|Subject: RE: Waste HEAT and
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:13:35 -0600
Yes, right on about the need for getting rid of waste heat.
Hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised at some of the content of my forthcoming book in that respect.
As for the nature of time, it depends on what "base model" one assumes. If one assumes the wave and particle, then a different nature of time emerges. Only problem is that the duality of wave and particle has not been logically resolved (it is impossible to resolve it in Aristotelian 3-law logic, which is just fitted to the single-photon interaction). It is resolvable only in a higher topology logic, which few textbooks even address (it is solvable in the Laws of Form, e.g.). We grappled with that one some 35 years ago.
The physics model I find most useful for thinking about foundations is a model that uses only a single fundamental unit. Since I work in energy, I like to think in such a model where the only fundamental unit is the joule. Then mass becomes purely a function of energy (very comfortable concept, after Einstein and relativity, but once thought astonishing). But then so does time also become totally a function of energy. One can even choose the unit to be a joule of spatial EM energy if one wishes, and then every other fundamental "unit" and entity becomes totally a function of EM energy.
This forces the mind into some very unusual but very rewarding avenues. Fortunately, these avenues have direct use on the bench, and for invention, and for engineering.
Here I confess I took a big hint from the "secret weapons" work of the former Soviet Union (actually the KGB, since those weapons were never in the regular Russian forces, but always under rigorous KGB control, including R&D, production, deployment, and employment.
Those weapon scientists resurrected an old term from the history of electrodynamics, called "energetics". That is their approach to a unified field theory, where everything is based on "energetics". This model as its foundations uses a very similar approach to that "single fundamental unit" model, where energy is the unit. If one makes the energy EM in nature, then one has the Russian energetics approach. This unified approach gathers everything in, including all energy actions and relations in inert matter (the first branch of energetics, called by the same name), all field and matter interactions in living matter (the second branch of energetics, called "bioenergetics"), and all mind operations and mind-matter interactions (the third branch of energetics, called "psychoenergetics").
Note that the weaponeers sliced energetics into three branches, with each branch depending on the nature of the "targeting".
So I took a hint from them, since the stuff and the approach worked. They had already weaponized it highly.
Anyway, with time becoming completely an EM energetics dynamics, so does mind since mind operations also occur in time, though not in 3-space.
A future book is planned detailing the exact mind-matter coupling mechanism (and the concomitant matter-to-mind coupling mechanism) used by living systems. And how to do at least limited engineering therein. The interesting thing is that solutions to many previously unsolved philosophical problems, such as what generates the sense of identity of "I", what generates the sense of being separate from the external world, what generates the sense of being a part of the external world, etc.
So the model -- while limited, just as any other model -- does seem to have certain distinct advantages. Further, since it reduces to electrodynamics (but a vastly different one from the U(1) EM used in electrical engineering etc.), it becomes a vastly engineerable approach. Some can be engineered now; some not yet. But it at least seems to greatly increase the area that an engineering technology can encompass.
But that is down the road. First we have to hang in there with the energy from the vacuum effort, next with the medical effort, and then we can get at the mind and matter effort.
This is merely to point out that all models have uses, but also all models also have flaws and limitations and are imperfect, as proven by the Godel's proof of his famous theorem.
So one does not "attach absolutely" to a given model. Instead, one uses the model in that area where it applies, and when one leaves that area, one searches for and uses another model.
One of the serious errors in science, and one which creates much science dogma, is the absolute attachment to some given model. Just as is the attachment to mathematics itself, which is also a model. A very useful one! But also an imperfect one, as the Godel theorem shows. Here I recommend the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, as an absolutely necessary reading. The axiom of choice, for example, is used to prove many advanced mathematical theorems in modern mathematics. Yet the axiom of choice clearly proves that you can take a finite ball, cut it into pieces, and assemble the pieces into two balls of the same size as the one you began with. And there will be no empty spaces in either of the two balls.
Now that is totally counter-intuitive, but it is also good though advanced mathematics. Even Charles Muses, an extraordinary mathematician whose work in hypernumbers was magnificent, did not believe that one until I copied and faxed the proof to him from a standard book on the Axiom of Choice. Then he saw it. And incidentally, I thoroughly recommend Muses' work in hypernumbers. That is one area where much still remains to be done, including -- I suspect -- some very novel engineering.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. It's a wobbling and careening old ship, but it's still under steam and slowly progressing.