On The Upper Bound Of The Energy Of A Connected: Fill & Download for Free

1. Name – Upper-class people tend to, for the most part, select names that are strong traditional names. They also tend to favour traditional spelling. As an example Jackson instead of Jaxon.2. Haircut – They tend to be well maintained and slightly more reserved.3. Fashion – They favour quality over quantity (a value carried over to most areas of their lives). Their fashion sense is classic, timeless and with the exception of a few statement pieces mostly neutral in colour. They understand good quality and neutral colours are in fashion every season so it makes for a better investment. I believe you can tell a lot about a person by their watch and shoes.4. Finances – They do not talk about them unless you are involved in a business or need to know you can likely only guess.From my experiences around wealthy people, I have noted that they are acutely aware of the value of money and very frugal under most circumstances. The only exception where they splurge is on one or two passions or vices.They understand opportunity cost and have self-restraint.If they discuss money, they talk in terms of investments, not in terms of purchases. The majority of the finances are invested into things they need or which grows in value, less is spent on what they want or instant gratification.They also invest time teaching their kids and helping them understand the system, they may inherit or operate within.5. Location – old money and new money tend to live in certain geographical locations. Where they live can be an indicator of financial standing which is a contributing factor to social class.6. Education – beyond private schools and fancy colleges, which, today is probably less valued than previous generations. I would point out that the upper class do three things differently when it comes to schooling:Education does not end when school ends – the upper class invest time and energy into their kids. They read to them, ask them thought-provoking questions and discuss topics of interest and relevance.They promote different extracurricular choices – those that play sports, play a certain type of sport. Not because of the sport itself, but because of the values it instils and the skills it teaches.They also tend to place greater value on the arts and languages. People from lower social classes tend not to promote language because it’s less likely they will ever use it. The upper class know it’s not about the language, but the skills you acquire in the process that matters.They allow the child to explore their curiosities – Middle-class families push conformity, good grades and college education more than the upper class do. They do so because to them, that is the path to have more of what they desire. The upper class allow their children to explore their natural interests and talents and then find a way to make a career or contribution as a by-product.7. Occupation – needs no explanation.8. Pets – Upper class tend to have fewer pets, but those that they do have are usually incredibly well loved and cared for.9. Speech – I have found that the upper class tend to be socially malleable. They are not out of place talking to almost anyone… That’s not to say they enjoy it. What you will note, is that their vocabulary and content changes relative to the context. That’s not to say they suddenly start talking trash and slander. Class will always be class, but they have the ability to connect at every level.10. Well connected – The upper class tend to be well connected. They know many people and many people know them. However, from what I have seen and experienced they also have fewer or are much more selective with whom they consider, “close friends”.11. Socialising – Following on from the above, they also tend to socialise slightly differently. Without stereotyping too much, they seem to favour quality time, experiences and events over frequency. To them socialising is about connecting, developing relationships and making memories… not something to do that passes time.12. Health and Dental – Put simply, they take care of themselves.13. Diet and food palate – Quality food is one area where the upper class as less frugal. While each class has its own definition of “good food,” the differences are significant and a direct reflection of the food budget. The higher classes tend to favour small portions of a wide variety, high-quality ingredients while the lower classes tend to opt for large portions of a handful of low-quality ingredients.The upper class also understand table and social etiquette when it comes to dining.14. Entertainment choices – The events they attend and the frequency tend to be different from class to class.15. Actions over words – The upper class tend not to talk themselves up. Instead, they focus on execution and contribution and are often more reluctant to talk candidly about themselves.16. They have an internal locus of control and worldly view – lower social classes tend to believe they are bound by circumstances and spend a larger (than upper class) amount of time comparing and complaining about what has happened to them. The upper class tend to believe that they are a product of their own efforts and spend greater amounts of time looking at the world, than considering how the world looks at them.17. Contribution – following on from the previous statement, they tend to look at how they can add value and contribute to the world around them. For this reason, many upper-class people will use their influence to sit on boards that allow them to create social change and contribution.There are obviously hundreds of more idiosyncrasies that describe the upper class. These are just a few, without rehashing everything stated by previous comments.

It's not false and it may add a piece of the puzzle, but it doesn't add the insight that one might hope for from a "math formula for consciousness"Tononi's paper starts out making several assumptions about what features of consciousness are important (i.e. large number of states & information integration), and then defines a mathematical expression that can capture those features in a formal, mathematical way.The math is valid under those assumptions, and in terms of the mathematics of dynamical systems and information bearing neuronal networks, it lives up to the first sentence: "This paper introduces a time- and state- dependent measure of integrated information".The challenge of any mathematical measure like this is that it is abstract from the reality of the tissue that makes up the nervous system. The structure of the nervous system is pretty specific. While there is some room for randomness in its connections, there are also clear patterns of organization. These patterns make up a body of information that must eventually be combined with abstract theoretical notions of the nervous system in order to have a complete explanation. For example, the connection between our visual experience of watching a movie and our auditory experience of hearing music playing in the background depends on specific brain structures. We know this because when patients lose specific parts of their brain, they may lose the ability to integrate information specific to vision or hearing without losing both. While this equation may be necessary to understand some features of the dynamics of that process, it is insufficient to be a comprehensive theory without accounting for some of the specifics of perception we observe in the brain.(credit: Lienhard Schulz from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity3_Walk_of_Ideas_Berlin.JPG)For comparison, take the famous mass energy equivalence equation E=MC^2. While this insight has consequences for nuclear physics that imply a nuclear bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Consequences_for_nuclear_physics) would release a lot of energy, it is not a recipe for building one, or imply that a nuclear fission chain reaction is possible. I'm not suggesting that Tononi's equations are as well accepted as Einsten's are, but rather saying that even the best abstract mathematical relationships still leave a lot to be defined with specific details, and other relationships to be defined with other equations. This illustrates the upper bound of insight that we can get from any mathematical description of natural phenomena.

Sorry to bring this back up, but it seems necessary, based on the OP's comments, to provide a thorough background to the establishment of c as a constant, and the use of c as the upper limit of possible velocity.Maxwellian derivation of the constant speed of light:Maxwell worked on one problem for a while, and determined a constant speed of charge flow as a solution to this problem. As it turns out, this speed is the speed of light, but the connection was not likely made at the time of the solution to the problem.Problem: Given two straight, long, parallel wires with linear charge density lambda, separated by a distance d, and charge flowing along both wires in the same direction at a rate v. Find v such that the magnetic and electric forces of the wires are balanced (i.e. the magnitude of both forces are equal).[math]\vec{F}_m = q\vec{v} \times \vec{B}[/math][math]\vec{F}_e = q\vec{E}[/math]These are the Lorentzian forces for electricity and magnetism.is the magnetic field generated by a linear current loop, according to Ampère's formula for the magnetic field due to a current loop (and the Superposition Principle).is the electric field generated by a long line charge, according to Coulomb's Law (and the Superposition Principle). Note that s represents the distance between the source line charge and the test charge.Additionally, since [math]q = \lambda l[/math], we find [math]dq = \lambda dl[/math].So we have most of what we need to solve the problem. The next step is solving the cross product in the Lorentzian magnetic force.Before the next step, note that we cannot calculate the force on one entire wire due to the other, since these are "long" wires (they are effectively infinitely long), so instead of using l and q, we use dq and dl.Now equate the magnitude of both forces after substituting for dq as mentioned above, and setting s equal to d for the magnitude of the electric force:[math]\lambda dl v \frac{\mu_0 i}{2\pi d} = \lambda dl \frac{\lambda}{2\pi \epsilon_0 d}[/math]This simplifies to:[math]v \mu_0 i = \frac{\lambda}{\epsilon_0}[/math]But we can simplify even more if we use the definition of i, and our definition of dq as well:[math]i = \frac{dq}{dt} = \frac{\lambda dl}{dt} = \lambda \frac{dl}{dt} = \lambda v[/math]Therefore:[math]v^2 \mu_0 \lambda = \frac{\lambda}{\epsilon_0}[/math][math]v^2 = \frac{1}{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}[/math][math]v = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}}[/math]So that is how Maxwell determined the constant speed of charge flow in the two wires. Maxwell made the connection between light and electromagnetic waves, at least partly due to this result, and the connection was further made that this is the speed of propagation of light in a vacuum.As far as the application to Relativity (primarily Special Relativity), you must know about the Lorentz transforms, which came before Einstein's theory. The Lorentz transforms generally rely on two important factors, gamma and beta (gamma is a function of beta, and beta is a function of the object/particle's velocity and the speed of light):[math]\beta = \frac{v}{c}[/math][math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}[/math]Einstein used the Lorentz factor, as gamma may be called, to determine the relativistic energy and momentum of a particle with invariant mass:[math]E = \gamma m c^2[/math][math]\vec{p} = \gamma m \vec{v}[/math]and further manipulation by Einstein produced the more general equation:As for why the upper limit on velocity is the speed of light, the justification comes from the equation for E (not strictly from the equation for E squared). If you have a particle with an invariant mass m and velocity v (or relative velocity beta), the energy of the particle increases as the velocity of the particle increases (logically enough, since the kinetic energy increases). However, as v approaches c, the Lorentz factor approaches an asymptote (infinity, in this case), and thus the energy of the particle approaches infinity. This indicates that in order to accelerate a particle with a positive invariant mass to the speed of light, you need infinite energy. Therefore, for massful particles, the upper bound for speed is open (cannot be achieved).The general equation also explains photons, as these particles travel at the speed of light (as determined via Maxwell's solution and further extrapolations), but they have known finite energy, thus their invariant mass must be zero. This makes the equation:[math]E^2 = (pc)^2[/math][math]E = pc[/math]So we have a photon traveling at the speed of light with it's energy only dependent on momentum. This is the fastest a particle can travel according to Special Relativity.That should hopefully elaborate as to where the definition of a constant c came from, how it became a part of Special Relativity, and what it defines as an upper bound on velocity of particles.Credit goes to Dr. Jeffrey Prentis for the solution to Maxwell's problem.--edit--Images inserted in the stead of LaTeX equations that were not being rendered.