821) Arminius, 10.09.2015, 01:35, 01:58, 02:24, 02:30, 03:42, 04:12, 12:02, 14:13, 14:17 (3732-3740)

Phoneutria wrote:

„Stone dude, monk dude, and scarf dude.

I did well in school.“ **

Really? .... Please name them (in tabs and with the solution process.

Thanks.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The three persons are famous philosophers. You know them, and I think you have something in common with them.« ** **

Oh, you mean Aristotle (Aristoteles; HB), St Thomas Aquinas (Thoams von Aquin; HB), and ole what his face ... James S. Saint.“ **

Well, who is the third one, James?

James S. Saint wrote;

„Aall being as ugly as sin.“ **

Are you „ugly as sin“, James? ... I have some objections ....

Please name the third one (in tabs and with the solution process ).

Thanks.

James, please! Note: Phyllo is right. You have to admit that you made mistakes in the said case.

Kant was an enlightener before he overcame the enlightenment; so he was a rationalists before he curbed the superior power of the rationalism and became an idealist. But then the idealist Hegel came and campaigned again for the rationalism. .... Hey ....

Phoneutria wrote:

„Dude in scarf seems rather handsome. Piercing eyes and whatnot.“ **

Yeah.

Phoneutria wrote:

„I have a bit of a thing for gentleman wear.“ **

Okay. .... And ... : Who is it?

Who are the three persons? Please give the answer in a tab (because of Carleas [?]). Thanks.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Okay ....

I mentioned the exact mistakes that I made.“ **

Yes. It is okay

Phoneutria wrote:

„I'm going to go with Schopenhauer.“ **

No. .... I am sorry.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I Kant remember his name, but he looks sort of like this:

....“ **

No. .... I am sorry.

So you (**) want a fourth hidden person in that picture. .... Interesting ....

But unfortunately there is no fourth person in that picture.

Phoneutria wrote:

„There's sideburns there.“ **

Yes.

822) Arminius, 11.09.2015, 15:09, 21:12, 22:41, 23:06, 23:31, 23:58 (3741-3746)

Okay. I give you a hint:

The title of this thread is: „The Great Musician Frank Zappa and His Philosophy“ (**|**). Unfortunately this thread is derailed:

Are you (**) saying that concepts like „male“ and „female“ depend merely on the subjective interpretation of that concepts?

Okay. I give you another hint:

Orbie wrote:

„Excuse Arminius for the interjection, my proposal. Me in at the wrong time. But to matters of hand, the pejorative is that, in the construction of personality, feeling like this orphan gender, may go am,omg ways in determining what gender You would like to be. in other words, let's say you feel receptive,mor like a female one day, but aggressively male another day, can not there be established a cozy agreement, and sandwich yourself betwen the two concepts? Or, in all,actuality,mthose need gombe established a clear definition of what it means,? nowadays in the marketplace, I am. Sure You can find some sloul as divided as that,many form a perfect partnership. After all isn't that what Plato suggested,way back when?“ **

Your interjection is excused, but the accent in my question is lying on the word „you“ (**|**), because I would like to know whether Zinnat (Sanjay) believes in the the subjective interpretation of that concepts or not.

Orbie wrote:

„Literally , to answer that, yes, it may very well be a subjective determination. How You do that? many ways, too numerous to mention, but the entry point is what You wish for, and out focus upon, personality , as transcending gender, or the other way around. then after the primary difference has been set aside, then can start worrying about, hey, are there any secondary propositions You may wish to augment?
it is I believe, within the boundaries of the controllable. course, there may be a lot more to it then that.“ **

Would it also be okay to you if a plant thinks to be confined to a human's body?

What do you think about your body?

Is your body the „right“ or the „wrong“ one?

If it is the „wrong“ one: What is your „right“ one?

823) Arminius, 12.09.2015, 00:08, 01:02, 01:04, 01:22, 01:48, 02:12, 03:18, 04:12, 12:25, 12:29, 13:25, 21:33, 22:21 (3747-3759)

Please name your solution and your solution process!

I agree (**).

I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological basis too, and this basis is most important.

Phoneutria wrote:

„I am in the wrong body. Deep inside I feel like I have 4 feet long legs and an ass that goes pow!“ **

And what kind of „body“ do you prefer?

This is a very good opening post.

Now the discussion can start.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Freshly shaughtered, medium rare.“ **

I guess that it is like this:

Each of the originals was used three times:

I want to come back to the tectonic plates and introduce the supercontinent cycle.

„The supercontinent cycle is the quasi-periodic aggregation and dispersal of Earth's continental crust. There are varying opinions as to whether the amount of continental crust is increasing, decreasing, or staying about the same, but it is agreed that the Earth's crust is constantly being reconfigured. One complete supercontinent cycle is said to take 300 to 500 million years. Continental collision makes fewer and larger continents while rifting makes more and smaller continents.“ **

Wilson cycle.

Wilson cycle.

Wilson cycle.

** **

The next riddle:

In a cellar there are three light switches. One of them turns on the light of the first floor. You do not know which one it is. You may go but only once in the first floor to look up. How do you find out which one of the three light switches turns on the light of the first floor?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Send your wife down there?“ **

No. That is impossible. You are alone in the said house. There is no help.

Phoneutria wrote:

„You go downstairs and flip two switches. If lights are off, the correct one is the one you didn't flip. If lights are on... you go to the kitchen and grab a brew and chill.“ **

No. That is no solution of the said riddle.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Are you saying that concepts like »male« and »female« depend merely on the subjective interpretation of that concepts?« ** **

Not at all.“ **

I thought so.

Zinnat wrote:

„In the root of each and every thing, physical or mental, is the very process of creation. Gender issue goes far beyond physicality.

The physical actions and psychology of the sex also represent the same thing. Act of creation (sex) cannot be completed unless there would be no erect penis and lubricated vagina. Lose penis is useless and the same is true of unlubricated vagina too. Absence of either would not let the creation happen.

Now, a penis cannot erect without a motivation. Charms of female provides that opportunity. But, the thing to understand here is that the erection is useful and necessary only when penetration is going happen, not all the time. It has to become limp again after doing its duty. And, anyone who follows this, is a male by mindset, whether his/her body is male or female.

Second thing to notice here is that unlike male sex organ, no much apparent change happens in female organs and they remain the same. That is the default character of femaleness; showcasing its charms whether they are required or not at any particular time and circumstances.

The most important thing to understand here is, which most of the intellectuals tend to miss, that most of the females use to have enough component of that male understanding as to enable them to understand when they should display their charms and when not.

Let me explain it through our daily experiences. Say, if you ask a beautiful women to get naked in the public, even ensuring her safety by armed guards, most of the females would not do that. She would not post her naked photos on the net too. Why? What harm that would cause to her? On the contrary, men will appreciate her beauty and also attract to her. But, females still would refuse because they know this is not the right way to display their beauty. That is male wisdom.

On the other hand, if a young male would have a costly sports bike or car, he would try to display that all time, whether it is necessary or not. Not only that, he would also offer his friends to ride his Ferrari to show them how good it is and how fast he can drive that, even if it could cause an accident. A male body builder would wear such dresses, in which his muscles can be displayed more. That is their female nature of displaying what they possess.

The same happens to such young and male intellectuals, who are female by mindset. All these self declared alpha male type of young male philosophers neither understand what true maleness is nor they are male either. They all are females trapped in a male body, who succumb to the female temptation of displaying their same childish intellectualism (whatever right or wrong they have) again and again, whether it is necessary or not.

The limit of aggression/display is its utility only. Excess display is unwarranted, harmful and femaleness too. And, a true male should not only be able to understand this difference but act accordingly too.“ **

But humans do not as much depend on nature as animals do. Humans are relatively free. So they can partly live against their nature. They do not have to completely live according to nature. If a man wants to be a woman, then he can choose to medically cut his penis. Men have penises, women have vaginas. This is a knowledge that a 2½ years old child already has.

Mithus wrote:

„You turn on the first switch, leave it on and after 10 minutes you turn it off. Then you turn on the second switch and go upstairs. If the light is on, it's the second switch. If the light is off, but the lightbulb is still warm, it's the first switch. Else it must be the third one.“ **

That is right.

So now we can go on with the next riddle.

Are you ready for the next riddle?

Two Liars.

Five persons A, B, C, D and E chat:

A: „B lies if and only if D is telling the truth.“
B: „If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar.“
C: „E lies, and also A or B lies.“
D: „If B is telling the truth, then A or C too.“
E: „Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar.“

Two persons are lying. Which?

824) Arminius, 13.09.2015, 01:06, 02:23, 02:29, 03:15, 03:56, 14:33, 15:21, 16:05, 16:49, 20:59, 21:46, 22:09, 22:36, 23:29 (3760-3773)

The Earth's longest mountain range (chain) is the Ocean Ridge. In the following picture the Ocean ridge is red coloured:

What is your (**) precise answer?

I guess that your red and blue coloured letters have a meaning. What is your conclusion, your exact answer?

The rock cycle describes the dynamic transitions through the geologic time.

A diagram of the rock cycle. Legend: 1 = magma; 2 = crystallization (freezing of rock); 3 = igneous rocks; 4 = erosion; 5 = sedimentation; 6 = sediments and sedimentary rocks; 7 = tectonic burial and metamorphism; 8 = metamorphic rocks; 9 = melting.

I am not the only one who reads your (**) posts.

It is no problem to interpret your diagram, but: I am not quite sure whether all ILP members are capable of understanding your diagram.

James, the following quote is your post that can be found on page 1 of this thread:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time?« ** **

No.

I would have to think about it more, but I'm pretty certain that there is no combination of changes that you could make that would cause a given state of the universe to roll backwards in time, even a small limited universe.

It is kind of an interesting problem, part of which would involve reversing the following;

To reverse that occurrence, one would have to reverse the vector of the photon and also reverse absolute infinity with absolute zero. The vacuum of space would become solid and mass would be a hole in that solid. And also if you did that, »2+2« would equal »0« and »2-2« would equal »4«. And that wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it would reverse distance addition. If you added the distance between A and B twice, you would have less distance than what is between A and B. And that would then require that you defy logic itself such that »A = !A«. And by making »A = !A«, the photon is everything but the photon. If the photon is everything but the photon, then the photon isn't running backwards. But that is okay because running backwards is not running backwards (A=!A).

So in the long run, I suspect that an attempt to reverse time would reverse the attempt to reverse time and yield nothing.

Thus, no, I don't believe that there can ever be any region of space wherein time is reversed. Logic cannot be used against itself (else it wasn't logic to begin with). What we experience as the »real laws of physics« is the only possible way it can ever be anywhere at any time.

What is being called »The Arrow of Time« (whoever labeled it) is merely the effect of logic itself and can never be altered. But that is a slightly different issue than entropy reversal.

So I guess that means;
4.) our thoughts - is the problem. Once logic is fleshed out concerning physical existence, there is a total lack of alternatives. No universe can be any other way (except its current state, which must always be different).“ **

Yesterday I found the following opening post of your thread: „Infinite Regression“:

James S. Saint wrote:

„For those of you who think that infinite regression of time is impossible, could you please explain WHY you think that it is? To me, it is obviously not impossible, and in fact is necessarily the reality.

So exactly what is your excuse for believing in a limited past for the universe (besides, »Because that is what I heard on TV«)?“ **

Can you put your statements about the „arrow of time“ and the „infinite regression“ of those two posts together in one statement?

Phoneutria wrote:

„I made a mistake reading e, therefore a or c instead of a or b. Duh. I am going to delete my previous points to make it less confusing.

A liar,
C true,
E liar,
D true,
B true.“ **

That is also false.

In your previous post you were saying that A and B were liars, but that is not possible that both A and B are liars. Now you are saying that A and E are liars, but it is also not possible that both A and E are liars.

Please try again.

„The rock cycle is a basic concept in geology that describes the dynamic transitions through geologic time among the three main rock types: sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous. As the diagram (**|**) ... illustrates, each of the types of rocks is altered or destroyed when it is forced out of its equilibrium conditions. An igneous rock such as basalt may break down and dissolve when exposed to the atmosphere, or melt as it is subducted under a continent. Due to the driving forces of the rock cycle, plate tectonics and the water cycle, rocks do not remain in equilibrium and are forced to change as they encounter new environments. The rock cycle is an illustration that explains how the three rock types are related to each other, and how processes change from one type to another over time.“ **

That does not prove anything? That proves a lot of things. The statement that does not prove anything - except the fact that you just only deny anything and everything - is your statement.

Zinnat wrote:

„B and C are lying.“ **

Your answer is false. Unfortunately. It is not possible that both B and C are liars.

This riddle is logically flawless. You merely have to use logic.

One hint is (for example) that logic contains different types of implication.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Communication comes before attempts at logical deduction. Different people read the same words to mean different things. Thus logic is only flawless if the words are understood as intended (often not the case). In logic, the nuances of language can be critical.“ **

I am saying that there is no understanding problem. So if you do not understand a word or some words or many words, James, why do you not tell me what you do not understand?

What about the „infinite regression“ (**) then?

Your statements do not prove the theory of the Earth's expansion:

„If you have a look at Mars, you will see that in early planet formation, that the equator region splits and a rift forms around the equator. This area fills with water, that is, if there is any water available. Most of the early Earth would have been covered in a shallow sea. All fossils are found on land. You never hear of anybody finding fossils on the ocean floor. The ocean floor has a 70 million years maximum age limit. Thus, the Earth has doubled its size in the last 70 million years. This also coincides with dinosaur extinction events.“ **

It is - for example - not proven that „the equator region splits“ during „early planet formation“, „a rift forms around the equator“, „this area fills with water“ ... and so on.

I am not totally against the theory of the Earth's expansion, but the theory of the Earth's continental drift (plate tectonics) is more plausible and can prove more.

Here comes - for example - the mountain range argument again. And the Earth's longest mountain range (chain) is the Ocean Ridge:

James S. Saint wrote:

„You can't know what understanding problems other people might have. I wasn't talking about you or I (necessarily - unless what I posted wasn't right). When some people read:

»If C is true then X is false«
as a lie, they think it means that
»If C is true then X is true«.

Technically it wouldn't mean that, but people not used to harder core logic issues are used to speaking to each other differently.“ **

Yes, I know, but they can ask, if they are not sure, or/and guess and try till such time as they know the solution.

Orbie wrote:

„It looks a lot like he is Leibniz.

Sorry I am on the wrong riddle ....“ **

Yes. You are „on the wrong riddle“.

Orbie wrote:

„But am I close?“ **

No. You are not„close“.

Orbie wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»So, okay, to what were you referring?« **

The first riddle.“ **

No. I am sure that you were not referring to the first riddle (**|**) but to the second riddle (**|**).

825) Arminius, 14.09.2015, 04:09, 04:51, 18:33, 22:56 (3774-3777)

Wikipedia wrote:

„Neal Adams (born June 15, 1941) is an American comic book and commercial artist known for helping to create some of the definitive modern imagery of the DC Comics characters Superman, Batman, and Green Arrow; as the co-founder of the graphic design studio Continuity Associates .....“ **

JUST TO START:

Translation of:

„Immanuel Kant
An Answer to the Question: »What is Enlightenment?«
Königsberg, Prussia, 30th September, 1784.

„Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts.

Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating their own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way.“

Source: **

That two-buckets-riddle (**) is a well-known one.

I'm still waiting for the answer to my last riddle („Two Liars“ [**|**]). Can you solve that riddle? Or shall I already post the solution?

A simple and promising advice:

Go through all ten examples. Look what logically happens (a) if the five persons are no liars and (b) if the five persons are liars. Then you will ascertain that only two and who of the five persons are liars.

The cause of the Earth's plate tectonics is the Earth's hot inner core (it is radioactive).

826) Arminius, 15.09.2015, 02:06, 02:51, 15:55, 17:20, 18:10, 18:14, 18:30 (3778-3784)

Carleas wrote:

„I think ... we're using very different definitions of efficiency, we should be able to agree on many human systems less efficient than the market (war is one that comes to my mind).“ **

War has much to do with the market and is one of the most profitable businesses, probably the most profitable business.

And:

„By the way: ....

A »free market« means an absolutely free market. That's logical, even tautological. The »liberal humans« want a »free market«? - Okay, here is one:

 

....“ ** **

Carleas wrote:

„Population is already starting to level off ....“ **

No. Besides the fact that your picture shows projections (**) the world population is still growing:

Right now, in this moment, as I write this sentence, the daily increase of the world population is about 230000!

Platospuppy wrote:

„What always murmurs but never talks, always runs but never walks, Has a bed but never sleeps, Has a mouth but never speaks?“ **

A river.

Zinnat wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»I just noticed that the statements are things that the people themselves are saying. That changes everything.« **

Yes, that changes everything. But, it is not clear from the language of the riddle whether one should take the statements in that way or not. One may also think that they are talking about any past event but not lying now in those statements. That is how i considered that.“ **

What are you talking about? There is nothing that changes everything!

Platospuppy wrote:

„The fact that you used a tab is evidence that you Googled the answer. The riddle was really a test of honesty which you failed!“ **

You do not know what you are talking about. We use tabs to avoid spoiling the riddle to others. Do you understand that?

Orbie wrote:

„Ok. Right. Arminius I tied one one the night before. It was the second riddle, now, am I »close«?

In addition: I would like to post a riddle of my own, but here is the thing, about clarification of rules pertaining to this. Must one poster participate in a previous riddle, before asking questions about that or any riddle posting?

Can one post a new riddle, without participating in one or more or all riddles?

In other words do the rules of propriety prevent a poster or any other ILP member, who may or may not have followed some or any post, to post a new riddle?
This is why, I felt reluctant to even ask about the outcome or riddle number two.

If all of the above apply, then it could be assumed that all of the points made could be answered with a»yes«.“ **

Yes. Post a riddle if you want to.

Orbie wrote:

„And if so, again, is »Leibniz« the proper answer?“ **

No.

Leibniz has nothing to do with that second riddle and also nothing to do with the other riddles that have been posted till now.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Obe you can be so adorable sometimes.“ **

Yes. What about a new username, Obe / Orb / Orbie, for example something like Ador(a)b(l)e or so?

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius I have a question, does a lie mean that the opposite of the statement is true, or simply that the entire statement is struck out?“ **

Ii is meant logically, Phoneutria, thus the definition of a lie refers to the rules of logic. But do not panic, because it is not very difficult. In the following tab you can find what is meant in each case if it is a lie:

A: „B lies if and only if D is telling the truth.“ If that statement is a lie, then the statement of B has nothing to do with the statement of D.

B: „If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar.“ If that statement is a lie, then, if C is telling the truth, both A and D are telling the truth.

C: „E lies, and also A or B lies.“ If that statement is a lie, then either E is true or both A and B are telling the truth.

D: „If B is telling the truth, then A or C too.“ If that statement is a lie, then, if B is telling the truth, both A and C are liars.

E: „Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar.“ If that statement is a lie, then A, C, and D are telling the truth.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Answer:

D: »If B is telling the truth, then A or C too.«
If that is a lie, then if B is telling the truth, both A and C are lies.
We know that D is true because if it was false D, A, and C would all have to be lying and that makes 3 liars, not 2.

B: »If C is telling the truth, then either A or D is a liar.«
If that is a lie, then if C is telling the truth, both A or D are true.
Since D is true, then IF B is true, either A or C is also true. But then IF B is false and C is true, A and D are true. We already know that D is true, so we need to look at A for the possibility of being true.

A: »B lies if and only if D is telling the truth.«
If that is a lie, all you know is that B is independent of D.
If A is true, since we already know that D is true, B is required to be a lie. So A can be true IF B is a lie.

Again, if B is a lie and C is true, both A and D must also be true. We know D is true and are confirming if A is. But that is only a concern IF C is true. If C is a lie, B requires nothing further.

C: »E lies, and also A or B lie.«
If that is a lie, either E is true or both A or B are true.
C demands that E is a lie as well as either A or B. We need to confirm if that is possibly true which would mean that A, C, and D would be required to be true.

E: »Among the persons A, C and D is at least one liar.«
If that is a lie, A, C, and D are true.
We know that D is true and are suspecting that A and C are also true. If E is a lie then we have two liars and our suspicions are right about A, C, and D.

Thus by B lying and E lying, we can have two liars only.“ **

That is absolutely right.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Well, logically, whenever you have two switches, you have 4 states:
A off B off (that'd be an NOR)
A off B on (that'd be an OR)
A on B off (that'd be an OR)
A on B on ( that'd be an AND)

So when you say that A on B off is a lie, that still leaves you 3 options.“ **

Beside the logic of the statements you have to consider the logic of all statements in reference to each other too, Phoneutria.

And an „or“ in a statement can be an „exlusive or“ or an „inclusive or“, but which one it exactly is can depend on the context in which the „or“ is used.

As I alraedy said:

„This riddle is logically flawless. You merely have to use logic.

One hint is (for example) that logic contains different types of implication.“ ** **

In addition: James has just given the right answer and the right rationale.

100 Pessimists.

100 pessimists have written 100 senntences on a sheet of paper. Each pessimist has written 1 sentence. The 100 sentences are numbered from 1 to 100. The first pessimist has written: „Exactly one sentence on this sheet is wrong.“. The second pessimist has written: „Exactly two sentences on this sheet are wrong.“. .... And so on. Which sentences are wrong, which right?

The radioactive elements in the inner core of the Earth maintain the enormous heat that is needed to cause the convection currents in the mantle of the Earth and thus also to cause the plate tectonics.

Here you can see a large rectangle, consisting of 10 squares:

How big are the sides of each square at least, if they are all different in size and integer (thus: in whole numbers)?

827) Arminius, 16.09.2015, 01:06, 01:06, 02:08, 03:54, 17:21, 17:54, 18:27, 18:54, 20:23 (3785-3793)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Did you mean »wrong at the time of the writing« or »wrong by the time all sentences were written«?“ **

You know from the text that they are 100 pessimists, that they have written 100 sentences, and that each of these 100 pessimists has written one sentence.

So you should refer to the time after all sentences were written; but if you refered to both the time of the writing and the time after all sentences were written, then it would be no problem too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„To rephrase:
What is the least size of each square if they are all different integer sizes?“ **

You are allowed to choose the least size of the sides of each square, but the size should be integer, thus a whole number.

Choosing the least size is actually part of the task. But kmnowing you, I am sure that you are going to find the right number for the least size.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Interestingly it can actually be both when the premise is in question.

»If the Sun is up (P), the sky is bright (Q).
The sky is bright (Q).
Therefore the Sun is up (Q -> P).«

That is »affirming the consequent« (a type of Non-sequitur fallacy).

And:
»If I assume a true premise, I achieve a solution.
I achieved a solution.
Therefore I assumed a true premise.« - »affirming the consequent«.
Is the solution right? Well, IF the assumption is right, certainly. I got a solution, so the assumption must be right. - »affirming the consequent«.

But then:
»I know that my premise is true because it led to a solution that would be true if my assumption was true«. Of course it fails to examine if the assumption was ever true, thus »begging the question (of the assumption being true)«, petitio principii fallacy (presuming the initial premise).“ **

As I alraedy said in the „Riddle thread“:

„One hint is (for example) that logic contains different types of implication.“ ** **

Two examples:

1) There is one type (usually but also mistakably called material implication / conditional) that connects „p“ and „q“ to a new statement that is false if and only if the first part of the statement is true and the second part of the statement is false:

The notation is „ ¬ p v q “.

So the statement „if the Earth is a planet, then 2+2=4“ is false according to this type of implication, whereas the statement „if 2+2=4, then the Earth is a planet“ is true according to this type of implication.

2) There is another type (usually but also mistakably called logical implication / entailment) that is like this:

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P.

In this case „q“ (conclusion) follows logically from „p“ (major and minor premise) if each semantic interpretation of a language that makes „p“ true makes automatically (just due to the logical form of „p“ and „q“)„q“ true too.

The notation is „ p ||— q “.

Platospuppy wrote:

„I have just stated that uranium has a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the age of the Earth is 4.7 billion years. Thus, you can't use radioactive elements as a means of heating the Earth because according to accepted scientific theory, all the uranium has been depleted.“ **

No. Your statement is false. And I would not be surprised if your "accepted scientific theory" was the "theory" of Neal Adams.

Platospuppy wrote:

„The fact that the Earth still has active uranium after 4.7 billion years means that the current theory of planet formation is wrong.“ **

No. The half period (half „life“) of uranium does not mean that there is no longer uranium after its half period.

A football match (US: soccer game) is also not over when its first half is over.

A half period is a statistical term. All other statements about it have nothing to do with science, thus also nothing to do with geology. So your statement is both false and off-topic.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Logic truth tables require that conditional statements be valid to begin with. You have to have a valid connection between p and q regardless of their truth status. You can't validly say:
»The statement, ›If a trees are blue, then rocks are yellow‹ is true.“

The proposed statement is not logically valid (a non-sequitur. p has nothing to do with q), thus the truth status cannot be assessed at all.“ **

Is it also „not logically valid“ when Wikipedia says that it is valid?

Wikipedia wrote:

„The truth table associated with the material conditional p?q is identical to that of ¬p?q and is also denoted by Cpq. It is as follows:

p	q	p --› q
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	T
F	F	T

....“ **

So again:

The notation is „ ¬ p v q “.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't understand your symbols in » p ||— q « and can't find any reference.
There is logical implication, » |— «.
And there is semantic entailment, » |= «.
Either could apply depending on the exact nature of M, P, and S. If semantically S is implicit in M (eg M= all men. And S= small men), then the syllogism could be called a »semantic entailment«.“ **

Yes. And the symbol „ ||— “ is also mentioned in the ASCII code, and could be interpreted as a mix of „ |— “ and „ |= “. The symbol „ ||— “ is more used in linguistics than in logic itself but it is a logical symbol as well (of course - duh!).

One of my points was - by the way - that it could be probable that the types of implications you and Carleas were refering to in the said discussion were different.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I believe in trinary logic: True, False, and N/A (or "invalid"/"irrational")

Each sentence is contradicting itself and thus is an invalid statement. Logic doesn't apply to invalid statements. They are neither true nor false.

»This statement is wrong (›untrue‹/›false‹)« is an invalid, irrational statement, neither wrong or right.

So actually none are wrong and none are right.“ **

That is false.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Lemme have a swing at 100 pessimists:

If dude x says exactly x sentences are wrong, and we are to take the opposite of what he says, then there are 3 alternatives:
exactly x sentences are NOT wrong;
NOT exactly x sentences are NOT wrong;
NOT exactly x sentences are wrong.

Of the three, only the first one is determinable, since removing the exact portion makes the result indeterminable.
So I'm going to go with all sentences are correct.

That is false.

James S. Saint wrote:

„No. It isn't false ....“ **

It is false.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And in that case, the sentences being irrational ....“ **

No.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I have no idea what ... answer you would be looking for.“ **

Try to think about it again.

I have not quoted Wikipedia, because I absolutely believe in it. I wanted to show that both examples I gave are well-known. When I wrote about them in this thread the first time (here) I did not refer to Wikipedia or whatever or whomever.

Again: The truth table associated with the material conditional p-›q is well-known.

„The material conditional (also known as »material implication«, »material consequence«, or simply »implication«, »implies« or »conditional«) is a logical connective (or a binary operator) that is often symbolized by a forward arrow »-›«. The material conditional is used to form statements of the form »p-›q« (termed a conditional statement) which is read as »if p then q« or »p only if q« and conventionally compared to the English construction »If...then...«. But unlike the English construction, the material conditional statement »p-›q« does not specify a causal relationship between p and q and is to be understood to mean »if p is true, then q is also true« such that the statement »p-›q« is false only when p is true and q is false. Intuitively, consider that a given p being true and q being false would prove an »if p is true, q is always also true« statement false, even when the »if p then q« does not represent a causal relationship between p and q. Instead, the statement describes p and q as each only being true when the other is true, and makes no claims that p causes q. However, note that such a general and informal way of thinking about the material conditional is not always acceptable, as will be discussed. As such, the material conditional is also to be distinguished from logical consequence .

Venn diagram of A -› B.
If a member of the set described by this diagram (the red areas) is a member of A, it is in the intersection of A and B, and it therefore is also in B.“ **

Platospuppy wrote:

„1. Why are there large rocks in the Kuiper Belt? How did they get there? Where did they come from?

2. Why is there ice in the Oort Cloud? Where did it come from? How did it get there?

3. How did the Earth get hot to begin with?

4. If the core of the Earth contains a 5 kilometre diameter sphere of pure uranium, then, why isn't there a big nuclear explosion which blows the Earth to smithereens? Note - Uranium under pressure is basically how you make an atom bomb.“ **

You have forgotten your own words:

Platospuppy wrote:

„Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years. Thus, all the radio active elements should have turned into lead by now. Thus, aether flow is what causes the centre of the Earth to remain hot.“ **

Your statement implies that there was uraniumin in the core of the Earth; but now you are saying: „If the core of the Earth contains a 5 kilometre diameter sphere of pure uranium, then why isn't there a big nuclear explosion which blows the Earth to smithereens“. There is a „little“ contradiction in your statements, because a smaller Earth with less uranium is nearly the same as a bigger Earth with more uranium - it depends on the numbers, the amounts. So according to your own words your „nuclear explosion“ happened alraedy. I hope you know that the Earth still exists.

As I already said several times in other threads: You contradict yourself.

828) Arminius, 17.09.2015, 01:06, 01:36, 01:43, 02:45, 03:03, 03:12, 03:29, 04:23, 04:40, 15:19, 18:17, 18:37 (3794-3805)

Phoneutria wrote:

„Zoot Allures wrote:

„Http://www.analyzemath.com/Algebra1/Algebra1.html (**).

She probably googled it. It was the very first entry for google search 'algebra equation'. She knows I suck at math, so she was like "z00t couldn't even post an algebra equation, so he had to google for one. I'll just search the obvious criteria »algebra equation« and click the very first link I get. That's what z00t would have done.“ **

I'd call up Arminius and ask him to come up with a problem that can't be googled, but Aeon won't even acknowledge my challenge, because he is a pussy.

Not trying to say it is false that men are better than women on math and science generally, just that this little shit is the worse person to be bringing this up because the only thing he excels is being laughed at.

I lower my head when I speak to men like Aeon ..., because they are hiding under some furniture.

Ba dum tish lol aeon you fucking pussy.

PS: fuck you too, Zoot.“ **

Aeon (xfzgrwql) wrote:

„Is it ironic when a pussy uses her pussy as an insult? Lol!

Can't remember ever hearing a male call a female a »dick« as an insult. Hmmm, interesting. Let's throw this on the pile of gender differences yet to be explained, perhaps forever left a mystery.“ **

Zoot Allures wrote:

„I dunno about that dude. She's pretty slick with math. She might take your ass on the pony express if you aren't careful. She hangs out with James and Arminius over in the math thread sometimes, if that tells you anything. They're pretty exclusive over there. You've probably seen her around the area. Sharp lookin' brunette girl with unassuming Lisa Loeb glasses.“ **

Carpophorus wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»Zoot Allures wrote

›Http://www.analyzemath.com/Algebra1/Algebra1.html (**).

She probably googled it. It was the very first entry for google search 'algebra equation'. She knows I suck at math, so she was like "z00t couldn't even post an algebra equation, so he had to google for one. I'll just search the obvious criteria 'algebra equation' and click the very first link I get. That's what z00t would have done.‹ **

I'd call up Arminius and ask him to come up with a problem that can't be googled, but Aeon won't even acknowledge my challenge, because he is a pussy.

Not trying to say it is false that men are better than women on math and science generally, just that this little shit is the worse person to be bringing this up because the only thing he excels is being laughed at.

I lower my head when I speak to men like Aeon ..., because they are hiding under some furniture.

Ba dum tish lol aeon you fucking pussy.

PS: fuck you too, Zoot.« **

I agree with you here but sheesh, try reign in the emotional content little bit, you are sort of undermining your own point. Especially when you use pussy as an insult.“ **

The probability is not high but also not zero that some ILP members with more typically male usernames are females and some ILP members with more typically female usernames are males.

The only ILP example I know for sure is the one who claims to be a relatively young woman but is a relatively old man.

Phoneutria wrote:

„The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a "better fit" means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of "the fittest" can only happen after the fact.“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.“ **

So one would have to get after the „perpetuation itself“ in order to get the „knowledge of «the fittest«“; but it is not possible to get after the „perpetuation itself“; thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything about the „fittest“; and that means, for example, Darwin's „survival of the fittest“ is nonsense.

Three Ladies.

Three ladies gather for a meeting: Mrs. Red, Mrs. White, and Mrs. Green. One of the ladies says: „That's strange, one of us is wearing a red, another one a white, and the third one a green blouse“. „This is really amazing“, said the lady with the red blouse, „because no one of us is wearing the blouse which corresponds to her name“. „That's right“, Mrs. White adds.

Which lady is wearing which shirt?

Platospuppy wrote:

„You are avoiding questions.

1. Why are there large rocks in the Kuiper Belt? How did they get there? Where did they come from?

2. Why is there ice in the Oort Cloud? Where did it come from? How did it get there?

3. How did the Earth get hot to begin with?

4. If the core of the Earth contains a 5 kilometre diameter sphere of pure uranium, then, why isn't there a big nuclear explosion which blows the Earth to smithereens? Note - Uranium under pressure is basically how you make an atom bomb.

5. Why are the convections currents so symmetrical and the surface plates so unsymmetrical?

Note - If the convection current theory is correct, all the plates should be approximately hexagonal in shape like a beehive.

Your unanswered questions are starting to mount up!“ **

Your questions were not addressed to me, but nevertheless ...:

1. There are two possibilities for the reason why there are large rocks in the Kuiper Belt: (a) they were formed when our solar system was formed, or (b) they got there because of movements of neighboring solar systems or other objects.

2. Basically there can be ice in many areas of the universe; hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen is one of the most abundant elements in the universe.

3. The Earth got hot because of the circumstances during the early time of our solar system and the radioactive elements in its core; both facts made the whole earth hot during its early time (about ½-1 billion years).

4. I anserwed this of your questions in my last post, but you obviously ignored it - as usual. So again (and try to not ignore it):

I wrote:

„Platospuppy wrote:

»Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years. Thus, all the radio active elements should have turned into lead by now. Thus, aether flow is what causes the centre of the Earth to remain hot.« **

Your statement implies that there was uraniumin in the core of the Earth; but now you are saying: "If the core of the Earth contains a 5 kilometre diameter sphere of pure uranium, then why isn't there a big nuclear explosion which blows the Earth to smithereens". There is a "little" contradiction in your statements, because a smaller Earth with less uranium is nearly the same as a bigger Earth with more uranium - it depends on the numbers, the amounts. So according to your own words your „nuclear explosion“ happened alraedy. I hope you know that the Earth still exists.“ ** **

5. The convection currents are not necessarily symmetrical; they are not more symmetrical than those of your cooking tomato sauce.

Why are you so convinced that the Earth's expansion theory is right or at least more right?

„Fractal“ is a mathematical concept, thus very theoretical; so it is a very reckless idea to believe in it as if it were a physical fact.

Zinnat wrote:

„Mrs. White - green blouse, Mrs. Green - red blouse, Mrs. Red - white blouse.“ **

Yes. That is right. Can you also give the rationale? If yes: please use a tab - because of the other ILP members. Thanks.

Platospuppy wrote:

„The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle.“ **

Let me guess: It looks like this:

One orbit around the galactic center of our sun takes about 250 million years. This is called a „galactic year“.

So the following picture shows about 42 miilon years more than 2 galactic years (about 500 Million years):

Frequency distribution of extinctions on Earth in the last 542 million years (1 galactic year = ca. 250 million years).

Copied post in another thread.

The riddles have different degrees of difficulty. They belong to different levels of difficulty.

Here they are again:

1) The Bridge (**).
2) Three Hidden Philosophers (**).
3) Three Light Switches (**).
4) Two Liars (**).
5) Hundred Pessimists (**).
6) Three Ladies (**).

Those six riddles have different degrees of difficulty, belong to different levels of difficulty. We can use the following degrees and levels of difficulty:

The riddle you solved, Zinnat, was one of the low level (degrees: 3 and 4). So it was a relatively easy riddle (I would say one of the degree 3). Riddles have their degrees of difficulty and belong to different levels of difficulty.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Do you believe that the statement, »This statement is false« is a valid statement? Either true or false?
It is not. It is an irrational, self-contradicting, statement.

The statement »Every sentence on this page is wrong«, when there is only one statement on the page is the same as the above statement, irrational and self-contradicting, and thus neither true or false, but rather irrational.“ **

That is irrelevant. If one asks, for example, „how many statements are there, if there are two irrational statements and four rational statements?“, then the answer is „six“ and only „six“.

It does not matter whether some of them are irrational, if it is irrelevant for the solution of the riddle.

James S. Saint wrote:

„After all of the statements have been written, the rationality of the statements changes because each statement had referred to only the statements that were already written at the time that they each were written, but after all of them are written, each statement encompasses all statements.

That is why I asked to which time you were referring, before all were written or after.“ **

That is also irrelevant, because there is only one answer possible, and this answer is only possible by referring to a certain time - that is already part (an easy part, by the way) of the task; you have to know that in order to solve the riddle. There is no leeway for „interpretation“ you always want to have. Only one solution is possible, and if you try to „interpret“ the riddle in another way, then you will always get a wrong answer. Why are you always asking and complaining and prejudging? Try to solve the riddle before judging.

James S. Saint wrote:

„After they are all written only the last statement, 100th, is self-contradicting and thus irrational (not wrong). For it to be right, all statements have to be wrong including itself. The other statements assert that some of the statements, possibly other than themselves, are false/wrong, but they claim an exact amount of wrong statements.
The statement claiming 99 wrong statements would be either including itself, making it irrational, or including the 100th statement that is irrational. If it includes the 100th, it is wrong for claiming an irrational statement as being wrong. And if the other statements are also wrong, there would be 99 wrong statements with 1 irrational statement. And that would make the 99th statement right because it wasn't including the irrational statement but rather itself. And then it being right would make it wrong again, and thus actually irrational. So the 99th is either wrong or irrational depending on whether the lesser statements are wrong.
If the 98th statement turned out to be wrong, it would cause the 99th statement to be irrational, but that would make itself irrational and thus turn the 99th to be wrong. And if the 99th is wrong as well as the lesser 97 statements, the 98th would turned out to be right. If the 98th is right, the 99th is definitely wrong (with 98 wrong and 1 irrational).
For the 97th to be right, the 96 lesser statements must be wrong as well as only one of those above it, such as the 99th. But the 98th depends upon the 97th to be wrong, thus if the 97th was right, the 98th would be wrong. And that would make two above the 97th wrong .. one too many. And that demands that the 97th be wrong, which returns the 98th to being right.
The 96th requires that all lesser be wrong and only one above it being wrong. But there are already 2 above it that are wrong; 97th and 99th. That makes the 96th wrong already. And it being wrong allows the others above it to remain as they were.
From there on down to the first statement, each will have to be wrong for that same reason - too many above it are wrong and thus it must be wrong also.
============================
So in the long run, after all of the statements are written, only the 98th can be right in claiming that there are exactly 98 wrong statements (with one irrational).“ **

That is false too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That is also irrelevant, because there is only one answer possible ....« ** **

That is not true.“ **

You are wrong, because It is true. You just do not know it because you have not solved the riddle. Try to solve it and post again after you have solved it.

829) Arminius, 18.09.2015, 01:07, 01:25, 02:19, 02:55, 03:15, 04:05, 04:14, 23:40 (3806-3813)

Phoneutria wrote:

„This thread is about natural selection.“ **

Not only.

This thread is about the Darwinistic selection principle. Its title is a question: »Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?«. There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....

Carpophorus wrote:

„If we all have common ancestors, and different races emerge, surely the ONLY thing that could cause that is natural selection, right?“ **

There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....

Phoneutria wrote:

„I am not a race denialist. However you will notice that the subject of this thread is natural selection as a theoretic concept.“ **

This thread is about the Darwinistic selection principle. Its title is a question: »Is the Darwinistic Selection Principle False?«. There are many selections, for example: natural selcetion, sexual selection, kin selection, social selection ....

Phoneutria wrote:

„We do not select.“ **

We select. Of course we do. Duh!

Phoneutria wrote:

„The environment does.“ **

Not only. And even a Darwinist does not deny this fact.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Seriously, read the OP because I think you didn't even bother to do that.“ **

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„Thesis: The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included. Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.“ ** **

Phoneutria wrote:

„Sex is related to natural selection ....“ **

Or it is not, because the »selectors« contradict it, they »select« against the »natural selection« (cp.: »handicap« - it can also be interpreted in the opposite way as it is by Darwinists).

Carpophorus wrote:

„But we prepare for the future no? What you are saying is that it doesn't matter if we, as human beings, select for consumption, rotten fruit, bruised and battered, because in some possible though unlikely future rotten fruit may be the thing which suits the circumstances best somehow. Think about how fucking stupid that is and how politically and emotionally invested in that line of argument you must be to convince yourself that is rational and objective. If cancer has gone from 1 in 100 to 1 in 3 in a little over a century, does 'a drop in the ocean' still apply as a metaphor you fucking twit?“ **

This is another example of the so-called »social selection«, thus the selection with some of the humans as selectors. Humans have always »selected« (more appropriate is the word »breeded«) humans.

Carpophorus wrote:

„YOU claim that any and all survival is a de-facto representation of fitness ....“ **

She says this:

Phoneutria wrote:

„The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a »better fit« means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact.“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.“ **

The conclusion is that the Darwinistic »survival of the fittest« must be nonsense, because Darwin claimed to know something about the »fitness«.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And currently those who think too independently and cleverly are actively culled (designated »unfit team players« for the future designs).“ **

Yes.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Or fittest is not always best/better..“ **

Yes.

Phoneutria wrote:

„What I said is that ultimately we don't get to choose who lives and who dies. Nature does..“ **

Not only. Humans do as well.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The fitted always survives, not always the fittest.

But then the not-quite fitted might evolve and become superior and thus more fit than the prior fitted and fittest.

And that is why the Darwinian principle is just too simple minded to be considered »true« in itself.“ **

Yes.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Perhaps the simple mindedness is in the reader, in assuming that selection will always work toward improvement/increase in complexity.“ **

Yes.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Btw, Arminius, sorry about your thread, man.“ **

Yeah, ... man, oh, man.

Phoneutria wrote:

„To consider cultural changes which happend in the course of a couple thousand years can be misleading when it comes to discussing evolution.“ **

Yes, it can but does not need to.

Carpophorus wrote:

„7 fold population increase in past 250 years.“ **

In the past 200 years! If you consider 250 years, then it is the 9 fold population.

Phoneutria wrote:

„What my point was in replying to Arminius is that our objective standard for fitness is not the same as fitness from an evolutionary standpoint.“ **

If you mean the Darwinism or other evolutionary theories with the so-called »evolutionary standpoint«, then it is very problematic, because the Darwinism and other evolutionary theories claim to be »objective«.

Phoneutria wrote:

„The evolutionary process is not interested in creating the tallest smartest most handsome humans. It does not have a mind. It is only explaining that those who are perpetuating themselves are the most fit at any given time.“ **

The evolutionary process is not capable of having an interest and of explaining (remember your own words: »It does not have a mind«).

And remember too:

Arminius wrote:

„Phoneutria wrote:

»The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a »better fit« means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact.« **

Phoneutria wrote:

»Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.« **

So one would have to get after the »perpetuation itself« in order to get the »knowledge of 'the fittest'«; but It is not possible to get after the »perpetuation itself«; thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything about the »fittest«; and that means, for example, Darwin's »survival of the fittest« is nonsense.“ ** **

Aeon wrote:

„Modern Nitwits cannot claim both to be in favor, support, or simply ignore the state of »Human Rights« while simultaneously »be objective« about Evolution, Science, and Fitness. You can't have both here. You can't talk about the survivability of a severely deformed, ugly, and grotesque child, while simultaneously protecting it and fending off predators which would otherwise eat it.

Instead what we have is »Humanity«, another system which is being ignored and not addressed.“ **

Yes. It is symptomatic for the majority of the modern people who are influenced by the modern media.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„The definition of fit will always be: that organism in a specific environment that meets the requirements to able to survive and reproduce at time X.“ **

But that definition is problematic, if you can never know what »fit«, »fitness« , and the »fittest« are, as Phoneutria herself said:

Phoneutria wrote:

„The ones who are better fit will be the ones imparting an effect on the future of the species. What determines what a »better fit« means is perpetuation itself. Thus knowledge of »the fittest« can only happen after the fact.“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„So one would have to get after the »perpetuation itself« in order to get the »knowledge of 'the fittest'«; but It is not possible to get after the »perpetuation itself«; thus according to your own words it is not possible to know anything about the »fittest«; and that means, for example, Darwin's »survival of the fittest« is nonsense.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Aeon wrote:

»Instead what we have is ›Humanity‹, another system which is being ignored and not addressed.« **

That is true and why it has been said over and over, despite objections, that Man really is separate from the animals. Man chooses his »evolution« and thus it is not actually »natural evolution« but rather artificial »manevolution«.“ **

The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called »natural selection«, for example by their own »selections« (»social state« as »social selection« and so on and so forth).

Aeon wrote:

„Evolution is, clearly, the myth of Modernity.“ **

It is "fitted", it fits modernity.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Has the short bus returned to KT with its passengers?

Arminius, my reply to you is near the end of page 6.“ **

Ah, yes, not four years ago but 4 pages back from here.

Carpophorus wrote:

„Sexual, Kin and Social selection methods are all types of Natural Selection. It is the parent term.“ **

That is the question. The „social state“ as the selector according to the „social selection“ does „select“ against the Darwinistic „selection principle“, thus against the „natural selection“.

Oh, sorry, I meant „frequency distribution of extinction events“.

Orbie wrote:

„If left to natural devices, how would more complex and unnaturally developed people survive the very changes, which bring about complexity?“ **

Nobody said that humans are independent of nature. Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy nature, and they „select“ against the „natural selection“. But this does not mean that they are at last more powerful than nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.

Phoneutria wrote:

„Arminius, I will reply to your full post, but for now I want to just grab this little piece to make a comment:

Arminius wrote:

»The transition from animals to humans is an important boundary mark, because no animal and no other living being except the human beings are capable to live against the so-called ›natural selection‹, for example by their own ›selections‹ (›social state‹ as ›social selection‹ and so on and so forth).« ** **

This is not exclusive to humans. There are several examples in nature and I can give you a common one. The massive tail of the male peacock disrupts its ability to fly and makes it slower and clumsier and morenprine to predation.“ **

We all know this examples, Phoneutria, but I do not want to go in too many details again, because I have already mentioned those and similar examples in other posts. But „sexual selection“ and „social selection“ are different types of selection. Animals have no politics that can destroy the whole planet or eleminate some other animals just because of their social status or their color of skin, hair, eyes and so on and so forth.

Phoneutria wrote:

„As to human power to destroy its own ecosystem, we do it because we can.“ **

As I said several times.

Phoneutria wrote:

„If other creatures could modify thenenvironment to suit them, they would.“ **

Of course, they would, but they do not. It is a question of quality. And there is no other living being that is capable of acting against nature in a threatening extent. Only human beings are capable of doing that. In that case the difference between humans and animals is more than huge. Humans are the only creatures on this planet that can be so much threatening that they even accept to murder 99% of them or to completely die out.

Orbie wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Nobody said that humans are Independent of nature. Knowing me, you should know that I never said that humans are absolutely free, but that I always say that humans are relatively free. They can do something against nature, they fight gainst nature, they destroy nature, and they ›select‹ against the ›natural selection‹. But this does not mean that they are at last more power ful than nature. Humans are no gods but want to be (like) gods.« ** **

Yes, that is true, and as I know you, I would add that this is almost to a T a substantiation if someone saying that in the process of shift fro, natural to social selection, the product no longer resembles the agent . I was only trying to lay a logical foundation to a premature hypothesis. it just indicates the quality of the transition, and does not indicate a break. Sorry Arminius to have given that impression.“ **

Never mind, Orbie.

There is not much uranium needed.

The whole dynamics of the Earth's core are in some way linked to plate tectonics. The Earth's inner core is a ball of solid iron (about 80%) and nickel, surrounded by a liquid and highly dynamic outer core, a highly viscous mantle and a solid crust that forms the surface. Over the 4.8 billions of years, the Earth has cooled from the inside out causing the molten iron core to partly freeze and solidify. The heat given off as the core cools flows from the core to the mantle to the Earth's crust through a process known as convection. Like a pan of water (my last example was a cooking tomato sauce [**]) boiling on a stove, convection currents move warm mantle to the surface and send cool mantle back to the core. This escaping heat powers the geodynamo and coupled with the spinning of the Earth generates the magnetic field and - as models can show - also the plate tectonics.

The thermal energy which is delivered continuously to the Earth's mantle, comes
- partly from slow cooling,
- partly from heat of crystallisation,
- partly from compression,
- partly from radioactive decay.
In addition, during the solidification the light elements in the melt at the inner core boundary are enriched and spread upward.

The heat inside the Earth is converted into mechanical work by convection currents, and this is ultimately the driving of the plate tectonics.

You see that the plate tectonics and the magnetic field of the Earth have probably the same cause.

830) Arminius, 19.09.2015, 01:44, 03:55, 04:59, 05:41, 21:32 (3814-3818)

Pink Floyd - live at Pompei:

- Pink Floyd (Waters, Mason, Wright, Gilmour), Live at Pompei, 1972

Weekday.

Seven people, A, B, C, D, E, F, G discuss which weekday is today.

A: „The day after tomorrow is Wednesday.“
B: „No, today is Wednesday.“
C: „You both are wrong, Wednesday is tomorrow.“
D: „Today is not Monday, not Tuesday, and not Wednesday.“
E: „I am pretty sure that yesterday was Thursday.“
F: „No, yesterday was Tuesday.“
G: „All I know is, that yesterday was not Saturday.“

If only one statement is true, on which weekday was that conversation?

How planets and moons came into existence.

Arminius wrote:

„Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, 1755.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»What was Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets?« **

And of suns!

Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were »glued« in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has thus become dense so that it collapses, and planets originate as »collections of sun durst parts«.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»There are two apparent options;
1) forming from a cloud, as suggested.
2) stemming from an explosion, perhaps black holes colliding.« **

But black holes could not be known at that said time, thus: were not known at that said time.

James S. Saint wrote:

»There must be a continuous source for such events, but either of those could be eternally occurring and perhaps both are eternally occurring. But at least he didn't proclaim that the entire universe arose from a Big Bang.« **

Yes. Probably Kant would not have accepted it as we do not accept it. However: No human of the 1750's was talking about a »big bang« ().

Kant said, for example, one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.

The hypothesis of the »big bang« has much more to do with dogmatism than with science.“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Even »solid uranium« wouldn't explode. It would have to be weapon's grade, purified, and under explosively extreme pressure. Uranium isn't the only thing down there:

»Based on the relative prevalence of various chemical elements in our solar system, the theory of planetary formation, and constraints imposed or implied by the chemistry of the rest of the Earth's volume, the inner core is believed to consist primarily of a nickel-iron alloy known as NiFe: 'Ni' for nickel, and 'Fe' for ferrum or iron.[11] Because the inner core is denser (12.8 ~ 13.1)g/cm³[12] than pure iron or nickel at Earth's inner core pressures, the inner core must contain a great amount of heavy elements with only a small amount of light elements, mainly Si with traces of O.[13] Based on such density a study calculated that the core contains enough gold, platinum and other siderophile elements that if extracted and poured onto the Earth's surface it would cover the entire Earth with a coating 0.45 m (1.5 feet) deep.[14] The fact that precious metals and other heavy elements are so much more abundant in the Earth's inner core than in its crust is explained by the theory of the so-called iron catastrophe, an event that occurred before the first eon during the accretion phase of the early Earth.«“ **

I have already answered his question about the uranium in the Earth's core: ** **

The Geoid.

The geoid is a physical model of the earth's shape, which in 1828 developed by the German Carl Friedrich Gauß (Gauss) - in contrast to the geometric model of the earth ellipsoid. The term „geoid“ goes back to the German Johann Benedict Listing, who described it in 1871 as a surface equal gravity potential. The geoid is used to define heights and for measuring and describing the earth's shape.

„According to Gauß (Gauss), who first described it, it is the »mathematical figure of the Earth«, a smooth but highly irregular surface whose shape results from the uneven distribution of mass within and on the surface of the Earth. It does not correspond to the actual surface of the Earth's crust, but to a surface which can only be known through extensive gravitational measurements and calculations. Despite being an important concept for almost two hundred years in the history of geodesy and geophysics, it has only been defined to high precision in recent decades. It is often described as the true physical figure of the Earth, in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a reference ellipsoid.

The surface of the geoid is higher than the reference ellipsoid wherever there is a positive gravity anomaly (mass excess) and lower than the reference ellipsoid wherever there is a negative gravity anomaly (mass deficit).“ **

==>