swansont

There are organisms without brains. How intelligent is a carrot? An amoeba?

How is it that non-intelligent species are able to find food? Do non-intelligent species all do trial and error? Or is this a false dichotomy?

No, Mickey! (Steamboat Willie entered public domain today; taken from bluesky)

This is off-topic and was split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133170-guided-evolution-split-from-evolution-not-limited-to-life-on-earth/

“Guided evolution” as I’ve seen it used, has an end goal in mind. Unguided does not. Unguided follows the rules that exist within its realm. The source of those rules doesn’t matter.

(t,x) isn’t even two-dimensional time unless we’re redefining what x stands for (without any explanation)

What their ruling ends up as is speculation. Is there some legal mind saying that this could be the ruling? What, specifically is the legal challenge before the court? edit: it’s possible they could rule that primary elections are not for a government office - you don’t hold office if you win - so the 14th doesn’t apply. The question of whether he engaged in an insurrection isn’t addressed. They could rule that the 14th prevents you from holding office, not running for office. That just kicks the can down the road, but it would only matter if TFG wins the presidential election in the state. Otherwise he doesn’t get electoral votes and there’s no issue.

I’m saying AFAICT they won’t decide an issue of fact, that TFG did or did not engage in an insurrection, that a lower court decided. As I stated.

“Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied” https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/ There’s a court in Colorado that’s decided he has, as a matter of public record. (two courts, I think)

Temporarily. The topic here is genetics.

AFAICT (IANAL) they will not adjudicate whether or not TFG engaged in an insurrection. They are not trial judges. There may be several ways they might be able to overturn the decisions. People have been denied public office without having been convicted of engaging in an insurrection. “Historical precedent also confirms that a criminal conviction is not required for an individual to be disqualified under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. No one who has been formally disqualified under Section 3 was charged under the criminal “rebellion or insurrection” statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) or its predecessors.” https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/ One could argue that folks like Jefferson Davis, and many others, did not run for office because they knew they weren’t eligible. TFG famously doesn’t care about such things as rules, since they’re for other people to follow. But there’s plenty of documentation that he was involved in insurrection.

Alleged? If someone who was under 35, or not a natural born citizen, declared to be running for president, we would not be talking about alleged violation of Constitutional requirements. If Obama declared, we would not be saying that he was ineligible because he allegedly already served two terms.

You have listed three spatial dimensions. This clarifies nothing for me. You can have situations where a you only need to look at one, or two dimensions. But it’s got three spatial dimensions It’s the 2-D surface of a sphere, which is a three-dimensional object. Why not just just say that? You can’t have 1/r^2 if you’re excluding r

What is 2+2 dimensional? Two of space and two of time? You need 3 spatial dimensions to get the inverse square law. The behavior requires a 2-D surface that depends on radial distance, i.e. three dimensions. If you only had two, the interaction would drop off as 1/r https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/gravity-extra-dimensions/ There is no such thing as a 2D sphere

As exchemist has noted, you ignore the role of observation. Science must agree with experiment. Logic can only take one so far. "logical" ideas have been discarded because of disagreement with experiment - it was considered logical that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects, but this is not how nature behaves. Science does not explain why things are the way they are - that's a job for philosophy. The job of science is to describe how nature behaves.

Not much in technical areas. He didn’t actually found Tesla, and has said some really stupid things (remember his idea to send a sub in to rescue people from a flooded cave?). And by many accounts he’s a terrible boss.

This isn’t a small detail to gloss over. What is the mass of a black hole GR requires to do this, and how does it compare with your prediction? You’ll have to quantify this as well.And show that photons feel attraction from magnetic fields. Electrons have quasar events?

! Moderator Note You’ve been asked several times why a photon would orbit. Instead of forging ahead with more nonsense, you need to address points that have been raised. If you don’t, this thread will be closed.

Positive or negative convention? Do you understand what is meant by convention? It points one way in some places and the other way in others. But there’s no charge. Then you need to provide a mathematical model of what this means (not just drawings), and evidence to support it

No, it decidedly is not.

My two requests are there for you, or anyone, to read. This is a thread about things evolving, which was the context was for your complaint “AI systems don't evolve and can't EVER evolve“ Obviously, a program such as an AI algorithm can’t change until it exists. And if subsequently changes without further intervention, then “changing all by itself” is valid description of the process, regardless of your posturing. If this has nothing to do with evolution, why did you bring it up? You appear to keep trying to drag the discussion away from the topic at hand and forcing it into another direction, despite the invitation to start a new thread (and other requests to stay on-topic)

Don’t pretend I didn’t have to ask twice “Usually, though, the term ‘agency’ is used in a much narrower sense to denote the performance of intentional actions.” So agency requires intent. Why does there need to be intent for this to happen? Where is the “agency” in biological evolution?

The positive and negative on the scope, or the graph, does not indicate charge.

And? If there was some statement saying there was no selection in any of this, I missed it.

I like that one of the challenges was that TFG’s claim that he won the 2020 election means he’s ineligible under the 22nd amendment. It would be fun to watch him try and respond to that.