h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I share with Julzes a fascination with coincidence, and related in that thread (post 118) an experience I had many years ago.

However, I see no reason to attribute anything 'supernatural' or meaningful to such chance concurrences. For example: is there anything spooky about the fact that 'Eleven plus two' is an anagram of 'Twelve plus one'?

"Universals" are those mathematical properties independent of changes to the ad hoc coordinate system used. I am sure that many of these "coincidences" would disappear if you changed the time axis from say hours to minutes or units of "three hours", or from the Gregorian calendar to the Lunar calendar etc. Surely one should be looking for "coincidences" that are invariant to the particular coordinate system used. Einstein did this and look where it got him.

Not to mention that any property which relies on decimal expansions is likely not to be of major mathematical significance.

I suppose to go the whole hog one would also need to see if the coincidences were limited to the base 10 counting system (e.g. when switching from decimal to binary or hexadecimal do the mathematical coincidences disappear).

ps I think prime numbers would retain their distinction when changing the counting base (e.g. decimal to binary etc) so perhaps the key test is invariance to coordinate transformation.

I think in order to get my perspective across fairly, you really would have to do a full listing at least of what I have presented on this site (and attach to that an opinion fairly given of the plausibility based on conversational experience of whether I am being deceptive about the specific results or how they were obtained). Doing as is being done here so far smacks of that obstructionism and/or rhetorical prompting that I expressed as being my interpretation of opposition here.

And Rudest Elf would be an example of a person who has given evidence, in my opinion (as an offshoot discussion of the thread linked) that this is not a facility, gift, curse or whatever limited to me. I believe that decontextualizing his full collection of results is selling his own longterm experience with these things short. I don't see anything other than my own transparency surrounding the birth-date coincidence (The Coincidence itself, as I said, is rather opaquely but still comprehensibly described near the top of my space's discussion of things; and the mathematical or numerological consequences may be seen--or rather the beginning of those direct consequences--in my first-attempted Entry submission to peer review, which has been in an unaltered incomplete state for years) as singling me out as necessarily having done so much more of this 'thing' than anybody else, necessarily; and I certainly now do not think I have done a majority of it, though I suspect I have done a plurality.

Since nobody asked for details yet, James Guthrie Merickel Edward Van Halen gives, when the letter positions (in English) are concatenated, in the home-prime sequence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_prime )rather early on (maybe 7th term; not sure right now) a string of seven consecutive 7s (At the time of discovery, seven consecutive 7s ended the pre-AT part of my email address; but that is only a minor enhancing feature anyway, and I no longer hold that address).

For what it is worth, that coincidence on names was repeatedly surprising to me with a variety of name choices, male and female and usually, but not always, with mine as one of the names. The particular one given is most extreme and results from a prior term factoring (3^3)*(7^6)*..., with next prime's first digit of 7.

Any clearer now Hoo?

Just resurrecting the 'is their purpose in evolution' conversation from the other week.

There was a piece in the January New Scientist I was reading at work about this - so I thought I'd port over the arguments from that article here (there are four) and see what you make of them.


John Smart argues that progress can be objectively defined. Eric Charleson thinks a new unit of "energy rate density" will do it - a measure of how much energy flows through each gram of a a system per second. This produces the counter-intuitive result that stars perform less well than house-plants on this indicator (a house plant being essentially more complex than a ball of super-hot-plasma) - and it is Charleson's argument that this is a universal measure of complexity in organised systems. Plot this against time - stars - planets, plants, humans etc - and the line is ever upward.


That is the first argument.



2nd is recapitulates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as not ruling out local pockets of complexity formation in non-closed systems (of which life on earth is an example) but we knew this one already.

Argument 3 is convergent evolution - taking Gould to task for the "tape re-wound would not produce the same results" thinking these guys argue that actually the tape has been re-wound several times - at least to the extent that different environmental conditions have hit upon the same solutions to the problems of flight, seeing etc -to this the attach a sort of finite inevitability - so long as flight was on the cards a wing of some kind had to evolve, ditto eyes with lenses, and while we are at it why not brains which generate minds too?

Lastly the 4th slice of this tiramasu of ideas is served up by Simon Conway Morris in the way in which convergent evolution by this definition interacts with catastrophe.

Long has it been argued that dinosaurs were dominant and mammals only their break to evolve into so many vacated niches that this and only this triggered the evolutionary event that led to us. Happenstance on a Gouldian world-view.

Morris's argument is that - again this was sort of inevitable - nearly all species go extinct eventually, the dinosaurs were already in a lot of serious trouble by the time the sky fell , it's that what killed them off not what initiated the decline. Morris's argues if it had not been a meteorite it would have been an ice age, eliminating reptiles outside the tropics - mammals would have expanded into those areas leading (eventually!) to hunting societies that would have eventually out-competed the dinosaurs by other means.

The out-come he says is never really in doubt only the timing.

The article concludes: 'in taking a naturalistic approach to development it casts intelligence, language and technology as predictable outcomes of the universe rather than accidental feats of contingency. An explicable and inevitable place in the order of things.'



----------

I'm worried by this 'inevitability' line that they use (and the word does crop up in the article) - so what do you all think reasonable or a load of old hooie?

I will take a look at the article itself, perhaps later today. The subject of convergent evolution can be partly at issue in my peculiar perspective too, by the way. There is some reasonable likelihood that base 10 is the most likely base that an ordinarily evolving highly intelligent and globally dominant species would have. Who knows if that is one one-hundredth of a percent or seventy percent, but it is an issue.

There are so many variables, demonstrate able within a system, the universe could be said to be one, but in its case, it has, in built exhaustible limitations due to its inability to perpetuate a lasting energy source, within it collectively or its component bits
The contained information bits within an evolving system could be said to have expected values if the known outcome could be predicted, there is though uncertainty associated with the attempt to predict the eventual realization of these values.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'random' as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." This concept of randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.
Yet evolution fly’s in the face of this with its resulting expression of change across successive generations of heritable characteristics of biological populations.
Once heritable characteristics are contained within a system what follows is inevitable development of those characteristics which permeate into successive biological populations
Other changes may occur as a result of mutation and genetic drift.
There are very few constants, most of mathematical interest, yet none within living systems.
If we are to discuss a living entity then we must consider its environment and its biological needs, as its environment is not constant then the need to adapt to survive will inevitability create change

Just a note, Clive, that I may not be able to get to that article until Monday. Was just looking for it in THE MOST RECENT issue available (stupidly), and now I won't have time again over the weekend.

Also, I am trying to formulate how that issue of convergent evolution regarding base-10 might translate into questions or answers of a secondary nature, but not quite clear on that. I suppose the question of micro-management by nearby representatives from the presumed prior intelligence versus everything being done via creative von Neumann probes (with, perhaps, their creators no longer extant as a species) is one that would be affected by a higher or lower likelihood of base-10's commonality. However, I am not sure there is any way that some kind of theoretical resolution/refinement of the issue--assuming it were possible--would have much likely larger meaning even if my overall perspective were to be found meaningful beyond my own thoughts.

>>I am trying to formulate how that issue of convergent evolution regarding base-10 might translate into questions or answers of a secondary nature.<<

And which 'issue' is that?


>>I suppose the question of micro-management by nearby representatives from the presumed prior intelligence versus everything being done via creative von Neumann probes (with, perhaps, their creators no longer extant as a species)<<

Sounds familiar - oh wait I have it! - isn't that the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey?

That second part was not meant as directly addressed to you. Sorry if I confused you. I am well aware we are not discussing my perspective, Clive.

“ Also, I am trying to formulate how that issue of convergent evolution regarding base-10 might translate into questions or answers of a secondary nature, but not quite clear on that. I suppose the question of micro-management by nearby representatives from the presumed prior intelligence versus everything being done via creative von Neumann probes (with, perhaps, their creators no longer extant as a species) is one that would be affected by a higher or lower likelihood of base-10's commonality. However, I am not sure there is any way that some kind of theoretical resolution/refinement of the issue--assuming it were possible--would have much likely larger meaning even if my overall perspective were to be found meaningful beyond my own thoughts.”

What!, the above goes beyond being, morethan,don’t know whether to feelor just at it.

Then there are those who are equally aswho try annotatean equally amusing reply

That's okay, winternights. I guess over your head or simply irrelevant to your perspective (as you see it). It really is hardly relevant to my own perspective, when it comes right down to it.

Sorry, Clive, if you care, but I do not have access to the magazine article I suggested I would be reasonably promptly reading. That particular time period is in limbo at library (off shelf, unbound as yet).

Christians love thy neighbour...unless she happens to be an ex-pastor who has 'come out' as an athiest...and yes the phrase 'coming out' really is appropriate and is usde in the US for people who take the brave step of admitting they don;t believe in God.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645564-locked-out-how-the-church-responded-to-their-pastor-s-coming-out

"Teresa MacBain recently came out as an atheist ex-pastor..."

"Locked out by those who had called me friend. Locked out by those whom I had gently offered the message of Christ’s love displayed in forgiveness and mercy. Locked out, demonized, hated and slandered by the very same people who call themselves believers in the ‘way, the truth and the life.' In all my preparation for the consequences of coming out, I never expected the chains of hatred hanging on the doors of compassion."

Sounds like a simple-minded pretend religious person anyway (to me, because it is so hard to believe such idiocy). What brainlessness! Throw ones friends in the trash and whine they reject her. It's almost like a game if it weren't probably what she really believes because she was brainwashed. How does a person do that to his or her brain? Sure, I am a religious person and your friendship, as a former leading member of my religion, is more important than the religion. Who is kidding whom? Somebody has something absurd to say not worth hearing is all that I get from that.

<>

Well, I'd say that this may be an objective "measurement" of progress, provided that one defines progress as an increase of "energy rate density." Normally, of course, the word is defined in a more human, less abstract, way. And an increase in energy rate density still isn't a "purpose". It's just the way the universe works.

Noggin