studiot

Then you simply haven't studied any science whatsoever. This is a Science website. Simple simple class machines, including the wedge, are studied by 12 ans 13 year olds in school. Here is a pdf of a class experiment. https://cdn.images.fecom-media.com/FE00015525/documents/Simple+Machine+wedge.pdf If you want to lay down the law on technical matters, please come properly equipped.

Perhaps you should recast your speculation ? I can't see the remotest correspondence between number theory and all this physics, speculatory or otherwise.

Why is anyone suprised that in an Edmonton, Alberta, winter they use more heating than in Edmond, Oklahoma or that they drive further to meet other folks or just go shopping, considering the difference in population density ?

I'm not clear what your point, question or stance is here. Energy is a property. There are several kinds of energy. What kind of energy does an electron possess, orbital or otherwise ? Or are you denying the existence of an electron ?

You have persistently responded to points put to you by repeating stuff about matters not put to you, instead of addressing the points themselves. As I have not commented on this part of your thesis I find it counterproductive to be addressed in this way. Most machines are constructed for a purpose and therefore may be said to be designed or programmed. This has never been in dispute. But this is not the case for all machines and it is these machine that arise by accident not by design that I am taking as counterexamples to your claim that all machines are designed. Constructs are a wider class of object, and again most are 'constructed' by design. But again some arise by accident. And some of these accidental constructs can become machines by a further accident. For example say I cut off a designed length of plank from a random length. The offcut is an accidental construct and not, in general a machine. If, however the end of the wood is damaged so the offcut comes in pieces, then one or more of those pieces could be wedge shaped. A wedge is a primitive machine. So I have a randomly generated machine that I did not intend or design.

I see you have given up trying to defend your misapplication of the first order logic law of the excluded middle. Instead you are using the old trick of replying to several questions with the same answer. I did not introduce machines. Quite the reverse. Machines are constructed for a purpose, not question and there never has been. Call that a program if you wish. But not all constructs are machines and I am referring to those that are not machines. So programs are totally irrelevent to my questions. Since you so rudely demand that I look up what a machine is here is the definition I was taught in school and still holds sway today. A machine is a device for doing work. This is pure Physics. I will allow you a wider definition however, since you have posted in Philosophy. Please insert you preferred wider definition at this point.

Small niggle, but I like the general line of thinking. +1 How is the monitor conscious of not being powered ?

It has to do with this claim Since I note you have just joined, be aware that our anti spam measures include limiting the number of posts to 5 in the first 24 hours for new members. I see that you have one of these left so please don't wast it replying to me quickly, but take time to think about it. If the force N was not the same strength as the force S would that not violate conservation of energy ?

Which do you think is stronger N or S ?

I said nothing whatsoever about programming. Quite the reverse my thesis has always been that you have not demonstrated and discounted a random occurrence as impossible. I regard a random occurrence as an unprogrammed/programmable or not programmed/programmable occurrence. By introducing a program, you have assumed (in part) what you set out to proove. As to your attempt to avoid the issue of your own actual words which I quote, yet again. I said, first quite subtly, and then not so subtly that you should go away and look up the conditions of applicability of your 'law'. I even offered a suggstion as to the part of General Philosophy to look in, since this is where you have started this thread.

I did. See the entire rest of the article. That's rhetoric until you show me exactly what's wrong with my argumentation. I already told you exactly what was wrong with your argument, although I am not bound to. The onus of proof lies with the proposer, not the listener. However I will repeat my statement that you tried to misapply first order logic. This law ( also called the law of the excluded middle) is derived from more fundamental axioms which are what you have actually tried to misapply, notably The axiom schema of specification. In set terminology this axioms prevents Russell and other similar paradoxes by defining a 'restriction'. The law you refer to is not and never can be absolute.

I'm glad you didn't waste our time with a video that only looks at one aspect. Sport has added dimensions to the usual nature/nurture discussion. You also need a longer memory and a wider appreciation of sport than your list. Who does well seems to go in cycles and is also influenced by who sets the rules / makes the measurements and the environment of all the competing would be sports men and women. For example you mentioned swimming. I would expect that warm water pearl divers would win that sport (if it were a sport) not europeans. But who has the most swimming pools to race in and the best technology low friction swimsuits ?

With carbon frameworks, we have only just begun to scratch the surface of possibilities of chemical combination for making large molecules. There is nothing wrong with boron, except we are less familiar with it. https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i30/Boron-chemistry-branches.html Which brings in a secon possibility. Mostly we have concentrated on carbon frameworks, but more recently (last 50 years or so ) we have begun understanding and using mixed element frameworks. There is nothing sacred about having all the elements in a framework the same. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijch.201800085

Just to note that demonstrating some task to be impossible can be done without contorted logical reasoning. Thank you Chad Orzel - always worth reading his stuff.

You need far more than first order logic to support your point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61723806

The AI has landed. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61710706

Well I know nothing (except the little Wikipedia tells me) about Stephen Pinker so it is not clear to me who the 'I' person is in your second paragraph. Who was the research assistant of yore, yourself or Pinker ? Now your actual question, and therefore the topic of this thread, asks about randomness and feeding pigeons. There are several statistical techniques for measuring things by using what is known as 'random sampling'. Say you wanted to measure the 'average' size of stones in a pile in a quarry. You could measure every stone and calculate a very accurate average. Or you could take a shovel here and a shovel there and just measure these as 'representative'. Statistical techniques exist to take the shovelsfull in an orderly fashion to best represent the pile. These are based on random numbers being used to identify where to dig the shovel in. Experience has found this to be far superior to allowing the operator his or her own choice. I don't know what experiment was being conducted with the pigeons, but I would guess it was similar to what are known as Latin Squares. If you want to test and compare various varieties of seed, you cant plant them all in the same place, so you divide the field into small square and use random numbers to identify which square each variety seed will be planted, using several for each variety. This takes out (statistically) any fertility and other differences in the planting for proper comparison. So I would guess something of this sort went on in the pigeon loft with perhaps trials of different feeds. OK that begs the question how to get random numbers ? Well there are lots of ways, some to do with calculations on paper or by computer and some to do with observing naturally random phenomena. The thing about 'random numbers' is that in the real world numbers are only truly random over a particular range of interest. Obviously we want that range to coincide with out problem. Around the time in question another form of physical random generator was also popular. This is called a white noise generator. A white noise generator provides electrical or sound that contains, on average, all frequencies equally in a particular range. It was so important that special electronic components called 'noise generators' have been developed for this purpose. So there you have it, my guesswork from the sparse information you have provided. Nevertheless a good topic for discussion. +1

Glad to help. That's a major function of this site. 🙂 Ask again if you need more help.

But I was. The Drake equation clalculates probability. It's fine that you answered no, although you might have been straight about it first time round rather than that sideways dismissal you offered. Anyway I agree with others that the problem here is you use of the absolute. Far too many promising ideas falter at the first counterexample someone brings up because they have been couched in absolute terms. Proving the negative is incredibly difficult. I recommend reading this (short) thread, several very good points about this are made there. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119871-what-is-falsifiability-exactly/#comment-1209560 These two deserve particular attention. Why is it nonsense? A single black swan is enough to disprove a statement like "all swans are white". But if I say "all swans are black or white", I can't prove that, not even if I check every living swan. I'd have to check every swan there ever was, or ever will be, and I'd have to be sure swans didn't live on any other planet in the universe as well. This is the basis for theory, the idea that we can only accumulate evidence in support rather than "proving" an idea. It's what keeps us searching for the most supported explanations, rather than answers we decide on and never go back to check. The key word here is "every"... No, it would not. It would show that "In every room in every building on earth, there's a green unicorn!" is false statement.

Well I was replying to your question to bufofrog Which your repeated acouple of times. In fact I did double the volume in my original post to get from 500ml to 1000ml as the easiest way to get to moles/litre. But sure you could work on actual volumes if you prefer - It's just more mistake prone and longer winded. Bufofrog also offered you a very handy formula that can be applied in many cases That is C1V1 = C2V2 This is much used by pharmacists who do a lot of fiddling about with concentrations like you have been doing. Here are a couple of pages from a pharmaceutical calculations course that also show what to do when you can't directly apply the formula. I don't know what you wil be getting up to in Biology, but the most general situation is when you are mixing two different strengths of solution etc. There is one formula that works in all cases. [math]\frac{{{\rm{Resultant}}\;{\rm{Concentration - Weaker}}\;{\rm{Concentration}}}}{{{\rm{Stronger}}\;{\rm{Concentration - Resultant}}\;{\rm{Concentration}}}}{\rm{ = }}\frac{{{\rm{Amount}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Stronger}}}}{{{\rm{Amount}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Weaker}}}}[/math] This formula works whether you use w/w, w/v, v/v %, P ie all units so long as you are consistent.

A much posher reply than my post +1 @Alkonoklazt The Drake equation does not refer to any alogorithmic method or Von Neuman machine. It attempts to evaluate probability. So please don't patronise me or try to foist explanations about matters I didn't mention.

No they are quite different, which is why I raised the subject. For instance in thermodynamics we have A open system allows both energy and matter to pass freely into and out of the system. A closed system allows only energy to pass into and out of the system but not matter. An isolated system does not allow either matter or energy to pass into or out of the system. Note that the terms open, closed and isolated refer to exchanges between the system and its environment. Not the values of properties of the system itself. It is the system's own properties that determines the 'state' of a system. As energy or matter enter or leave the system, the system changes its state according to the controlling relationships of Thermodynamics.

This is where you went wrong and why it is a good idea to convert to equivalent vol of pure ethanol. You have taken the density of 215ml of a liquid (that indeed has the same amount of ethanol as 150ml of pure ethanol) but it also contains 30% water since your liquid is 70% ethanol. So some of its density ie mass will be due to the water. So multiplying this density by the volume will not get you the mass of ethanol. secondly you only made 500ml of solution with this 215 ml of liquid You need to double this quantity to get moles / litre. That is why my calc ends up at about 5M whilst yours ends up at about 8M. You are however right, and even said you made the volume up with 9 parts of water in your opening post - I missed that. I just saw the 1 : 10 which is usually interpreted as I said. Does this help ?

Can I respectfully request you change your terminology ? This is to avoid confusion/conflict with the already accepted definitions/use of the terms 'open system' and 'closed system' and 'state'. The first two are not properties of state as implied and their actual definition is quite different from yours.