Nick:

Oxygen will be the same wherever and whatever (like pi). What may be
different would be allotropes and isotopes. One has to be fairly
careful when nibbling around the edges of very basic science (and
math). Those things have immutable aspects despite fondest wishes to
the contrary. My contention is that it will be those aspects that will
allow the initiation of communications between species that otherwise
share _NOTHING_ else in common.

I wrote a shorter version of this that seems to have disappeared.
Please forgive if it suddenly appears.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote:
Nick:

Oxygen will be the same wherever and whatever (like pi). What may be
different would be allotropes and isotopes. One has to be fairly
careful when nibbling around the edges of very basic science (and
math). Those things have immutable aspects despite fondest wishes to
the contrary. My contention is that it will be those aspects that will
allow the initiation of communications between species that otherwise
share _NOTHING_ else in common.

I wrote a shorter version of this that seems to have disappeared.
Please forgive if it suddenly appears.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


Sorry, I disagre, we can consider the existance of situations where the
large scale chemical action of atoms is different, it would only take a
altered value for one of the fundimental relationships, Planck's
constant for one example. And we cannot know with certantity that these
altered conditions do not exist at some distant point in space. However
we do not know of a way of constructing a plain geometry that has a
different ratio between the circumferance of a circle and its diameter.
This is why I am suggesting that your claim that oxygen is as universal
as pi is incorrect.

Maybe you are used to considering maths a tool of other sciences,
instead of a thing apart, you comment earlier along the lines that it
was just the study and description of "real" world events and actions
indicates that.

--
Nick

Nick:

We can be certain. That is the point. Sure, 'altered states' are always
possible. Within that state, however, nothing we know would be
discernable in any meaningful way as no term would hold its
definition... including those that we require to live and think.

So, if you posit a location where Oxygen is not Oxygen but could be
something else, then you also posit a place where we could not exist.

"Maths" is a tool we use to describe relationships that exist
independent of the description, amongst other things. We can consider
behaviors that do not behave as we expect. That this is fiction or
wishful does not prevent the consideration inasmuch as we cannot have
it both ways. Getting a bit deeper into your contention that I would
describe loosely as "anything is possible" (please correct me if that
is not apt), I would accept that absolutely. In an infinite universe,
there are infinite possibilities. But science is brutal in the making
of choices and their consequences. We as carbon-based water-dependent
oxygen-burning life-forms are the product of a whole bunch of 'choices'
(accidents, consequences, happy coincidences) made along the way of
getting us to us. And at the same time, we have become defined into a
very narrow niche as a result.

Change a _very few_ of the constants that got us here, and we go
*POOF*. Put us as we are in an environment where such consants are
actually different, we go *POOF*.

Again, we can't have it both ways.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote:

Nick:

We can be certain. That is the point. Sure, 'altered states' are always
possible. Within that state, however, nothing we know would be
discernable in any meaningful way as no term would hold its
definition... including those that we require to live and think.

So, if you posit a location where Oxygen is not Oxygen but could be
something else, then you also posit a place where we could not exist.

"Maths" is a tool we use to describe relationships that exist
independent of the description, amongst other things. We can consider
behaviors that do not behave as we expect. That this is fiction or
wishful does not prevent the consideration inasmuch as we cannot have
it both ways. Getting a bit deeper into your contention that I would
describe loosely as "anything is possible" (please correct me if that
is not apt), I would accept that absolutely. In an infinite universe,
there are infinite possibilities. But science is brutal in the making
of choices and their consequences. We as carbon-based water-dependent
oxygen-burning life-forms are the product of a whole bunch of 'choices'
(accidents, consequences, happy coincidences) made along the way of
getting us to us. And at the same time, we have become defined into a
very narrow niche as a result.

Change a _very few_ of the constants that got us here, and we go
*POOF*. Put us as we are in an environment where such consants are
actually different, we go *POOF*.

Again, we can't have it both ways.

I was not suggesting that we can have it both ways, or that we could
exist in that other place. But the fact remains, that PI will still be
the same there as here. So your point that PI and oxygen are both
equally immutable is false, that is the only point I was making.

I was certainly not suggesting "anything is possible" far from it, what
I was stating is that most things can change (or if not actually change,
then the possibility of their change can be considered), only a few
(such as pi) can not.

--
Nick

wrote in message
ups.com...
OK, are you thinking of "nothing"?

Rich:

No, not hardly. Trick question... Trick Question.

Note the form of the question (trick). You know that the entity is
intelligent and capable of self-replication. From this, assume the
following:

a) The form you perceive (by whatever means) is organized in a way that
you see it as a definable entity. It may be a collective or a single
entity, but it is definable.
b) You see activity, material, evidence or results that show
self-replication. From replication one deducts self-awareness or
purpose.

LOL... think about it...!

I'm not sure I dare look in the fridge now that I know my lettuce is
self-aware.


c) You also see activity, evidence or results that strongly suggest
intelligence. So, this entity will pass the Turing test.

That's a pretty big leap. You're assuming the entity has a system of
communication similar to our written or spoken language. Which isn't
necessarily the case.


That making
the test mutually understandable may be difficult is beside the
point... right now.

Bottom line here. DON'T try too hard.

Having gone as far as the above three things (as they are assumed by
the form of the question): How would one communicate? Apart from magic?


You would start with numbers. 1.414..... starting in binary, and then
in any base as might fit. Any entity with mathematics would know this
number. Or, 3.1415.... and so forth. Numbers no good? Make patterns
that do not exist in nature. The pythagorean triangle with the squares
shown.

You really are totally convinced that there's no other way of thinking about
things than the one you happen to know, aren't you?. At least *try* to be a
bit open-minded!

OK... With that in mind, I would humbly suggest that Oxygen will remain
as Oxygen and be immutable as pi. Allotropes and/or isotopes, sure. But
the periodic table (and Oxygen has its place there) will be immutable.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 01:15:52 GMT, "Rich Wilson"
wrote:

I don't think you've quite got the gist of what I'm suggesting - it's not
different names for the same things, it's a different set of concepts that
you couldn't "pair up" with our own.

If they are not simply different names for the same thing then one, or
the other, would be a 'more accurate' understanding, or both flawed.

So you ARE saying there is exactly 1 way of thinking about the universe that
works. That's a pretty big assumption to make. Do you have any particular
reason for believing that?


pi does not 'look the same' in binary, base 8 or base 16, as it does
in base 10 but it is still pi whether one says it in French or
Chinese.

OK, pi=pi however you write it. OK...

That's one reason why it's 'real', it is not 'just a concept'
and not an invention of the mind.

I could make up a number and argue exactly the same, and it would still be
made up.

No, because pi is not 'made up'.

Do I have to spell it out?
Look, I've just made up a number called "qwerty". Here's what you said
applied to my made-up number:

qwerty does not 'look the same' in binary, base 8 or base 16, as it does in
base 10 but it is still qwerty whether one says it in French or Chinese.
That's one reason why it's 'real', it is not 'just a concept' and not an
invention of the mind.

So by your argument that makes qwerty as real as pi!

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Rich Wilson wrote:


That's one reason why it's 'real', it is not 'just a concept'
and not an invention of the mind.


I could make up a number and argue exactly the same, and it would still
be made up.


Going to regret this but...

Yes, you are. Mwahahahahahaha!


Thats the point, pi isn't a "made up number", its a direct result of the
geometry of the universe we live in, it would have the same value at any
place in space, and any race that had the concept of the loci of a moving
point on a plain, and so the concept of a line and a circle, would arrive
at the ratio that is pi.

True. But that still doesn't give pi any existence outside the minds of the
people who worked it out.


Alternatively you might invent something useful that way. For example, by
taking the idea of a square root and applying it to something that you
wouldn't normally apply it to, like -1.

Again, you are looking at it from the wrong side.

If there's only one side you can "look at it from" so that it agrees with
your belief system, there's something wrong with your belief system.

You really are totally convinced that there's no other way of thinking about
things than the one you happen to know, aren't you?. At least *try* to be a
bit open-minded!

YIKES!!

THAT is the fallacy of leaping to conclusions.

No, what I am saying is that if one wishes to communicate with a
know-intelligent entity across _very dense_ barriers, one had better
damned-well stick with what is certain, and use what is already known.

Only after communications are established can one experiment with
things that are beyond what one 'happens to know'. And if I were to be
so silly as to limit myself as you describe, then all learning (and
most communication beyond "I am
hungry/thirsty/tired/wet/dry/horny/hot/cold) would be impossible.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:06:36 GMT, "Rich Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:50:02 GMT, "Rich Wilson"
wrote:

mega-snip

I give up. There's no way you're ever going to see that you're wrong!
;-)

Of course not, since I'm not

Oh yes you are :-)


I'd still be interested to know a few things about your view though:

Yeah? And what makes you think I'll answer yours after you snipped out
all of mine, eh? hehe

Dunno. Seems I was right though...


- If numbers exist, when did they start to exist? At the Big Bang? (aka
Monday if you happen to be a creationist :-) Or did, say, 5 start to
exist
the first time there were 5 things in the universe?

There couldn't even be one 'thing', much less 5, if the entire panoply
of what you claim doesn't exist didn't exist.

So you're saying all the numbers had to exist before any matter or energy
could exist?

Now you're back to the 'before and after' thing you said you didn't
mean the first time you said it.

There is no 'before' or 'after' as it's all speaking of the same
'things' and your question is like asking which came first, the apple
or the apple?

But you were trying to argue that numbers exist independently of the things
they may be applied to, weren't you?


Which gets back to the
question I asked you of just what it is you think constitutes 'real
things' if there are no EM fields, gravity, nuclear forces, or
anything else, that make up 'real things'.

If I had a definitive definition of "real" we probably wouldn't be having
this argument. (Can you have a non-definitive definition?). The idea of
"realness" starts off as being things we can physically sense,

Which is nothing more than the interactions of energy fields and
forces that you argue, further below, are not 'real'.

The basis of what you call "real" is not necessarily the smallest or
simplest thing in your scientific model.
At the moment, I can tell my keyboard is feel because I can feel it, I can
see it and I can hear it. What it's made of is irrelevant to that point.


Forces are a bit of a grey area for me... consider the thought process:
1. There are two planets.
2. The planets are attracting each other.
3. There is an attraction between the planets.

2 and 3 mean the same thing

Perhaps.

but 3 invokes an extra object

It's not an 'object'.

Ok , a "thing" then. There is an extra noun in sentence 3, representing an
extra thing.


- the
"attraction".

An observation, the essence of 'real'.

The observation was sentence 2. Sentence 3 is an interpretation of it.


The fact that it appears to be optional in that sentence
suggests to me it's a linguistic thing rather than a real object.

It's only 'optional' if one decides to discard the observed reality.

So you're saying sentence 2 is not an adequate description of the situation?


- When will they cease to exist?
- Who or what created them?

If you're religious, God, otherwise it's a random, but amusing, stroke
of luck. Or so Carl Sagen said.

...and finally, without contradicting any of your responses to my last
post...
- What are they made of?

That's an interesting question coming from someone who denies the
existence of all that 'makes up' things.

That's because I'm trying to find out how your ideas work.


I think you're jumbling man's 'understanding' and how he 'expresses'
it, or 'conceptualizes', with 'the thing' itself. "Apple" is a word
that expresses man's 'concept' of the thing but "apple" is not 'the
thing', it is language.

Yes, there's the real apple,

Which is what? An infinitely complex collection of particles and
energy fields, to name just a few, that you boil down to one nebulous,
almost meaningless, word. The 'real apple'', as you call it, is many
many things.

That's irrelevant. The apple, whatever it may be made of, is still there.


the mental concept of an apple,

Which ignores all the many many things that make up the apple.

Also irrelevant.


and the word
"apple".

A word that ignores all the many many things that make up the apple.

Ditto.


3 separate things.

Pardon the pun but, bad math

1+1+1=3. What's wrong there?


Similarly, '5' is a symbol

Yes, "5" is a symbol and there's an associated mental concept. Notice
there
are only 2 things this time...

Not so. Just as 'apple' applies to all those things which are apples,
numbers also apply to a multiplicity of things.

That doesn't answer my point.