[David Maes]

No, I'm thinking more about openness and closeness both seem to have advantages and disadvantages... So to maintain life maybe we might need both of them (philosophically speaking)...

Could it be that the disadvantage of 'closing' is getting older??
(Don't know...

could it be that 'closing' is chemical??

Maybe when a system closes it's also becomin more degenerated a bit...? (like embedded...)

maybe it's closing which makes it older?? Or is the system itself getting older because it's part of a bigger system which is getting older itself??

Getting older is making 'copies' of yourself but each time a little more blurry...
What's the cause of this?

Is it entropy? Or is the comparison with an entropic system false??
Do we have some gene making us older? (just curious)

Is there entropy in a tree? Or is it because it's receiving its energy from the sun??

[David Maes]

I think spreading = evolution.

Does entropy just happen; or does it just happen because the system is closed?
Because there is a high amount of inaccessibility for information in the system (closed)?

Could there be a connection between closeness and openness of a system and the 2-holes-experiment for example?? (think of spreading (wave-pattern) which changes into a (deterministic) 'particle' pattern...) Could there be a connection with 'open' versus 'closed'??
Is a quantum open or closed?? What about a wave?

A quantumcomputer seems not have to be switched on to give you an answer.

(Read an example with fotons...)

Can we bring a polarised foton in a quantumcomputer? For example think about the EPR-paradox, where two fotons should be connected to eachother... What if two polarised fotons (from the same source) would each be brought in in a quantumcomputer; (think you have two computers...) would the answer you get from each computer be the same??
Or would it be influenced by interstellar chaos?

When a mixed state collapses in a pure state... does this change the 'open' or 'closed' character of the experiment?

Does subjectivity has a wholostic orgine? And objectivity a reductionistic one??

Also there seems to be a general limit to the possibility to understand maths..


(Sorry don't know much about QM (just interested) Don't have much time to think about lately; hope will have some more time in a future period)

[harmonygirl]

David, then the average North American's butt is evolving! (but I digress...)
I think entropy happens in a closed system and this may be what leads closed systems to inevitable collapse (once again, I am defining closed system as one which refuses to interact externally). Could you explain your thoughts on the impact of a closed (or open) system on the double-slit experiment? Not sure I follow you there.
In my opinion, quantum is open. It interacts with its evironment but also mirrors (?) its environment...I actually have to think about this one!

[michellemfry]

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about just how a system goes about becoming closed. Does the system, can the system, is it capable of closing itself, thereby causing and bringing about the origin of entropy?

[baudrunner]

Never mind all those unparseable latex formulae, I am managing quite well with my new LEd Latex editor and the MikTex environment (great fun), I am not giving up my Netscape 8.1 Firefox as it is far to great, although I don't think that is the problem. The simplest thing too, just a bunch of squares to explain the following...

I was thinking that if a thread gets this long then if anyone wanted to discuss a tangential subject then one should perhaps start a new thread.

The fact is that a system cannot close itself. It either is closed or it isn't. There, never mind the example where if you traced your lineage back for a thousand years and counted everybody who contributed to your DNA you'd have more people than were alive in the world today. This example based on the perception that an only child born of only children and dying a childless spinster is not representative of a closed system.

The formula is given by 2^2 + 2^3...2^49 + 2^50 . (so how come my tex code didn't work? Was I being GRATUITOUS?)

Take a lesson, people..

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao When they realize they made a mistake. Actually, from a photon's point of view, it has never moved anywhere. It is the universe that passes by. This is indicated by the space-time interval equals zero in special relativity.

For them to realize "they" had made a mistake,would that
not imply that "they" were self aware?Do you think then Antonio,that photons
are self aware!


kindest regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick that photons are self aware!

In addition to self-awareness, photons remember everything they see since the day they were created if they are not already destroyed.

[baudrunner]

Guille said:

According to what I know, if something has no mass, then it can go at faster speeds than light, and by going faster than light, you will move backwards in time.

That's just not true in reality. The mathematics is only valid for a limited range and it by itself does not prove that anything travelling faster than light travels backward in time. The experimental observation of a light wave entering the box before it leaves for a light wave leaving a box at supeluminal velocities is exclusive to the photonic realm. Remember that the photonic backdrop exists everywhere at the same time. What is observed is the anomalous representation of what is going on because it somehow must manifest in reality.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by baudrunner that the anti-proton is not an exact opposite of the proton, that it still has a net positive charge.

I'm not aware of this. This can only be confirmed by an experimentalist to which I'm not. I'm just a nickel and dime theoretician.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao In addition to self-awareness, photons remember everything they see since the day they were created if they are not already destroyed.

Would you then agree Antonio,that they are living!



kind regards michael.