petrushka.googol

Mammals as group seem to have specialized in sound detection acuity - the fantastically sensitive triple-bone structure of the mammalian inner ear is almost a defining characteristic of mammalia. Different mammals of course take different advantage of the ability - everything from echolocation to subtle social interaction rides on the mammalian ear.

 

As those who have watched wolves (same as dogs) hunt mice in long grass or under snow can attest, their hearing is not vestigial .

 

Whales and elephants hear far below 20hz, btw - down to 14 at least, probably lower.

Are you trying to suggest that the frequency band is a beneficial evolutionary adaptation? If wolves have a selective frequency range then why do mice not share the same band as their evolutionary response. Why did this take place only on the predatory side of the food chain? Are not the victims deserving of a better fate? And if this was the case, how have they survived so long in spite of adversity? The argument presented above seems to have lacunae that are difficult to fill....

 

Petrushka.googol;

 

You also imply that philosophers are not normal when you talk about their "abhorrence to socially accepted norms", so you also see them as "outside the box".

 

I am not sure if I should feel complimented or insulted by your description of my "fuzzy" neural networks, but I know that reading that sentence made me smile. (chuckle)

 

My opinion :

1) I am an aspiring philosopher.

2) Imitation is the best form of flattery.

From 1 and 2 : In response to I am not sure if I should feel complimented or insulted

Conclusion -- I think I see being a philosopher as an evolved state of consciousness like Kafka and Chekhov.

Having such an orientation energizes the psyche and makes one look away from an "only material" reality.

I don't know whether this post belongs to Politics (or Sociology) or whether it even belongs to this forum at all.

I was just contemplating that suppose our default skin pigment was blue and there was a minority with green skin tone.....

Would racism still exist in this society?

After all our biases are essentially WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) and seem to be associated with the reflex arc rather than serious introspection.

Your thoughts...(provided the moderator doesn't find this post scandalous).

I think this should be possible in seas and oceans (which are brine) and which assists electrolysis.

This should not ideally occur in fresh water bodies where the concentration of sodium chloride is appreciably lower. (just my idea...can't substantiate it though).

Two things: if that's what you're trying to prove, it's a tautology. It's also not Murphy's 'Law'.

 

Murphy's 'Law' states that whatever can go wrong will. So, it takes the form of (∀x)(⋄Wx⊃Wx). That is, for all events, if it is possible that the event will go wrong, then it is the case that the event will go wrong. If you are trying to prove Murphy's Law, that's the thing you're shooting for.

 

 

 

Does not follow. However, it is the case that for something to happen, it must have a non-zero probability.

 

 

Yep.

 

 

That's unintelligible nonsense.

 

 

 

That's not actually true.

 

 

This is also nonsense, and doesn't follow from anything even given all of your 'arguments' above.

I thank you for your analysis.

I am not acquainted with formal mathematical symbolism but the gist of my argument (and other posts (2) above) is as follows :

1) If something can be true, it is not necessarily always false.

2) If something can be false, it is not necessarily always true.

3) Something that can be true, cannot be assumed to be false unless proven otherwise.

By superposing 1,2,3 you arrive at an assertion.

Please read my other 2 posts above and comment if you wish.

The idea here is to visualize whether Murphy's Law can be deduced through logical analysis and not treated as an axiom.

Within the sub phylum vertebrata class mammalia we have response to frequencies in the range 20 Hz to 20 KHz.

In dogs for instance this range is augmented...(may be we need to develop special headphones for pooches).

Why this specific adaptation? Is it a "vestigial" function in canines or does it make them more aggressive by nature?

Your thoughts....

Thanks in advance.

Are there similar discussions about Mick's observation - Even if it can't go wrong, it will?

And how about Fitzpatrick's corollary - Murphy was an optimist?

 

A demonstration of Mick's observation is provided by the Titanic.

It was unsinkable- it sank; or the German Enigma coding machine which was uncrackable- it was cracked.

 

The ideas all serve to remind people that even when you are sure something can't go wrong, it's sometimes worth having a back up plan in case it does.

 

So yes, it does have value.

How about looking at failure from a different perspective.

We all know that a perfect machine (with 100% efficiency) is impossible in our Universe. (due to increasing entropy).

How then can a machine (however it is constructed) never fail.

Maybe the time required to verify that may be beyond the reach of a human life span...may be exponential..but not completely impossible.

Quote : Napoleon -> Impossible is a word in the dictionary of fools...

Philosophers are often regarded as iconoclastic.

My own concept is that what distinguishes philosophers from their antagonists is their abhorrence to socially accepted norms and conventions.

They are like a super exclusive clique with their neural networks more "fuzzy" then the average person...which causes them to think tangentially (if i could put it that way).

Depends how you see it...Time was not there initially but then nor was space....Time continues to be created as space is created by the expansion of universe...Time unfolds as space unfolds.

Where did it all begin...At a singularity

Where will it end...not sure.

Is time infinite? Since matter of the Universe is not infinite, and since time is just another co-related aspect of space, time is still finite.

Time is not absolute. It also exists but only in relation to space. No space -> No time.

Condense space to an infinitesimal..Time can still record it.

 

So if P>0 then P=1. It's a boolean system, and patently absurd of you take it at its logical face value.

I was thinking how this could be converted into an algorithm (however absurd that may sound) and arrived at the following code :

x = "I imitate Archimedes";

how equal does each side have to be?

Symmetric...

If one of these queens does mate, she then starts her own colony. Now if ants from two of these colonies meet, there can be a big battle over territory.

On second thoughts the politics of schism seems to apply here. Not so sure whether there is as much internal strife though...

May be some of the advantages of virtual nations will be :

1) AI law bodies that act on reason not emotion or bias

2) Virtual boundaries (as there are no discrete barriers in cyberspace).

3) Membership of several "nations" concurrently with no need of a passport or visa.

4) An intelligent marketplace where currency borders do not exist. Maybe there will be some sort of purchase assist tokens that are earned by work in cyberspace that are at parity in all virtual nations and can be used as the de-facto currency across the board.

There are many other things possible but i have listed just a few.

This may seem an offensive post to some but I was postulating on why in a well structured social unit like an ant colony there is no hint of rebellion?

Compare this to analogous units in the human bio-sphere. Mob psychology takes over on many occasions and what follows is a fracas and traces of nihilist behavior.

Why is it then that a highly evolved species like homo sapiens reacts in ways that defy normal social paradigms?

What is the rationale behind this?

Thanks in advance

Think of an idealized chlorophyll bio-sensor which is responsive to light and is bio-degradable.

Or a nitrogen fixing bacteria culture sensor that is responsive to nitrogen in the environment.

These simple bio-sensors cause no environmental damage whatsoever and simply extend nature's bounty in the lab environment.

How close are we to achieving these?

Thanks in advance

My conclusion should be re-defined as follows: (after some contemplation and sincere reflection)

Mathematically if something can go wrong we MAY not be sure that it will go wrong but we can at least be certain that it will not be right ALL of the time which iteratively implies that the first condition although not explicit is in fact implicit by its very definition. Simply stated we cannot state the first condition has a probability of zero which means it could occur at some point of time as an event. So the wrong event occurs at the right time if you get the drift (pun intended).

Murphy's law states that "If anything will go wrong it will.".

My rationale for the same is as follows :

Argument 1 : For anything to go wrong it must have a finite probability.

Argument 2 : (follows from argument 1) - A finite probability however small is greater than zero.

Argument 3 : (corollary of argument 2) - If anything is impossible it has zero probability.

Argument 4 : If anything goes wrong it is right in an inverted frame of reference . (anti universe).

Argument 5 : That which can be measured and verifiable is real.

Conclusion : (From 1 to 5) : Something can go wrong if it is destined to (at least once in the history of the universe since it can exist in the right and wrong states. It is like quantum superposition and the net observed state depends on which is the observed state. Both right and wrong states exist and the wrong state will be observed by some observer at some point in time.) This is not completely impossible and hence feasible.(from argument 1,2,3). My modification to the postulate would be "If something can go wrong it will go wrong at least some times (if not always)..(from all the arguments presented above).

Earlier an over simplistic assumption was that equal development of both the hemispheres of the brain was directly related to the ability to use both hands equally well. This seems specious at best because if that was true then no specific talent could be registered in ambidextrous individuals. What is the current insight into this subject?

Thanks in advance.

What is the smallest sample size that we need for a statistical study to be representative of a real population? eg. if there is a population of 100 and my sample size is 10 then even if 8 out of 10 responses are positive what is the possibility that 80 out of 100 people would adhere to the same norms? Are percentages inaccurate in this case?

Please advise.

Is the heart as efficient in patients with dextrocardia? What are the bio-physical implications of having a heart that has it's apex tilted towards the left?

What I was thinking is that the time shear (if we could call it that) would be so appreciable near a black hole that every "passing second" would be more difficult to reach than the previous one. Which implies that one would never really reach the event horizon in toto. It would be a near miss or something similar. I guess.

Maybe the key to understanding this is to take the Universal Set as the known Universe itself.

Dissipation of energy takes place during ideation and work done produces output. So we can produce a tangible object (like a car).

The entropy of the Universe is always increasing, and we can plug this sub-system into the larger whole to arrive at the conclusion that entropy overall has increased.

As per the relativistic equation when v approaches c time dilation approaches infinity.

But theoretically how far could this go? If time is dilated close to infinity it will cross the age of the universe. (relative to the big bang). Then what would happen at the event horizon of a black hole where the gravitational shear forces are sufficient to produce such an event?

Please advise.