of information spreading through sectarian and totalitarian societies, characterized by very strong paradigms of thinking. The rich society is much more individualistic and secular, so that the information spreading has a diffusive character here, i.e. it's not organized by existing structures, but it spreads by peer-to-peer mechanism and rather slowly due the high information density of society.

The reverse side of every totalitarian society of low energy/information density (i.e. in "boson condensate" state ) is, it's behaving like reflecting bubble form perspective of information spreading, so that most of information bounces from outside due the strong phase interface phenomena (censorship and propaganda, relying on ignorance and superstitiousness of society members). The superstitions about Aether concept are the main barrier in Aether theory spreading.


These analogies mean, every information is material wave by its very nature, whose spreading is driven by gradient of energy density like every inertial wave. The case of energy spreading in equilibrium corresponds the inertial diffusion of particle matter. Information always spread more effectively along existing gradients by the same way, like the waves during spreading through foam, i.e. when using analogies in explanation of new ideas. The very general nature of AWT enables to use both physical, both sociological analogies in its explanation. This is because the AWT doesn't depend on the nature of environment, it depends only to its geometry.
Posted by: Amaranth Rose II

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/29/08 07:41 PM

Zephir,
Your posts here are way out of line. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please remove your posts and place them in Physics or Not Quite Science. I will remove them from this forum in 2 days to give you time to move them. Please stick to the rules and keep to the topic.

Amaranth
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 07/29/08 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Your posts here are way out of line. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Nope, you just cannot see the connections. Believe it or not, I'm just answering the introductory question:

Language: What does it mean? How is it used? Where did a word come from?

My point is, the constructs, concepts, ideas and theories are hierarchical density fluctuations of electrochemical waves inside of our brains, forming our consciousness. And as such they can be modeled like other physical artifacts by using of established models and formalisms.

You can try to propose another explanation, if you want - but I'm afraid, you will not be able to answer all phenomena, related to evolution of terms and development of semantic structures. And you'll not definitely able to propose a general engine for semantical processing and modeling of etymological evolution by using of computers. Just because you're impatient and you cannot see the practical consequences of concepts and analogies. For me the concepts, constructs and terms are physical artifacts, because they can influence (albeit quite vicariously) the physical reality.



For example, the idea of communism can appear as a quite abstract for many people (how to detect it) - but surprisingly it can be observed even from cosmic space! The above picture illustrates the boundary between some Mid Europa countries with quite similar natural conditions, but with different polity history. The mean parcel area in the upper half of picture is affected by collectivization (the dense foam is richer to energy, then the sparse one).

Now we can ask: are the ideas really abstract, if they can influence the physical reality by such tangible way? Or we are just impatient when considering the impact of ideas to the physical reality, neglecting the time dimension by this way?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 08:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Zephir
We can met with many examples of inertial character of information spreading, which exhibits the behavior of quantum waves, when spreading through civilization. This behavior can learn us a lot about physics and sociology as well.
.
.
These analogies mean, every information is material wave by its very nature, whose spreading is driven by gradient of energy density like every inertial wave. The case of energy spreading in equilibrium corresponds the inertial diffusion of particle matter. Information always spread more effectively along existing gradients by the same way, like the waves during spreading through foam, i.e. when using analogies in explanation of new ideas. The very general nature of AWT enables to use both physical, both sociological analogies in its explanation. This is because the AWT doesn't depend on the nature of environment, it depends only to its geometry (recursive, stochastic, & fractal?).
Is that the geometry to which you refer?

Cool!
The emergent nature of the universe can inform us about the emergent nature of civilization, societies, corporations, governments, and markets.

Despite the overwhelming physics background presented here, to make the point, it seems to be "on-topic" enough.

~K
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..Despite the overwhelming physics background presented here..
The problem of many philosophers, linguists and social science proponents is, they cannot understand, every piece of reality is of physical, material nature. Even the abstract math relies on the concept of countable units (i.e. the concept of physical particles) in the role of natural numbers heavily. For example the Fibonnacci series, Zeta function and prime numbers distribution are just describing the geometry of dense particle packing - this is why the Golden rule and other geometric primitives are so significant in both math, both Nature description.



So we can avoid the physics anywhere. For ancient philosophers the Physica was a collection of all natural sciences and this approach was consistent with the plenum (Aether concept) of Greek philosophy. The AWT just illustrates, this approach was correct, the modern science just drown in formal positivistic approach - so it's able to describe the reality with high precision, but it's not able to realize its fundamental principles, even at the case, such understanding is quite trivial. The AWT could be proposed before one hundred years without problem, so that the problem of contemporary science isn't, the Aether concept is overmuch complex, but the fact, it's too trivial for people with complex thinking.

Anyway, as we can observe, the physics has replaced the theology and philosophy in many aspects gradually and we can expect, this trend will continue even at the case of other social sciences. This is because the destination of every intuitive insight and/or ad-hoced concept (from quantity/quality form of dialectics to light speed invariance of relativity) is to find its simplest and natural explanation due the Occam's razor criterion. Therefore I don't see a future of abstract humanitarian and formal sciences quite brightly - everything will be simulated by molecular and atomar computers less or more latelly.

By AWT here's no sociobiology, psychology, chemistry of biology - everything is the consequence of trivial fundamental principles of inertial physics. The advantage of such approach is, when you'll understand the biology, you can learn a lot about other sciences. And now we are disputing the physical roots of semantics.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 09:14 PM

So, how we can learn the computer to speak and to think by quite general way, i.e. without any lexical and semantical rules hardwired? By AWT theory the concepts are forming a density gradients in causal space, so we can detect them by the same way, like the density fluctuation inside of gas by mutual distance of words in the text (i.e. by proximity analysis). The detection of meaning of sentence will not based on lexical analysis after then, but on the intuitive approach, which compares the mutual distance of words in the sentence with database in as large context, as possible.

For example, the phrase "blue water" has a meaning for us, because of relative proximity of such words in many sentences, which we have met already - such connection of words has a meaning for us quite intuitively, while the phrase "sharp water" hasn't. Therefore the semantic analysis of sense can be based on proximity analysis, when comparing the mutual distances of words in sentence with large semantic database by using of principle "each of other".

Such comparison will require a fast parallel computer, because the van-Neumann architecture of contemporary computers isn't well adopted for such approach. But the analog neural network based on entangled states of quantum waves (qubits) can be used, because every density fluctuation interacts with all others at the same moment, here. Such computer can learn to detect meaning of sentences just by reading of large amount of meaningful text, i.e. by using of the sentences in context, the meaning of which is considered valid a-priori. Such analysis of text corresponds the learning phase of common neural networks.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Is that the geometry to which you refer?
Well, can we postulate some geometry without density gradients inside of dense particle field? The problem is, the geometry is abstract concept, while the space-time is physical one - here is uncrossable barrier between these concepts, because no abstract math or geometry can derive the time or inertia concepts. On the vice-versa, as I demonstrated already, the numbers, derivations and geometry are concepts derived from inertial particle physics, instead. Every abstract idea is confined to some material waves in our head. After all, it's highly improbable to expect, these abstract concepts can exists outside of human civilization or to expect, they have evolved before people. Before people no geometry has ever existed, just a scale invariant chaos.



By my opinion, the fact, the Universe appears so regular for us is the consequence of fact, we are formed by highly causal fluctuation of Universe, so we have an tendency to sample obstinatelly just a density gradients from random chaos - this leads to the interesting geometric transform, which gives a foamy shape to the observable portion of Universe. But from quite distant/general perspective, here are no shapes or geometry at all. Does some shape or geometry exist here? Nope, it's just a random cluster of water dropplets.



Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 10:19 PM

So does the emerging complexity, that leads to life, continue the random nature, or is some order realized within the randomness?

Doesn't that "order" imply an underlying order?

~K
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..the emergent nature of the universe..
The emergence is ad-hoced modish term without deeper meaning, being a sort of creationism. I know the emergent, unparticle or process physics and/or constructal theory, but the simple particle concept of AWT can reconcile & replace all these less or more abstract theories. We aren't required to have so many new postmodern terms for different aspects of ancient Aether concept.

From AWT perspective, the emergence is nothing else, then the phase transition (a special case of spontaneous symmetry breaking), which is common in every particle environment and it follows from the finite speed of energy/information spreading inside of such environment. If the energy speed isn't sufficient for homogeneous energy spreading, the system condenses into new density gradients, thus reducing/collapsing the portion of space, required for energy exchange.

The point is, we can construct a formal theory of phase transformation or we can develop a computer simulation of it - but we cannot model the emergence concept, simply because nobody knows, what the emergence really is and how it works (if we ignore the Aether concept, indeed). Therefore the emergence concept as such is redundant here with respect to Occam's razor criterion. I need to consider it for anything.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/29/08 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Doesn't that "order" imply an underlying order
The true is, the "chaos" concept considers some minute "order" on the background as well . The noise must remain composed of many particles, which are itself pretty well defined - to remain observable as a chaos.

A true chaos cannot be observed at all, because every action is compensated by another action immediately in each place and moment - so it cannot serve for energy spreading at distance at all. Such true chaos is indistinguishable from physical void or infinite dimensional space. So even the fact, we can see at least something from our Universe violates the concept of perfect chaos heavily in my eyes.

After then we can ask: if the chaos must be violated, how we can violate it as much randomly, as possible? How the general structure of chaotic fluctuation should appear? Is the Boltzmann gas a sufficiently general approximation of random chaos in arbitrary number of dimensions?

The AWT model doesn't explain, why the Universe exists as such, it just explains, how it should appear, when every entity remains composed of many other entities - no matter which these entities are composed from. They can be composed of gravitons, gummibears, cooking recipes or another memes - it doesn't matter, because everything what we are allowed to see are just a density fluctuations (gradients) of this environment, being formed by the same way.

Such cardinality is generalization of Lorentz invariance in certain extent: we cannot observe the (motion/reference frame of) environment just by using of the waves, formed by this environment. By the analogous way, no theory can explain its own postulates: for example, the string theory cannot explain the relativity and quantum mechanics, if it's using them as a introductory postulates. And the Aether theory cannot explain the nature of Aether by its very definition. We should develop some even more general theory of reality, instead. Which I can see as a pretty difficult task.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/31/08 03:14 AM


Originally Posted By: zephir
Does some shape or geometry exist here? Nope, it's just a random cluster of water dropplets.
Does some shape or geometry exist here? Nope, it's just a random cluster of water dropplets.
Hey! Random?
It's a bunny!
smile


If you'd like to see my idea of the physics of reality, see: Energy, Mass & Fractals:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=22153#Post22153

I'd like to see some of those seizure-inducing graphics of yours, modified to show evolving fractal shapes, within the seething and undulating areas.



Anyway, I've been trying to think of how to respond and stay on the topic.
While I think the AWT concept is great, looking for analogies in dense fluids, etc., I don't research physics enough to go any further with the details, I think.
I've always thought about the utility of the early aether ideas when I'd read about relativity, string, or brane ideas; the new ideas seemed to be just semantic routes around the term, "aether," but not really circumventing the nagging of some "medium."
I'd read the new ideas, but usually just translate them into my understanding of the "aether," that sort of intercalating network of fractals, i.e.:
Originally Posted By: Energy, Mass & Fractals #22167
The density, or topographic gradient shown "emanating" from the Mandelbrot sets, corresponds to the "structure of spacetime." The gradient between two Mandelbrot sets would be "null space." By null space, I just mean normal empty 3-D spacetime, I think.

...but enough about my off-topic musings:

I thought I understood the implication that the fluctuating nature of AWT allowed (predicted) for the quantum non-deterministic, nature of reality; but you said several things that made me wonder if we were talking about the same thing.
You mentioned:
Originally Posted By: zephir
....The emergence is ad-hoced modish term without deeper meaning, being a sort of creationism. I know the emergent, unparticle or process physics and/or constructal theory, but the simple particle concept of AWT can reconcile & replace all these less or more abstract theories.
....By AWT here's no sociobiology, psychology, chemistry of biology - everything is the consequence of trivial fundamental principles of inertial physics.
....Anyway, as we can observe, the physics has replaced the theology and philosophy in many aspects gradually and we can expect, this trend will continue even at the case of other social sciences. This is because the destination of every intuitive insight and/or ad-hoced concept... is to find its simplest and natural explanation.... simulated by molecular and atomar computers less or more....
...a few words I don't get, but I think I follow....

Regardless of where we come down on the spectrum between deterministic Newtonian reality, and non-deterministic, quantum reality; or at what level of reality we draw a line between the two, I'm wondering what you think about
this quote from my Kindle e-book [loc.3526-3534]
by

Stuart Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred:

"We are beyond reductionism: life, agency, meaning, value, and even consciousness and morality almost certainly arose naturally, and the evolution of the biosphere, economy, and human culture are stunningly creative often in ways that cannot be foretold, indeed in ways that appear to be partially lawless. The latter challenge to current science is radical. It runs starkly counter to almost four hundred years of belief that natural laws will be sufficient to explain what is real anywhere in the universe, a view I have called the Galilean spell. The new view of emergence and ceaseless creativity partially beyond natural law is truly a new scientific worldview in which science itself has limits. And science itself has found those very limits. In this partial lawlessness is not an abyss, but unparalleled freedom, unparalleled creativity. We can only understand the biosphere, economic evolution, and culture retroactively, from a historical perspective. Yet we must live our lives forward, into that which is only partially knowable. Then since reason truly is an insufficient guide, we truly must reunite our humanity. And if so, we truly need to reinvent the sacred for ourselves to guide our lives, based on the ultimate values we come to choose. At least, we must be fully responsible for ourselves, our lives, our actions, our values, our civilization, the global civilization."

I suppose it might be more appropriate to copy this and respond over on the "Reinventing the Sacred" Topic, but maybe next time....
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26073#Post26073

You mention "emergent... or process physics," and I wonder what you think of these (other than that they're, as you opined, "abstract"), in light of the above Kauffman quote.

For now I wonder, do you see everything as knowably reducible, able to be "simulated by molecular and atomar computers less or more," or do levels emerge that could never be predicted, even based on a deconstruction of the "emerged level?"

Thanks,
~ smile
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/31/08 06:55 AM

It's all semantics though isn't it? I mean even those amazing graphics and the cute bunny cloud are subject to differing interpretations and meanings.

So, because I too am a bit of a bunny, could you explain what you are meaning by the dizzy graphics Zephir? In plain English? To blow the clouds away! Thanks.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/31/08 08:44 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
..you mention "emergent... or process physics," and I wonder what you think of these...in light of the above Kauffman quote..
These concepts are independent to some quotes, they're well studied branches of modern physics with number of publications written by serious scientists, no amateurs. Use Goggle and Wikipedia to search for further details, the detailed discussion of these theories falls outside the scope of this topic.
The Aether Theory isn't separated from science, as somebody may believe - most of concepts of mainstream physics, biology and sociology are having a direct counterparts in AWT and vice-versa. The AWT explains emergence and fractal nature of reality by the model of condensation of droplets from the gas, which can be modeled by using of computers.
Originally Posted By: Ellis
..what you are meaning by the dizzy graphics..
I'm trying to explain, the concepts aren't abstract entities, they're formed by standing waves of electrochemical activity inside of our brains by the similar mechanism, like the density fluctuations inside of condensing supercritical vapor, i.e. by the same way, like every other pieces of reality and as such they can be modeled by standard tools of physics and math.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/31/08 09:10 AM

Originally Posted By: samwik
...do you see everything as knowably reducible, able to be "simulated by molecular and atomar computers less or more," or do levels emerge that could never be predicted...
Can you imagine the formation of density fluctuations by another fluctuations, recursively? While this model appears trivial, it's behavior becomes surprisingly complex even after few levels of such condensation. For its exact simulation we would required to use the same number of particles, which exists inside of observable Universe. This is virtually unfeasible, but we can make some approximations to be able to derive at least something from it.



For example, in physics is often used the model of so called calibration transform groups, the dual E8 Lie group in particular (string heterotic theories, L. Garret's theory and many others). The AWT explains, how such geometry arises during process of recursive particle condensation, extrapolated to infinite density. In semantic these groups can be described too, because they can enable us to model the formation of more complex semantical constructs, composed of concepts: the ideas, thoughts and theories. Such model can be used for explanation of evolution of ideas and for automatic generation of new theories and ideas by using of analogue and digital computers.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/31/08 08:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Zephir
Semantically these groups can be described too, because they can enable us to model the formation of more complex semantical constructs, composed of concepts: the ideas, thoughts and theories.
Such model can be used for explanation of evolution of ideas and for automatic generation of new theories and ideas by using of analogue and digital computers.
cool ...and our own bioquantumcomputers (brains).

Cool concept, btw:
Inertial character of information.
===

Just this realization of the recursively emergent nature of things allows us to predict more easily into the future.

For instance, civilization's timelines may go through a process analogous to the "condensations" and consequent effects on other civilization's timelines (worldlines).

Are you familiar with Michio Kaku's Type I civilization?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25569#Post25569

Eventually there will be a new level of 'condensation' based on the building resonances (emergences?) of individual civilizations.

Becoming Type I ...is like a phase change, maybe?

Whatcha think?
~ smile
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 07/31/08 10:30 PM

Originally Posted By: samwik
...Becoming Type I ...is like a phase change, maybe...
It can appear as a WWW III, because it seems, the human civilization cannot avoid mistakes during its evolution.
Posted by: samwik

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/01/08 12:30 AM

For instance, civilization's timelines may go through a process analogous to the "condensations" and consequent effects on other civilization's timelines (worldlines).

Are you familiar with Michio Kaku's Type I civilization?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25569#Post25569

Eventually there will be a new level of 'condensation' based on the building resonances (emergences?) of individual civilizations.

Becoming Type I ...is like a phase change, maybe?


...to which Zephir posted:
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: samwik
...Becoming Type I ...is like a phase change, maybe...
It can appear as a WWW III, because it seems, the human civilization cannot avoid mistakes during its evolution.


Some wars might lead to a phase change, but I think most wars would just continue the same state we now exist in.
But wars are just one kind of adjustment.

To achieve a true phase change or emergence, at least one major new quality must develop (probably many new qualities).

Wars are one way of affecting or imposing "organization and a change in culture and behaviour." *
* http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27401#Post27401

Other ways of affecting organization & change could involve our new abilities to communicate, collect, analyze and exchange information across networks in realtime.

Like flying a high-speed aircraft successfully, one needs constant feedback and adjustments.

Quick Adaptive management as opposed to slow reactive management is needed as we progress away from ideological proactive (slow) management.

Anywhere you might want to have a war these days is in your own backyard, relatively.
We've filled our niche.
"Wars" should be competitions to see who can rescue their coastline and restore net productivity. wink

~ smile
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/01/08 08:00 AM

It would be a great pity if change had to be contingent on the continuation or necessity of war. But I suppose that would only be so if the 'shift' were to be unplanned. ... or do I mean unforeseen... or more likely have I missed the point! Let's hope sam is right and war is only one sort of change. Thankfully there are others.

But then maybe shifting to Type One is not desirable?

NB. Thanks for the explanation Zephir. It helped.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/01/08 01:02 PM

Hi samwik.

What is it that literally or metaphorically 'changes phase'. To put it another way, how, precisely, is the task of grappling with the seemingly poetic and questionable relevance of such words rewarded by a better understanding of the transition from one civ Type to another?
Posted by: samwik

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/04/08 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
What is it that literally or metaphorically 'changes phase'.

Meta-data is a good example of a 'phase change,' I think.
Any new quality, emerging out of simpler system that has reached some type of 'critical mass.'
===

Thanks rede,
Always good to get a reality check; like a little slap in the face! wink

So let's see, we need to try and imagine a new state of matter and what new properties it might have; predicting a sea-changing, paradigm shift, or imagining a new 'world order.' Real easy, eh?
Nothing like a little late nite musing.
Just....

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

~John Lennon


Tile :John Lennon - Imagine
This is lyrics from www.lyrics007.com
http://www.lyrics007.com/John%20Lennon%20Lyrics/Imagine%20Lyrics.html
http://www.lyrics007.com/print.php?id=TWpjd01qQXo
===

Back from the future....
Some cool possibilities.


I see a globe in every room that has constantly changing borders based on what the local and regional populations are doing at the moment. No more nations (as the song suggests); well, not nations with borders. It's all corporate, but with different corporations based on local, regional, continental, and global affiliations and interests. ....a globe with easily highlighted, zoomable, Multi-layered and overlapping "regions" defined by differing parameters (needs, interests, resources, culture, equity...).
...No money either, but value earned as credit added through participation in the locally/regionally/etc. owned entities.

...and a World with no Advertising! (the best change, IMO)!
The Pursuit of Information and understanding is the currency, the attraction, the entertainmant, and the exercise. No schools because education is distributed across daily life, throughout the day, between naps and projects. Even the military is distributed throughout daily life; more as a militia, but with a focus on health, fitness, survivalism and sustainability skills; and with interconnected, multi-layered spheres of authority, much like the corporate model. There's no News! Nothing is new, it's all just knowledge evolving; changing, being updated and monitored, possessing a history and webbed with the present education economy. Religions, still locally and regionally usefull, are also enriched by a global ethic recognizing the commonality of religions and philosophies like secular humanism. It's a global ethic that develops as a sort of Lingua Franca of religions allowing for a motivation and focus not on doctrine or dogma, but on easily recognized goals and outcomes relating to health, jobs, and social assistance and equity, ...and stewardship; and also integrated into the days focus on research, education and entrepeneurship. Shopping malls become community and business resource centers, storage and distribution hubs, and incubators for small business creativity and development.

A never ending quest to better understand and live within the planetary, living and the cosmic spheres; stewarding a balance for all to best fit, as a healthy part, within a healthy environment.

Imagine all creation
With knowledge close at hand
Learning every puzzle piece
Is the best that we can do
Imagine every tribe of man
Living on the land

"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
smile
===

I guess a possible "phase change" could be a sort of "Institutional Distribution" that seems to cut across all the layers of civilization. Decentralization of institutions would lead to stronger feelings of ownership and responsibility, and less waste and corruption; a sort of e-democracy.

LOL
crazy

Yea, well you try to imagine a new state of matter; a new emergent phase, maybe halfway between matter and energy (BEC's?) or some condensed matter/anti-gravity phase.


~Later,
smile
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/05/08 03:42 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
..What is it that literally or metaphorically 'changes phase'...
By Aether Wave Theory everything, what we can observe from reality are just a changes, i.e. the Aether density gradients. This follows from analogy of particle gas or fluid, where only density gradients can be observed.

This is because every density gradient is behaving like place, where the mater is moving in circles like particles bouncing at the undulating water surface. It "undulates at place" in compactified (hidden) dimensions, thus making "permanent changes", so it can be perceived as a atemporal, persistent entity. We can see, the phase transition is nothing else, then the compactification of underlying space-time. Note that the space dimension compactified becomes a time dimension in the space-time, which is formed by compactification of previous space. By such way, the AWT explains clearly, what the time is and how it is related to the spatial dimensions.


In semantic, the phase transition is the case, when particular combinations of words are obtaining a new persistent meaning, so they're replaced by another special word and/or phrase ("red edible fruit" = "apple"). The formation of phrases has an analogy in physics as so called boson condensate, where the particles are moving in pairs (so called the Cooper pairs). The formation of Cooper pairs is driven by the same reason, like the formation of new words and phrases: it intensifies the energy/information spreading, because a fewer amount of bytes is required for successfully transfer of information under increased requirement of memory at the price.

The phase transition occurs quite often as a result of increased density of energy/information spreading. For example, in medieval era, the simple peer-to-peer mechanism of information spreading (a tradition) was sufficient. As the density of population/information increased, a specialized form of communication were established gradually : a messenger (1:1), postman (1:M) and colpolteur/distributor (M:N). In the Internet era we can observe the formation of special protocols (IP, TCP over IP, HTTP over TCP/IP and so on...), which corresponds the formation of special phases of inertial matter (lepton, hadron, atom nuclei, whole atoms, molecules, water droplets, etc...)
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/05/08 06:15 AM

Zephir wrote;

'In the internet era we can observe the formation of special protocols (IP, TCP over IP, HTTP over TCP/IP and so on...), which corresponds the formation of special phases of inertial matter (lepton, hadron, atom nuclei, whole atoms, molecules, water droplets, etc...)'

Which means what in terms of practicality? In Medieval times (as you suggest), such things could not be observed, just as there are things happening now that are still unknown, invisible and undetected that profoundly influence our lives. By producing the protocols for these 'phases' are we merely labelling them and their influences as they affect us, or are we discovering them, or are we inventing them? Or don't we know?
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/05/08 10:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
....are we merely labeling them and their influences as they affect us, or are we discovering them, or are we inventing them? Or don't we know?...
It depends. Basically, the inventions and technical development cannot be predicted, planned the less - but for example the existence of Moore's Law demonstrates clearly, many aspects of social evolution are of objective character and as such they just follow energetic requirements of the society. This is the more true, the larger the society is and the better the random, subjective factors are averaged.

For example, if Einstein wouldn't derive special/general relativity himself, Poincare/Hilbert would do it in few years, if not few months time-frame as well - society was prepared for such invention. The proposal of Aether Wave Theory is nothing surprising from such perspective as well: many indicia of particle-like nature of Universe are known already. The AWT could be proposed before one hundred years without problem, because it's simple and it doesn't depend on mainstream physics inventions and theories - only physics of Victorian era.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/06/08 05:20 AM

The AWT could be proposed before one hundred years without problem, because it's simple and it doesn't depend on mainstream physics inventions and theories - only physics of Victorian era.

Now that's REALLY an interesting point Zephir, though it seems to imply that we are discovering rather than inventing I think. Does this in turn mean that we are building on the past, or is this a completely new way of thinking about semantic shift?

I find the example of apples ---- edible red fruit---etc quite an novel way of understanding this whole subject!! Most of the time I am way out of my comfort zone.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/06/08 08:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
...that we are discovering rather than inventing...
Indeed, we cannot reveal the connections, which didn't exist already. This doesn't mean, everything is predetermined, so that the laws have existed before the entities involved. As the Universe condenses, it's complexity increases and the number of laws increases as well. By analogous way, the laws of gramatic couldn't exist before the new words were proposed/evolved.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/07/08 12:31 AM

---Or do the new words have to conform to grammatical rules in order to exist? Some remedial reading techniques require learners to recognise such ungrammatical letter groupings as so-called 'nonsense' words. Is there recognition of such 'nonsense' in Physics? Although there is always the salutary memory of 'junk DNA' in another branch of science- that has proved to be no such thing!
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/07/08 07:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Zephir
As the Universe condenses, it's complexity increases and the number of laws increases as well. By analogous way, the laws of gramatic couldn't exist before the new words were proposed/evolved.

You've given laws of grammar as an analogy, but what are the actual laws that you're referring to. Can you give a real example?
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/08/08 08:35 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
..Can you give a real example?
Well, I'm not linguist definitely, the English grammar specialist the less. But for example in Czech language exists a large number of grammar exceptions, which are connected with the preferential usage of i/y letters in words. These exceptions are named "enumerated words" and their lists are increasing gradually, as the number of words increases. By my information a similar lists of exceptions exists in English (irregular-verbs, as an example).

The common situation is, newly adopted/generated words are created by existing grammar rules and at the moment, when the number of words increases, some need of new exception emerges. At the moment, the number of exception increases, the new generation of rules for their creation are postulated, after then new generation of exception can appear, which can introduce another generation of rules, etc.

This process corresponds the nested phase transition of Aether foam, where the exceptions (density fluctuations, droplets) appears, these droplets can create a new phase, which exhibits a new generation of fluctuations and droplets and so on. We can see, the formation of new rules always requires a sufficient number of exceptions. Such mechanism is so trivial, so it's surprising, it wasn't never proposed by some linguists, the physicists the less for general description of evolution of nature laws.

Every semantical rule simplifies the orientation inside of large number of exceptions, which are of less or more chaotic nature. We can say, the rules are intensifying the information spreading through large field of exception by the same way, like the formation of foam and droplets inside of field of particle fluctuations intensifies the energy spreading through such field.

Now, because this analogy is so apparent, we can ask, what makes both these processes so similar and predictable, so we can understand better their common nature? Try to propose some mechanism!
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/08/08 11:32 AM

By my present understanding the most general answer belongs in realm of physics, not semantics, math of informatics. This is because these sciences are abstract, which means, they're operating with concepts, which are itself a generalization (i.e. abstracts) of many entities of reality. In addition, the math or informatics doesn't explain, what makes the numbers or bits countable units of reality, while the physics can develop the theory of countable colliding units aka particles.

Therefore for relevant explanation of natural law emergence and evolution we are required to have some minimal knowledge of physical reality. The AWT theory just minimizes the requirement of this knowledge by using of few trivial analogies, but it doesn't mean, it can form the only relevant explanation possible.

The AWT considers, the observable Universe is formed by "gradient driven" reality. This concept isn't very new in contemporary physics, but the Aether concept makes it quite easy to understand. Inside the random field of particles only the fluctuations of particle spatial density, i.e. the gradients can be observed. Depending on the ratio of mass/energy density, these fluctuations are having positive or negative curvature, which results in the attractive or repulsive forces on long/short distance scale. The important thing is, only these density gradients can be observed as a atemporal units of reality and only the gradients can serve for causal observation of another entities. This doesn't mean, the energy cannot spread by another way, i.e. without involving of density gradients, but the portion of inertial, gradient driven energy is considerably lower at this case.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/09/08 06:39 AM

... the most general answer belongs in realm of physics, not semantics, math of informatics. This is because these sciences are abstract, which means, they're operating with concepts, which are itself a generalization (i.e. abstracts) of many entities of reality.

I think what you have written here is quite true, and I do not think that the analogy of semantics as a phase shift in the way it is meant in Physics is a truly helpful way of looking at it. Language is fluidly responsive it is true, but it also has to conform to rules (even recognised exceptions acknowledge the existence of these rules). When languages absorb new words and meanings they do so under their own rules regarding spelling and usage. For instance the present evolution of texting (SMS) is actually not the seemingly random mess we may think it is at first sight. In fact, in order for us to decode the message certain syntactical rules have to be followed otherwise the message is unlikely to make sense.

Actually I think that the flexibility of maths to respond to change far outweighs that of language.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/09/08 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
... ...present evolution of texting (SMS) is actually not the seemingly random mess we may think it is at first sight....
Well, the evolution of SMS specific language corresponds the fast cooling of particle system, during which the large number of tiny droplets appears in short period of time. Due its demand of high information density it can serve as a model case of language evolution at small scale.

The existence of analogies can serve as an evidence of more general/fundamental rules/laws of Nature, which we can try to decompose. While I appreciate your example, it still doesn't answer, why such analogy between evolution of language and particle systems exist?
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/09/08 09:21 PM

Zephir wrote:
Well, the evolution of SMS specific language corresponds the fast cooling of particle system, during which the large number of tiny droplets appears in short period of time. Due its demand of high information density it can serve as a model case of language evolution at small scale.

Good answer! However I feel that my point is that the SMS system, although it feels new is actually conforming to language rules. In fact it is especially interesting because it uses also the Asian rules regarding the writing of language with its use of graphic representation of sounds/tonal qualityt, eg gr8=great. By combining the two an interesting written language is developing. My argument is that this languae is actually conforming to existing rules with regard to syntax, and there has been minimum spread to spoken language. At the moment it is a written language only--- as is shorthand or the transcribing of phonetics!

Have you thought that maybe the development of music may give you a more direct analogy to follow?
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/09/08 11:29 PM

Quote:
SMS system, although it feels new is actually conforming to language rules
New laws are always evolving on background of underlying more general laws. Newly created laws cannot violate the general laws.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/10/08 05:53 AM

Hi Zaphir.

Re your grammar analogy:

From your reply, it seems that you are applying your grammar analogy to the evolution of the laws of physics.

Do you not mean to say, rather, that it applies to the development of new forms of energy/matter, with the consequent complexity of interactions, arising as a result of, and consistent with, unchanging laws of physics?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/10/08 07:47 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
...applying your grammar analogy to the evolution of the laws of physics.

...or the other way around; using the laws of physics to make an analogy to laws of grammer.

Defining Laws vs. Rules might be helpful....

Would we say that there are laws or rules that govern and explain the construction of a flagellum, or the operation of a regulator of a particular gene?

The laws of physics can be used to explain how these operate, but only by understanding them through a reverse engineering process. From knowing the basic laws of physics, we can't predict the rules governing how a gene regulator will operate, or how a flagellum might be constructed; but we do see that those genetic/biologic rules don't violate the basic laws of physics.

~K
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/10/08 08:32 AM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
...it applies to the development of new forms of energy/matter, with the consequent complexity of interactions, arising as a result of, and consistent with, unchanging laws of physics?...
Of course, for example the existence & formation of so called mixed/composite interactions is the direct consequence of the above rule. For example, the waves at the water surface are the result of composite interactions too: the sound waves spreading through underwater and surface tension/gravity force. The strong nuclear (electroweak) interaction is mixed interaction of weak nuclear interaction and electromagnetic interaction. In analogy, new so called gravitomagnetic interaction can be derived from motion of charge in gravity field. I may be responsible for number of anomalies, from ball lightning to pyramid phenomena. The force constant of composite interaction is always higher, then the simple product of force constants of both original forces.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
...or the other way around; using the laws of physics to make an analogy to laws of grammer.....
Of course, analogies are super-symmetric (mem)branes, which can be used in both directions, until you go too deep into subject on both sides. They're analogous to density fluctuations in causal space.


Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..Defining Laws vs. Rules might be helpful..
Such distinguishing can be considered as a sort of phase transition, too. Here's no fundamental difference between laws and rules, but in scope. In addition, the rules are introduced artificially by human society ad-hoc. But at the moment, the introduction of rules follows some logical, predictable consequences, we can consider the rules as a physical laws as well - because we cannot avoid their appliance from long term perspective.
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
...the laws of physics can be used to explain how these operate, but only by understanding them through a reverse engineering process.
Only at the case, these physical laws aren't sufficiently general, so they're forming homologies (sibling), not analogies (child-parent hierarchy) in casual space. The problem with contemporary physics is, most of its laws are derived from more general physical laws by the same way, like gene expression - so they cannot be used for explanation of it without introduction of poorly conditioned generalization.

But at the moment, you've understood a sufficiently general laws, you can deduce the more derived ones on both sides of analogy, i.e. both physics, both genetics - at least conceptually. The AWT is just trying to fill these gaps in conceptual understanding.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/11/08 12:18 AM

That creepy graphic looks like a giraffe's neck.

I think that this grammar analogy is nearly done to death, but it has occurred to me that the problem stems from the fact we have not properly defined our terms.

We need to consider what the purpose of language is, and it is to communicate. Language is one, and only one, of the ways in which we communicate. There are many languages, all of which have their own rules for both the written and spoken languages. I think you may not be a native english speaker, Zeph, as you refer to the need to adapt to new words and so the rules change. In English the absorption of new words has never been a problem, there are rules but they are very, very fluid. That makes English an extremely difficult language to learn to fluency, but it is also a language that eagerly absorbs foreign words, often without anglisising them. It also goes without saying that written language has stricter and more formal rules.

Then there is also non-verbal communication- that requires no explanation. We have all just seen a stunning example of that in the Opening Ceremony of the Games. I understand not one word of Chinese, but I understood that dramatic presentation. Gesture, facial expression, graphics, pictures etc are all part of non-verbal communication.

Thus I suggest that language as a predictor, or even a model, of Phase Shift is too restrictive. Music, as we learned on Friday, is universal, and so is mathematics. Either of those would illustrate Phase Shift with much greater clarity.

But to go back to the original proposition. I feel that the shift to Civilisation 1 will have to be something original, not a logical development of observable markers. Something like the comet that killed the dinosaurs and allowed the mammals to fill an evolutionary niche that did not include being a tasty dinner for large lizards!

(The above is a statement of my own views, of course, so sorry to all creationists----just cover your eyes!)
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/11/08 08:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
..We need to consider what the purpose of language is, and it is to communicate. Language is one, and only one, of the ways in which we communicate..
The people can communicate by non-verbal ways, i.e. without language. By AWT the communication is transfer of energy, connected with information exchanged and the terms and concepts are quantized bosons of this energy.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/12/08 12:09 AM

OK I'll be a bozo and ask. What's a boson?
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Inertial character of information - 08/12/08 12:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
OK I'll be a bozo and ask. What's a boson?

a boson
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 08/16/08 02:41 PM

Etymology quiz
Do you know whether there is any ling between fr. refaire and repair? If yes, why faire is not equal to pair?

Is there any link between reflect and refract, -flect and -fract, fle and fra, le and ra?
And between refract and refrain?
refra- < re + fra, re + faire, pair

refrain = refaire?

Leave a comment to
cxhunga@gmail.com
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc. - 11/07/08 10:44 PM


Usually I use the best file searcher- http://newfileengine.com/