I really like this discussion! I'm loving all these different points of looking at the situation. Thank you. A tire bouncing along at 65 mph seems to have a lo

I really like this discussion! I'm loving all these different points of looking at the situation. Thank you. A tire bouncing along at 65 mph seems to have a lot of free energy (kinetic), as does one stuck on an icy slanted roof (potential) :). I may be unaware of the concept of "free energy" you are using here though. Can you point me to where I can find out more? I absolutely agree that abstractions are necessary to efficiently convey concepts in a discussion. I also understand that abstractions are never perfect. What I wanted to really say is that I would be much more inclined to agree with the first and less with the second of these two statements: Trees can transfer information to each other, and we have the ability to understand these mechanisms. Trees speak to each other in a language, and we can listen in. It's a matter of phrasing, nuance, and insinuation. Different listeners may form different ideas when they read the above two statements.