| Subject: RE: Waste HEAT and
its dissipation Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:13:35 -0600
Dear Rmarryetta,
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.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|