Muratus del Mur

there are many things i want to reply to here, but i will reply for now just to this . Entropy in the universe IS caused by the expansion of the universe, and i say this not based on scientific research, it is just my own theory. I "bet" that if the universe was contracting and not expanding, the universe would be governed by syntropy not entropy and the ice cube in your example would require less energy to assamble back in place than to be destroyed.

i bet if i ask put a poll if santa is real or not and explain that those that say yes get santas gifts and those that say no get nothing ... i will get enough positive votes to have "scientific" proof that santa exists )

Thanks for you opinions, it gives me a clue about what you think about me I value most of the things you said, BUT the question was placed with one answer in mind and i will reward just that answer. (it doesn't mean i don't value the other things) Now, the winner @MRWander ..almost close but not there, sorry. Loyalty to self is not same thing with loyalty as i intended as an answer. @Fenrir ..i value loyalty in general not only towards md. Your clarification ruined it, sorry. The winner is [b]redneck[/b] , with the answer "Loyal". Perfect answer was supposed to be "Loyalty". It is a selfish thing to value. Caring more for loyal people is in a way a self preservation. Loyalty its also a base for honesty but it can also coexist with other good or bad features. One that is loyal, will always be there, good or bad, and that i value most. To share someone failure as well as success means loyalty. Loyalty is a form of love. I asked what i value most on someone not on myself or what should someone value on himself. On myself it would probably be creativity or "self".

one word please, repost with one single word ... specifications will probably destroy your answer anyway.

What is the one character feature that i (me Mur) value the most on someone? I will reward a wp for the first that answers in the first try. (why reward such a thing? because i can)

airmail a cookie LOL, i might do that ) now, serious. you can't have 0.333(infinity) in real world because 0.3 is a convention. Same as 1. BUT...but...1 is agreed by all, anyone can say there is ONE apple, but 0.3 , because of its imprecise roots in math maybe, will be subject to interpretation so to say. Split an apple in 3 parts to 3 people, they might agree that it is a fair split, but split one gold kg to 3 people and see if they all accept 0.3 of it . Its all about borders and where we decide the border is. If go out of the math realm, additional factors come in. The example above is not extreme because "outside" math, the human opinion factor is as valid as any other. Bottom line, you can have "full" 1 but you must agree in a more interpretable way to a third part of that "one". In a way its same as in math ..zero point "enough threes" is a third of a "full" even for computers. Even so, its a less "full" than a "full" one. Do i make any sense or its the wine speaking? lol

Yeah, blame the Salad! The Tomato is innocent.

[quote]now it's like you told a 10 years old there is no Santa [/quote] mmm ..we shall see about that one later...

unless some veteran jumps in to "help" clear the confusion , lol.

ah come on, why you have to spoil it it was fun to see new ppl confused and in panic

awsome now i have the explanation about substraction too, i was almost convinced (-) and (+) might be equal, seems they are also not. Its realy hard to see the influences on the system from WITHIN it, but once you do, it gives you a better perspective on whats going on. Now to get back to my obsession with circles, i will give this example .. think that a virtual man is walking on a circle, from his perspective he walks a line, an endless line (considering there is no landscapen to see its repeating). If he only knew from outside that he is walking a circle, he could do so many things, like jumping in a different place on the circle, or predicting what will come next. Its same situation with us. We are INSIDE this ystem we call universe and from within its hard to see how things are affected , like multiplication, division, and so on. Thats why someone could learn something about the universe just by analizing ANY of its details. Science, Art, Religion, any could provide essential clues to understand the entire "system" as good as a child play would. Once you can isolate some of its rules you can use them, and by using them it means you can start to see them in places where they are not yet visible. imagine you look at a brand new house .. you do realise it will look tottaly "broke" (sry cant find my words) if existing at all, in lets say 300years. You can predict entropy because you learned it from different sources, but the same with entropy you could predict other principles and see ahead of what will be, or better understand what is going on. These are very unusual and un-scientific tools to understand the world around us, because, science alone, is a flat shape in a 3d world. Returning to the man walking on the circle, i think i found a better model for this, and thats what made for me the connection between all the theories that i had so far. but this is a very long topic so i stop here. Thnks again for sharing the substraction example, i will use it [quote] You said that you can't get infinite length without division. I said you can get it just by being infinitely precise, which you need to be to get infinite length through division anyway. See it this way: all numbers have an infinite amount of information. [/quote] infinitely precise is a requirement fulfilled from the start. What you say is only valid in a virtual world, where there is no 1, there is only 1.00000O(infinity), but in reality we say ONE apple, assuming all that the apple means. Now before you reply to this i will throw in your best argument There is a connection between the "virtual" number 1.0000 and the "one" apple. In reality there is no clear border between the apple and the surroundings. At atomic level i mean. You can say with precision the apple ends here and air or plate starts here. Who will claim all the layers of dust and dirt between them ? So, i guess we are both right in a way. You say numbers contain an infinite amount of information.... you have no idea how well it fits that with my ongoing theories, but said just like that , its false. I will be a bit methaforical here because i dont want to say this yet ... u make the connection alone ... ..how do you define an empty space, how do you say "this" is an empty space? by refering to what is not empty, by pointing out the suroundings of that empty space. Same with infinite information in each number, i dare to say, in each thing. Note: I can't reward you for "being right with me", even if you deserve a reward for the math stuff, its not ethical. Sorry.

@Sephirah Caelum sick and healthy has nothing to do with entropy tendency of the body as i said. You can be a child in full syntropy process , growing and all, and die of sickness. Ifthe degrading process is stronger than the regenerating process, you lose. @apophys (im not sure if you talk in support of what i said or against it, because your arguments are actualy very helpful:)) [quote] Making philosophy out of simple arithmetic? Ha ha... [/quote] If you dont see philosophy in anything then you don't see anything. [quote] If we are going to be precise, then you need to put an infinite number of zeros after 10 and 3; otherwise the number implies a level of uncertainty of the last digit ("significant digits"). I.e. you need 10.000000... and 3.0000000... . Exactly contradicting the second part of the sentence. [/quote] Im sory, but maybe because of the lack of sleep, but i dont get your point here at all. What is contradicting? [quote] What makes you tie division to entropy anyway? Making a number smaller? Then multiply by 0.1 . [/quote] Division means to splitt something yes. before turning to math tricks try to remember where all this comes from. Multiply 5 apples with 0.1 if you can. 0.1 is 1 DIVIDED by 10. And that is again an example in favor of entropy/division. Mutliplication just amplifies effects of division, it will not recover it if faced directly with it. (you can find also good examples in medicine about that) [quote] "Life creates matter out of information, out of nothing virtually." Life REARRANGES matter based on information in DNA & RNA. [/quote] You are right, it doesn't create it, that was stupid to say. It rearranges it. I was thinking that it creates ORDER, and that its syntropy. The quote from wikipedia, its kind of fighting both ways, if its like its said, then its one way, but the rest of the quote sais even if its so its very unlikely so its the other way. It sais "entropy is governed by probability, allowing for a decrease in disorder even in closed systems". Decrease in disorder means order (negating negation), but it continues by saying it will not happen actualy. funny i could add. [quote] You mean that the balance is tipped from syntropy to entropy at ~25 years of age. Fun fact: the human brain finishes its development at ~25. I believe that with thedevelopment of technology, this tipping point can be postponed indefinitely. [/quote] 25 years is a raw estimate, for some its at 22, for others at 27, but in that range anyway. The development of the brain has of course to do with syntropy as a principle. It DEVELOPS, thats means syntropy, as opposed to DECAY (or whats the word). Many other functions stagnate at that age then start to go down. There are also crucial changes in the energetic behaviour of a person that fit with this timeframe, but its pointless to go into that when there are so many other things to give as example. [quote] Incorrect. It would approach a finite limit; this is the real length. Fun fact: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ... = 1 It's kinda like that. [/quote] From what i know, some such fractions, will cause this process to cap at a given value, some will cause it to expand indefenetly, but i dont know for sure or examples. Afterall, the coast of England has to be limited or it would be the biggest in the world . Anyway i hope you noticed the smiley at the end of that paradox, and see that if measured in big chunks it would be indeed smaller. Its all about the error you allow. You can say that something is 2-3km, if you use km as a measuring distance, or its 2800-2900m if you use meters (smaller intervals, better precision). Like rounding up numbers. To contradict me on the coast of Englad issue it is enough to give as example as streight line, the math example might fail. [quote] Take it to be water instead for simplicity. Imagine there is no gravity. The ball of water is held as a ball by surface tension. Now split it approximately in half, with no splash. You now have 2 hemispheres, which become spheres due to surface tension if the slicer repels water. Is there more information? Seems to be twice as much. With a gentle nudge, push the two back together, or just bridge the gap between them, and surface tension + capillarity will do the work. They reform into one sphere. Overall, you've simply released energy as heat from whatever device you used, i.e. there is greater entropy afterward. In fact, the method used to separate is more wasteful than that used to recombine. [/quote] You are fundamentaly wrong. In your example you did not "break" the water sphere. In the gas chamber example you did not "break" the gas. There is no entropy process in either of your example, they are both actualy ways of placing more energy into those things at best. Your half water spheres are not actualy there, in reality they will just be two deformed spheres. The energy you put into deforming that sphere up to the point it becomes two spheres, will be used , as a spring, to take the two halfes back into a sphere shape and because of the distance they will unite in one. Take the two halfs far away one from the other and they will turn to two separated SPHERES. The sphere they are forming is not the original one, its the most low energy and information "consuming" shape in the universe. So no entropy there, no syntropy, just isolation of systems. [quote] As far as I know, ALL processes are reversible with exactly the same energy [/quote] THEORETICALLY - not practically. You can give me endless examples of processes that will waste more energy to build than to destroy, but except syntropic processes like life, none to go the other way back. If you still argue that theory == or != practice, then please consider i talk theory vs reality and not only tehnologic capabilities. You need a lot of "IFs" to make theory in this field actualy work, allto cover up for the imperfection that is allaround. Theories are made for perfect conditions. Of course i speak generaly now, but anyone can see with naked eye that things will more likely destroy than build themselves. In theory entropy equals syntropy, in reality its not so....now how can you put theory vs reality face to face and still say entropy equals syntropy in the universe? ---- i am sory i didnt answered to each post, but i am reading all. Unfortunatly i cant be here as active as you are and reply to each one all the time. As you probably noticed i was away from many things lately. I will answer in "bulk" like now, from time to time, but please do as you say and [quote] One by one, I will dismantle your arguments, Mur, and you won't ever prove anything. >:] (jk) [/quote] its indeed refreshing , i will shop your head of slowly, with proof (jk) @malaikat, thnks for links i was looking for that one

one more thing, about the intro. Universe is a system in motion, it was not the same 1billion years ago, it will not be the same 1 billion from now. Maybe life as resource of observers is needed only now? Maybe time is irelevant in the "life" of the universe so we apearing now covers for the times we were never here. Afterall we are looking in the past when we watch the stars so we observe the past too. The most plausible thing about time is that its not linear as we are used to. I don't have proof for that yet, but i have a strong feeling one day it will be proven that time is not past-now-future but its more compact as a whole. (how shades see it:)

computer crashed after i wrote a loooong post ( so here is the short version again @Mailakat,Grido 1/3 = .3 -> is WRONG your 0.9x10 example Grido, uses 1/3 already, because you can't describe 0.333... in a complete way without it. Without division you will always miss a 0.00...001. of course (1/3)*3 is 1, but without the division its not, that was my point, And i am still not convinced i am wrong on it. [quote]I don't believe that any theory states the universe is endless. It contains a measurable (and relatively small) number of particles, and a finite amount of energy. It also isn't infinite in size or age [/quote] A fractals is not endless from "outside" it but its endless from inside. You can define it with a formula and calculate even its volume/surface, yet itsedge is infinite. I think universe is BOTH infinite and finite just like that. Matter and energy are forms of what it contains. Actualy, very recent discoveries say that neutrinos build the universe and that matter is only a degrading of them. Neutrinos might actualy "fill" the entire thing we call universe, making it like a big soup. Universe is as endless as 1/3 , it has a size ,but if you break it down in any point it will be endless because it keeps expanding. [quote] Just because you can find flawed representations does that mean the numbers contain infinite information? [/quote] No, you are right its not infinite information, 1/3 is just "hard to match" information, without using division. Its still one step forward. To relate this to the original thought... if you have a perfect circle (because its the simplest 2d shape) you have less information than you wouldhave with lets say a star shape. An irregular shape would have even more information stored in it. I am not sure but i dont think you can have endless information out of a finite system. There was a joke, how long is the coast of England..answer was that it depends on the length of the ruler you measure it with. If you divide it in smaller chunks is longer, if thery are bigger chunks the coast appears smaller. Eventualy with an endlessly small ruler, it would be endlessly big @KAFUUKA, no quantum does not respect classical. in quantum you can have a particle jump from one place to an other without actualy going all the way there (eletron energy levels). That and much more are impossible in classical physics. Theyare not compatible from what i know of. to stay relatively on topic, i keep reformulating the initial issue so that it keeps same meaning but refreshes the point of view, so: Are there signs/proof that destructive processes (division being one) are more powerful than constructive ones (multiplication) and that they are not balanced equaly (like infinity vs zero)

infinity does not exist actualy. Its a "half-state" and has no meaning without the concept of absolute void. This has major implications on any theory of this kind because half-states (or name them as you wish , i have no good other name) , are hard , near to impossible to understand. When you take into consideration infinity in the division vs multiplication issue, you are taking only one aspect of infinity into account. The entropy effect is still visible, its actualy made more visible by this. All this is still under heavy "hardware" processing right now. I am thinking a lot about it and all your comments are extremely useful. I remind you that the division vs multiplication "fight" is the proof for the energy to information conversion or the counter proof for that. At least this is what i consider based on the above discussion. I could add an other argument , this time against multiplication, that infinity multiplied by infinity equals infinity, making multiplication unable to break a sort of barrier. if we look to situation of ZERO, its getting confusing, this might result into an other side question, is infinity the _equal_ opposite of zero? I personaly think not, you have infinity on both sides of zero, so to say you need one single zero to balance two types of infinity , making zero have more authority [color="#FF0000"] [b]PLEASE - do not take what I say for granted, consider it a provocation for you to look into it and bring new constructive arguments. I might tell things as conclusions, but its my personal opinion and what i am actually looking for is to improve these theories by analyzing their flaws.[/b][/color]

Its not fair what i do now, but i am writing this article as a conclusion of my own, so you have a base for what to "attack" http://md-archives.com/articles/161/1/Signs-of-entropy/Page1.html Please use this forum thread for argumenting/debating. Like i say there, the discussion is still open, i hope you can bring me proof and arguments to change my mind and prove me wrong...only in this way i can perfect it. (this is the exact text i currently plan to use in the book so some things might sound related to text that are not in that article)

regardless of system/base, division can be used to obtain a "flawlessly represented" and infinite in that way, number, while multiplication cant. I still wait a proof where it can. Laws of physics say many things, if you compare quantum physics with normal one, you will see they fight a lot, while both being right in their way. Actualy what i say relies on the balance in an indirect way...to put it in other words: if something is capable of vanishing , (example, energy into endless universe) then something, according to the same balance, should be capable of appearing out of nothing. Its only natural that in an entropic system, "rules" will favor the destruction and not the creation. Even if in theory you should use same energy to build as you use to destroy, in reality, is never like that. And i mean never. The universe is at an entropic stage and that is visible without any theories or telescopes. The law of conservation applies on ideal systems that are not affected by entropy. Its simple to imagine actualy, think of this: Consider the universe as you say, balanced, law of conservation works just fine, division is same with multiplication, etc ... now, on this sistem apply a force that is driving everything down, makes everything consume more, degrade instead of assamble ..ENTROPY..is will affect all these rules. They will still remain ideal in theory, but if you look deeper, discrepancies will appear. I consider, and its a personal view only, that the universe might still be perfectly balanced if we consider also time. A system can be under influence of entropy one period of time, while under influence of syntropy the other period, and like that balanced. But without time in the equation, you will only see a part of the system rules, and obviosly seeing just a part, they will be incomplete and unbalanced.

creature was sent by you to that other id, anyway you two talk and try to find an agreement. if its impossible, ask for an investigation ..but be aware i will investigate both sides.

placing a wp at the start of the time frame is important. A new player will not be impressed by the idea that he will get somehting after ONE YEAR of playing, ...they are not sure if they will stay one day at first. I am also talking about WP directly not WP codes, so transfers are not an issue. I hope that in this way people will want more, and not consider wp as unreachable anyway. There are many that have none and stoped hoping for one. Alt checks , if implemented, will be very strict. Only one of the tests for example could be extremely strict, the ip check. If you are in a school or campus, you will never be able to get this reward if someone else got it first. Also the full range of alt checking is quite paranoid, so you will probably not be able to get the reward in many cases when the system things you are in any way related to the other account. Its big question, should alts be developed as separate characters (so yes get the wp) or should they be considered alts as they are? .. If there were not all these people that have alts to cheat or swarms of alts, this situation would be totaly different. AGE, in md, is the strongest sign of loyalty towards MD. You could be the worst character around, if you have a lot of age and you are still around and not baned, it means you are loyal to MD. You might not be loyal to its people, thats an other thing, but you are here and that counts. At least thats how i always felt about active days.

@Grido the "results" of the discussion are now in the book, a chapter about entropy and its importance to energy to information translation. It will be called "Signs of entropy". I am still trying to figure a way to put things so that some remain open , because in this discussion there were many things that opened alternatives, but eventualy there are 1000 of right and wrong ways, putting one on paper is enough to cause people to put the questions and thats what matters .. nobody can be fully right, (regardless of public polls *cough*) I will probably put the text also on the archives. Please, if you have any objections or new proof in relation to the theories discussed, tell me. Most interesting ideas come from confruntations, i admit i never thought about division being more important than multiplication before this talk. I did my homeworks after this and i think i was right indeed. Without you provoking, this chapter would be missing

anyone that i still owe something from the festival , please email me. I hope there are none that i forgot, but who knows :S I still have the feeling i forgot someone

I did not read the replies yet, i am waiting to have time to actualy use them , then i will all and "process" the results..oh and send you your reward for helping out Thnx

the creature in discussion is now in my posession, whoever claims it ..i am waiting for you to start a trial and present your version of the story to see who is right and who is lieing. (Note: The creature was on id 178002 not on the id indicated by you)

Let me know what you think about having a type of achievement that will give you a wishpoint for active days, without any other requirement. The implications are greater, it will cause a slight inflation of wp, especialy for the 50 days option that most fulfill. Wp are ment to be achieved by special merits so to say, i think age shows something even if its not a quest or a puzzle. What about farming alts for age , you get aged creatures and now also wishpoints, ideas, ways to avoid that? I am planning to add some very strict ways but it could be extreme. This idea can be made real fast, its something i started to work on but i stoped now to create this poll to see what you think about it first. If its not gonna win, maybe there are alternatives, if not, i'll focus on something else.

part of the role of a cheater/thief is the risk of him getting cought. ofc something can be done about it, not always, but from time to time, to give examples. Remember the announcement about trials and judges? read it.