With reference to my article “Processes, automation and human potential“, I propose a very simple definition of “Change”:
Change is the difference between Input and Output.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Crystal.
And as inferred in the article, these form a triangle: input-change-output.
Parallel to: start-change-stop and space-energy-time (Scn 8-8008)
So change could also be defined as the difference between stop and start, and then energy might be defined as the difference between time and space. Makes sense.
Excellent Marildi!
Call it “marildi’s theorem” – proving “isene’s definition”. (And as Chris would say – hahahaha :-D)
. . . and short! — priceless! (no hahaha – real admiration.)
Energy as “difference between Space and Time”. That’s deep. Food for ponder.
An spacetime unit is frozen in my view, so it makes a lot of sense to me the energy as the diference between two of these units.
+1. My days are exciting.
Marildi, and doingness as the difference between havingness and beingness. 🙂
What an excellent twist is wringing out of these triangles! Change. Another facet of understanding. Good get Rafael N.
Chris, change is fundamental in these triangles as these triangles show a formula of potential change from things of the same condition, from the current state to a better or worst one, imho.
Yes, but I have drifted away from “better and worse” thinking and am trying to simply think in terms of form. Change from one form to another form. Why is this? . . . and what fundamental physics is all around yet invisible while continually divisible?
Chris, in my view it is the postulated physics for this universe in particular (postulated from the begining to last up to the end of it, so being postulated it can´t be seen ), the divisible part of the existence is the space-time unit, in the present time. The past space-time units can´t be divided as free will is non-existant there to do so, imho. In abscence of free will you have consistent determinism.
Thanks Rafael. I feel you should take a closer look at determinism before being too sure. Mr. Isene writes a compelling argument against this in his “Proof Against Determinism” https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/a-proof-against-determinism/
Maybe read this short article (over again if you already saw it) and we can discuss.
Chris, i have read again this article and it aligns with my view of the time-space frame called present time, which is non-deterministic as free will exist there. The part which can be proved to be determined is a closed system without free will ( i.e. a especific machine ). To extrapolate this consistent determinism to cosmological orders of magnitude is more a problem of finding free will units in specific places to create inconsistencies. About the time separating one space-time frame and the next to be considered the new present time, I guess the chronon may be is of utility for the quantum physics but not necessarily the real size of it.
1. No system can be both complete and consistent. A deterministic universe cannot exist.
2. If free will exists, then it exists outside the realm of the laws of the system and acts upon it to create change.
3. Any free will affecting change upon a system breaks determinism and involves actual new creation in the system.
4. Absence of free will denounces responsibility (ref. Aristotle) and any cause. All is effect and the idea of Input-Change-Output is irrelevant. Same with Cause-Distance-Effect and many other parallels.
5. Nothing can exist without the power to continue to exist. For a particle to continue to exist, it must either be created anew every discrete moment of time or must have that power within itself.
Geir, i agree in 2. ,3. ,4. , 5. but in the point 1., it seems to me that the problem is the complete definition of the given system, if the definition is incomplete in fact, then this system will be seen as inconsistent .
Determinism requires all factors to be potentially known (i.e. is complete) – and it requires allways a set outcome (i.e. is consistent).
Isene, There are two completely different definitions needed here. Change is the action which occurs between input and output (and this would be a verb.) Change is also the output as the result of the action of said verb change. If there is no action bring about some difference/change then the output would be identical as the start point.
Then there is the factor of free will. Somewhere, someplace, some free will put into motion this change. Without free will then what would be causing “input”. If this was random then there is nothing making it “input” and therefore would just be part of the chaos of uncontrolled random motion. Without the free will who or what could be the observer to refer to the “input” or the final “output.”
Planets, suns, rocks, space, etc – don’t see input, change or output. In fact they don’t “see” anything – thus why I say there is free will somewhere inside or outside to determine the correct label.
“Without the free will who or what could be the observer to refer to the “input” or the final “output.”
What you said reminded me of this: “When we say life we mean understanding.” (Dianetics 55) That, to me, is the key quality of life
marildi, Understood. Even with your statement from Dn 55 understanding is only possible with some free will above or observing the component parts of understanding. Here, I was merely commenting on “change”. Life and understanding brings a bridging to the posting “Life”.
There may be “change” with life but only with life can some ability to have an external viewpoint exist. Only in this matter can the label of what is input, what is the outcome, and what are the differences we can label as change. If “change” the verb is causative then we could view “change” the outcome as effect. That I believe is where life has entered into the system.
“If ‘change’ the verb is causative then we could view ‘change’ the outcome as effect. That I believe is where life has entered into the system.”
Yes, I made a similar comment on the “Life” thread, and about the bridging from this “Change” definition to that thread.
BTW, like “change”, there are a couple of definitions for “life” that we should keep in mind. One is “living organisms considered together”. The other is “the quality that makes living organisms different from dead organisms and inorganic matter”. And that quality is sometimes called “spirit” or “theta” – which is what makes organisms live.
p.s. I meant the bridging of the “change” definition to the “life” definition.
I just had the idea that “change” could also be:
“breaking a pattern”
for example: a new job
a little bit long term view