Deterministic?

<i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Hypothetically, if through technology we had infinate observational ability of both material, processes and scale, would the Meta model be deterministic?
____________________________________________________________________

Rousejohnny

this is not logical.infinite is infinite, therefore technology and observation of material,processes and scale would proceed hand in hand and not know where they go,yet think pattern.and to your last question Yes and No,it logically follows it's potential of pattern.

<i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Yes I do as a matter of fact. You sure have a way of diverting the topic don't you? I'm simply trying to point out that an atom has no entrophy and it is not a clearly stated fact in any books you may have lying around.
_____________________________________________________________________

Jim

i agree,that has puzzled me for awhile,why does the atom seem to have infinite stability and /or energy.and not only is entropy not stated it is not even discussed as far as i know.or another way to put this is,without collision how do you destroy an atom? or can you?

North, Entrophy is a way of seeing how energy and matter interact and not a property of either mass or energy so naturally atoms will not be hindered by the results of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have been trying to find out how all this stuff got so confused over the past 100 years or so and that is a very twisted story. A lot of has to do with the wars of the past I think. Everyone was protecting turf and using different methods to research more or less the same stuff. Anyway, whatever the cause things are pretty screwed up not only in astronomy but in most science as far as I can tell. There is a lot of room for improvement and getting at the root of the errors that have been established should be done as a gardener would weed a cabbage patch. I'm not a garden guy so matbe that is a bad example.

Jim

i have been reading a book by Fritjof Capra called The Web of Life(the isbn#0-385-47676-0).a facinating read so far.in it he talks about systems rather than disection,nonlinear equations their complexities and how science has not been able to use these equations which would give a more complete picture because of the building of super-computers.he also talks of the problem of the three-body problem in celestial mechics-the relative motion of three bodies under their mutual gravitational attraction-which nobody had been able to solve and how the work of Poincare's topology helped in this.also the mathematics of complexity.it deals also with thermodynamics,equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems and much more!! i feel that perhaps a systems perspective might give us the insight that would change how we think things are and came to be,for not just life but also for non-animate things.

by Profession he has a PH.D in theoretical physics from U of Vienna and has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American universities,he also has other books out.

although i have not finnished this book yet i find it one of those books hard to put down and very stimulating!!

Jim give it a look or anybody for that matter!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Hypothetically, if through technology we had infinate observational ability of both material, processes and scale, would the Meta model be deterministic?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Every finite element in the Universe contains of an 'infinite' number of points within its volume. Each point within the element is a variable acting and reacting to itself and its immediate environment. Each point 'choses' how to react according to its properties and situation. The element, as a whole, makes an infinite number of choices as it, too, acts and reacts to itself and its surroundings. Infinte choice is, indeed, randomness.

Question? Does MM oppose the concept of "Planck Length"? If not it would seem invalid to claim an infinite number of points in a volume.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien