blue_cristal

I recall that, about 30 years ago, when I was trying to walk through a seacoast forest in Brazil during the night I stumbled in a eerie patch where I got surrounded by strong little lights. At the beginning I did not know what those strong lights were. When I touched one of them I realized that it was a small leaf ( its length was about 2 cm ). Since it was very dark I could not tell if it was a leaf from a shrub or a tree. I reasoned that probably it was not the leaves themselves the source of light, otherwise all leaves of the shrub / tree should glow. Probably bioluminescent micro-organisms forming a thin layer were living on the surface of those leaves. Does someone know what intense bioluminescent micro-organisms grow on the surface of terrestrial plant leaves ?

Based in the current biologic variability of humans, I anticipate a lot of problems in a communist society. For instance, an electronic engineer might accept receiving the same salary of a microbiologist but how many would accept a windows cleaner earning as much ? Additionally, there are differences even between people of the same profession. Some are more talented and efficient than others. Would all agree to be rewarded equally ? Furthermore, if salary was not really equal but, at the same time, would not be determined by market forces, what or who would determine each person's salary ?

Hoping that our human selfish nature would change through ideological conversion and/or by cultural altruistic education is a big delusion. Individual behavioural selfishness instructed by genes exist in all animal species. To make things worst, humans have also innate tribal selfishness. This is the cause of endless wars. Humans also vary enormously in mental and physical capabilities, personality, prevalent emotions,etc. Other additional factor that causes conflicts are cultural and religious differences. You cannot change deeply rooted evolutionary adaptations with mere cultural influence. Humankind could only live a true communism by radically changing their biological nature. This would be only possible when genetic engineering technology reaches almost perfection and the complex functionalities of our set of genes become totally understood in the future. Humankind has even a more urgent reason for changing their biologic nature. I am quite convinced that if we do not change our obsolete genetic predispositions wisely we will end up destroying ourselves in less than one century and our species will become extinct. But, currently probably most people would freak out even with the prospect of small genetic changes. If the same mentality persists until this future situation I doubt that most people would accept a genetically reengineered humanity. Unless the jealousy triggered by observing rich people increasing enormously the longevity and mental and physical capabilities of their children cause them to radically change their mind. But then it could be too late. The upper classes might want to keep the technologic power of human genetic engineering exclusively for themselves.

Er... wrong reasoning here, lucaspa. It is just the opposite. What really matters for the conservation of body temperature is the quotient between body volume and body area. The bigger the quotient is the bigger the conservation of temperature is. And this quotient increases with body size because volume increases faster than area. What protected birds from winter was mainly their coat of feathers. After that, it was, probably, their capacity to shelter themselves inside burrows and their warm-bloodiness.

I agree. Actually, we, humans, are still studying our true nature. We still have huge gaps of lack of knowledge about ourselves. And worst, some people, want to remain in ignorance of themselves and pretend that they are some kind of simplistic, idealized and “ethereal” creatures. No political system can work properly, successfully and endure if it fails to understand substantially human nature ( our evolutionary adaptations ).

Atheist, perhaps if I describe briefly my mathematics background you would understand me better. First of all, english is not my first langauge ( it is the 3rd one ). The last time that I studied mathematics seriously was on year 1973 ( 34 years ago ) in Brazil. It was maths of secondary school level. Furthermore, at that time, I was taught that infinity was considered a “normal” number that could be operated with ordinary numbers ( 1, 2, 3, etc ) following a given set of rules. So I was not quite aware of this more modern mathematics and the way it formalizes operations and classifies numbers in different sets. I sporadically learned little bit about it but I assumed that the old way of operating with infinity is still valid. Now I realize that it may not be the case. OK, then let me start fitting myself in this new context. I apologize if I still don’t deal properly with maths current formalities. So, assuming that I reasonably understand the new math notations I would say that : If all the operands belong to the set R [math]\cup \{ \infty, -\infty \}[/math] then [math]\infty - 1 = \infty[/math]. Do you agree on that or do you still have some formal / logical objections ?

These details cannot be derived directly from the motto. This is your personal interpretation of the motto which probably also incorporates information from other sources about marxism. But I will accept your interpretation. I hate hair-splitting type of discussions so I would not object this opinion so far. How so, could you clarify ? I know that. I got laid a lot of times with attractive women in the past despite being a penniless student at that time. But you have to concede that guys like us are minority. The majority have to fight for money and status. And you are missing an important factor. Women do not measure men only directly through their money and possessions. They also can indirectly measure the man’s potential to acquire them by detecting his talents, intelligence, persuasive power, self-confidence, etc and of course physical fitness and physical attractiveness. So even if you are penniless now, they can reasonably anticipate what you would be capable to obtain in the future.

Not really, probably I talk far more about anything else. But even if it was the case, what is the problem ? Since living beings’ ultimate “purpose” is reproduction and even survival instincts aim to protect and prepare them better for reproduction and protection of their offspring why be surprised that humans, as living beings, would be significantly interested on sex ? Actually it would be a serious concern if everybody suddenly became totally disinterested on sex. This would mean the end of our species. Now, let's return to the topic please.

I was always baffled by this slogan. Wikipedia informs: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of their ability in accordance with their talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with their need, irrespective of what they have produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.” I have several objections on these explanatory statements. Human needs can be either basic needs ( food, shelter, sex, etc ) or cultural needs ( education, entertainment, fashion clothes, etc ). First of all, society could provide food, shelter for everybody but not sex. Sex depends of the ability of someone finding a sexual partner willing to engage in sexual relationship. If someone was unable to find a consenting sexual partner, the state could not designate someone at random and force him/her to have sex with the needy person. So to start with, not all basic needs can be always satisfied by the state without resorting to weird measures. Secondly, even in relation to food, people have preferences. Some people are content with very cheap and simple food but others demand very sophisticated and expensive food. How the state would satisfy such variety of needs without creating privileges ? Education. Some people are content with mediocre education but others demand very high standards of education. Again, how the state would satisfy everybody without creating privileged individuals or classes? Thirdly, if the state rewarded equally, both, the lazy and the laborious then most people would be inclined to be idle and society would degenerate. Furthermore, men need to compete with each other in order to ascend in the social hierarchy and impress women. And they do it by obtaining more resources ( money, possessions, etc ) and power. How, communism could realistically curb this strong biological impulse without causing social pathology ? Of course, I have far more objections but I will stop here for now.

I think that we could say that religion is an organized system of deception and enduring addictive delusions. Deception and delusion are the prefered weapons of power-thirsty people.

NOT TRUE. Bible, Koran and Torah explicitly says that God murdered or commanded to murder thousands of people ( including women and innocent children ). Furthermore, I cannot imagine bigger hatred than condemn people to suffer eternally in the hell's fire simply because they believe in a different religion or conceptual system. Though pure science can be mostly a peaceful activity, there are specific areas of applied science that aim specifically the research of new weapons.

He was reading river_rats post: He didn't "conclude" it, he just demonstrated why it couldn't be correct. Oops.. I apologise for the mistake, Atheist.

I do not know a lot about mathematical formal language ( though I doubt that the lack of it significantly prevents someone to think logically ). I am not a professional or dedicated mathematician. I just play with it sometimes as a hobby. But since the number 1 is obviously a Real number, what is the point of defining an addition on R [math]\cup \{ \infty , - \infty \}[/math] ? Are you saying that I only can formally make operations between real numbers and [math]\infty[/math] and [math]-\infty[/math] if I formally extend its "population" to include [math]\infty[/math] and [math]-\infty[/math] ?

No offence intended, but what else could explain why someone would conclude this absurdity "[math] \infty +1 = 1 + \infty = 1 [/math]." ?

Atheist, it is immediately obvious to anyone that if you add or remove a small quantity from a infinity number of the same objects the total of objects would continue to be infinite. I think that the excess of mathematical semantic formalism is blurring your mind.

Mason, I am a bit busy now and I have no much time for thinking further in this problem, let alone testing my ideas and verifying if they work. Only concrete experiments and a lot of further adjustments and corrections can prove if they can work or not. One of the ideas is actually a trick. The cardboard should have a thin metallic layer capable to be attracted by a potent magnet. This metalic layer should be "sandwiched" between two layers of paper in order to conceal better the trick. ( Not sure if aluminium wrapping foil would work with magnet. Test it). The cup should have a decorative vertical thick strip attached outside of it, in the side where you would carefully rest, internally, the layered cardboard with the hole. The strong magnet should be embedded inside this thick external decorative strip to hide the trick. You should train yourself to make the hole in approximately the right position of the cardboard in order to match with the position of the magnet when you insert it in the cup and rest it in its “wall”. The patch of the cardboard also should have almost the same density of the water in order to prevent it from fluctuating in the surface or rapidly dropping to the bottom due gravity, so the only prevalent remaining force acting on the patch would be the magnetic attraction of the hidden magnet positioned behind the hole.

Hum.. I could try to think on a solution ( actually I already have some ideas emerging in my head ) but unless the patch reorient itself to match perfectly in the hole, I do not see it as very impressive effect to start with.

Atheist, who said that [math] \infty + 1[/math] OR [math]1 +\infty[/math] EQUALS 1 ? Both, [math] \infty + 1[/math] OR [math]1 +\infty[/math] EQUALS [math] \infty[/math]. This is derived from a more general rule: If x is a Real number such that [math] -\infty < x < \infty[/math] then: [math] \infty + x = \infty[/math] [math] x + \infty = \infty[/math] http://www.suitcaseofdreams.net/Infinity_Paradox.htm

The evolutionary continuum is correct in the majority of cases. But there are exceptions like polyploidy for instance, where the continuum changes abruptly .

That's VERY high. It is high compared with old estimates. Since this latest measurement used more sensitive methods then probably this high estimate is more accurate. Speciation requires reproductive isolation. In fact, for sexually reproducing organisms, speciation equals reproductive isolation. Mutations alone do not provide this. Why not ? 1) If the mutations are adaptive to a new niche, accessible to these individuals, this can start a process of insulation in relation to the parents’ species which, by additional new adaptive mutations or natural selection of existing alleles, can culminate with sexual isolation after a given number of generations. 2) If few individuals with new adaptive mutations ( or possessing an unusual combination of existing mutations [ alleles ] ) are accidentally transported to a new environment, geographically separated from the parents’ species, they can also start forming a new, allopatric, species through genetic drift. Furthermore, I was talking generically and not specifically to sexual species. Some plants and few animals can became a new species in just one generation through a single huge genetic change ( polyploidy ). The new plants’ species could then proliferate through asexual reproduction or auto-fecundation. The polyploidic animals could reproduce through parthenogenesis. And, although speculative, it is not impossible that an individual can start a new species by accidentally receiving a chunk of genes from a very different species through viral genetic transference which then happen to be adaptive to a new environment. Uh, this is a common myth of evolution on internet boards, but it isn't true. Evolution doesn't work this way. Why myth ? When I said a “bridge between two species” it does not necessarily mean a bridge of just one step ( one generation ). The bridge can have as many steps or be as long as hundreds or thousands of generations under modifying selective pressures. Though, as I already said, it is not impossible speciation in just one generation in cases of polyploidy and, more hypothetically, through viral transference of an adaptive chunk of genes from one species to another.

This question is as meaningful as asking: 1) If this actually happens, are we playing XPW-377 ? 2) If this actually happens, are we playing ZANDRON ? If XPW-377 and ZANDRON are not accurately identified, described and their existence and capabilities proved, these questions are pointless.

See the answer here.

Starting again with the equation, x^x^x^…x = 2. If you isolate the first x then the remaining sequence of exponents remains infinite: (x) ^ ( x^x^x^…x) = 2 Therefore the second part, between parenteses, would still be equal 2 because it is still a infinite sequence ( ∞ - 1 = ∞ ). So by replacing the second part by 2 you get : (x) ^ 2 = 2 Therefore: x = sqrt(2).

Hum... interesting feature. Do you want a hint about the problem ?

Not exactly. By the way, the solution of this equation has an exact result. Approximations and guesses would not do it.