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

Iluvater, Post 824 :

"Obviously, if your premise is that a fetus is not a life, then ending the growth of the non-living but growing thing is totally fine. I personally do not know when to consider it alive. Why would it not be alive at 2 weeks, but be alive at 2 months?"

Oh no, you don't get to wriggle out of it that easily. I have never, at any point, claimed that the cells forming an early foetus are not alive. They, in fact, exist only as a cluster of cells completely dependant on the mother for existence.

They are alive, but only because they are a part of the mother, which MAY, in time, become capable of an entirely seperate life.

Re the why no at (x) weeks, and yes at (y) months, how about because it's developing a neurological structure, so it can start having (admittedly the most rudimental) mental activity, or a heart and other internal organs that can keep it alive outside of the mother, or enough of both, so it's capable of interacting with it's environment?

"So is ending the growth of a not-yet-determined-to-be-alive-or-not-human-thing."

Which I take it means you are, for want of an accurate description, pro-life, and therefore have an automatic bias against a woman's right to self-determine her existence, in favour of that of a potential future life (and that is an important distinction, it's a potential seperate life, during the early stages of pregnancy, not a living breathing person).

Thank you for clearing the query, but I think we'll have to disagree on the details.

Clive: Since I'm still awake...
1) All I really noticed was closer to diction than punctuation really: who's-->whose
2) I don't really like the whole concept that there is that much variation in innate human intelligence, except with defects at the bottom end; but I could be very wrong, there is more that happens very early in life that makes variation close to innate (particularly worrisome are toxins we don't dispose of properly), and most people handle the subject as if there is in any case. That much said, what do you think?
3) While it's true, as Giford says, that the first three man-made nuclear explosions could theoretically be replaced by any three historical events and focusing on them seems like a choice, I drew a linkage of eight including these three. The birthday coincidence itself involves four where my three closest same-generation relatives and I are concerned (me at the start and making the link of one cousin with the other two), and I came up with the fact that there should be three Earths for each time (in terms of population today) that the birthday coincidence specifically would occur by chance, without limiting it to being discovered and analyzed, and without so much specificity as to the years as I think there should be (I think the precise years of my cousins births are important too, but I didn't restrict the question that way). I asked Giford whether this was not the type of question he wanted a probability on and gave him a more precise little example involving words that I still have to work on (I'll be flipping a coin to determine where in a dictionary to pick words, unfortunately). Of course, that one will be contingent upon accepting a claim I searched the words and primality properties as the first things, so that won't satisfy anyone. In any case, Giford rambled on in attempt to cover the birthday coincidence, but actually failed because he didn't address certain things at all really, and because he covered others a bit sloppily. Think for yourself on the matter. There is a linkage of eight dates. And then there is all the other stuff: More coincidences and good reasoning on causation (which I wouldn't presume to be proof of the exact causative mechanism, but is actually close to something Dawkins said in the book the other thread was originally handling). I'm sorry I haven't already produced a book on this subject (and it will take quite a while more), so my argument really has not been A to Z, as my current nemesis points out. I've been presuming that people could fill in the gaps. This isn't the forum for a book or even a good A to Z argument really. I don't need to convince anyone here; I just needed to try.

>>Think for yourself on the matter. There is a linkage of eight dates. And then there is all the other stuff: More coincidences and good reasoning on causation (which I wouldn't presume to be proof of the exact causative mechanism, but is actually close to something Dawkins said in the book the other thread was originally handling). I'm sorry I haven't already produced a book on this subject (and it will take quite a while more), so my argument really has not been A to Z, as my current nemesis points out. I've been presuming that people could fill in the gaps. This isn't the forum for a book or even a good A to Z argument really. I don't need to convince anyone here; I just needed to try. <<

Okay...

I'm not intending to go after whether or not the dates agree, let's move this up a notch.

>>good reasoning on causation<<

I must confess to having missed this. For my own edification would you mind terribly running through that one more time? The significance of the alignment you claim is what exactly?

>>I've been presuming that people could fill in the gaps. <<

True. What interests me is how *you* fill in the gaps. It strikes me as rather incoherent - how do you get coherence from what you have discovered? (

Note please, the non-use of scare-quote around discovered, (though I was tempted) I'm for the purposes of finding out more just treating it as read that what you say is true, even though I find it highly dubious personally.

----------------------------

Re: Are you a genius?

>>I don't really like the whole concept that there is that much variation in innate human intelligence, except with defects at the bottom end; but I could be very wrong, there is more that happens very early in life that makes variation close to innate (particularly worrisome are toxins we don't dispose of properly), and most people handle the subject as if there is in any case.<<

Well I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'intelligence' in that case (ability to compute numbers - for instance or ability to make smart (successful) decisions? (i.e good investments of time and effort)


so...er...is that a 'no' to my question or at least I'm now confused why if you think there *aren't* massive variations in"intelligence" what you think a genius in that context would be or why they wouldn;t be found here for love nor money.

<>

they all happen in a 365-366 day cycle and form just over 2% of a year,

or is that a coincidence as well???

Y = a* n^b + c

n is any phone number / date / mathematic constant

Y is what you want to prove.

Just write a simple BASIC program to insert values for a b and c until you get the Y you want.

DAN DAN DAAAH - Pyramidology!

Right Pit, we have had enough of your smart @rse ways, pontius pilate wants to see you, your for it now

Crucifixion left door, only one cross each...

this julzes is no good at all, i had my phone number written in large numbers i red ink on a green sheet of card and sealed in a brown envelope and i had it pressed to my head all afternoon and i was sending out the happy vibes, and did he phone?????did he heck????what sort on number quack/hack is he.....did it last week and i couldnt keep darren brown and david blane off the phone, ring ring every 10 mins.

hygenicdispenser, good to see you.

Are you new here? Everyone's been changing their names for Halloween, and I get a bit confused. (That's why people are talking to "Taff" and "Clive" although there are no Taffs or Clives around. We're addressing people by their normal names.)

This started, in my opinion, as one of the more boring religion/atheism discussions. There are better, if you want more backlog to read. The gradual morph to a political discussion was interesting. I don't think we've ever hammered out libertarianism here before. I enjoyed it.

And now we've suddenly imported a bunch of numerology nonsense from some other thread. I don't know what's going on there.

Julesz is pretty good on other subjects (he made a good point earlier about libertarianism which Taff misunderstood; or a bad point which I misunderstood). But when he gets onto maths he's a little weird. I must admit that I've never properly tried to follow his arguments. They merely confuse me. He seems to see patterns in places where other people don't.

TRiG.

I placed 11th on the USAMO in the 12th grade, so I probably have been assuming that other people could fill in the gaps too much.

Clive: The reasoning on causation (once its established that we have to either believe in ridiculous coincidences or look for a cause) was that stuff about the physics of the early Universe not being good for any kind of life (hence what people have called 'god-aliens' rather than something closer to a traditional God) and the other stuff about Clarke's laws and the Fermi Paradox. But what you are still asking for is, I believe, proof that it's not just ordinary coincidence I'm dealing with. I don't think I want to make Honest Iago feel I'm driving him out of this forum or bother anyone else with that.

trig: You interpreted my remarks on libertarianism correctly. I favor the welfare capitalist system we have, and would put more welfare in it. I actually believe the larger society should support (to a reasonable degree) people who don't *want* to work (for a reasonable time). A lot of people simply need time to simply change their direction in life, and people by-and-large don't want other people to support them through their work and actually like to work. If we had this kind of system, then a lot of people could not afford to screw up the environment with their consumer habits. One thing I don't like is the obsession with economic growth. I'm looking for an efficient custodial relationship toward the Earth, rather than the 'it's ours for the taking' mentality that has been the dominant feature of human history.

>>Clive: The reasoning on causation [...] you are still asking for is, I believe, proof that it's not just ordinary coincidence I'm dealing with. I don't think I want to make Honest Iago feel I'm driving him out of this forum or bother anyone else with that.<<

I think Iago's just annoyed that you were rude to him, however I'm willing to overlook that to try and get this on record.

So I don't understand your renitence - what is it about your theory of why the coincidences exist (granting you discovered them so how come they are they to be found? What does that tell you?) that would drive people away?

Mea Culpa: we tend to have apoplexies round here when we perceive unreason but I still want to get on record how you get from Point A to point B in your argument. It's not a case of 'I don't understand the numbers' but even if that were true, the burden of explanation still falls on you to get your idea across.

In short: I am listening now; what is it you want to say?

Proofs are essays. The better written a proof is, the more likely it is to be understood. Even such mundane things as grammar, spelling and handwriting are worth a bit of attention.

Define your terms. If you're going to use a word in a way that might not be commonly understood, define it precisely. Then stick to your definition!

From the 'tips for students' USA Math Olympiad website.

http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a4-for-students/olympiad-tips.shtml

Thank you for articulating the questions I wished to ask, Jules. I too am curious. Jules please play to your audience, and do not assume that we can extrapolate from a-f and be able to fill in the blanks without a point of reference. It is a case of, "just a different" way of processing information.
nancy

Clive: I'm actually unclear about what you think points A and B are. A=arithmetical results and B=unusual coincidences? We'll say that Z=There is something like God that is probably just more advanced ordinary life (with dominion over the Milky Way) as we understand it with a creative urge directed at us, and I am the closest thing to either the Son of God or the Antichrist or any of a number of expected personages in traditional religions there is likely ever going to be (and not all that close to any of them, really, with the exception of the flexibility in the Baha'i faith in terms of what it expects). My question is: What do you want, the confirmation that I have extraordinary rather than ordinary coincidences, and for which of my coincidences to you want that? I can't give you more than a little bit.

Please, people, it's Julzes, Jim, J or JGM. Julzes comes from Jul(y)ze(ro)s(ix), by the way; and when I created it I was having a small laugh about the fact that it's a little close to being 'Jesus', and I didn't notice that the left out letters are close to being 'croix'.

Honest Iago: Look, this thread, too, is bound to digress to mathematics, so you may want to leave it for a while also. I've departed the other thread, so you can go back there.

I was being a bit metaphorical Julzes. Apologies if that was confusing.

Why do you think these coincidences that you are uncovering exist?

If I may proffer an analogy: Edwin Hubble discoveries acceleration in measurements of distant galaxies and reasons the universe is expanding. (and explains the observation that light is red shifted because of it)

What do you think (or can prove) that the coincidences you are finding tell us

I'm for this purpose just accepting that you have discovered something and whatever the outcome that this deserves investigation (as per Clarkes law) as a possible solution (is that going to far?) to Fermi's Paradox.

I'm even leaving well alone the third rail of thinking your are the antichrist - that's how much of a nice guy I am.

I'm not disputing any of that.

What I don't frankly understand is what am I supposed to make of this. What do these coincidences mean - why are they forming in these patterns?

Really I'm asking how. (like light is redshifted' I'll agree for the purpose understanding the pattern is there but how come?)
If as you say advanced life has dominion of the galaxy - dominion in what sense?

Take the example regarding my phone number and the number of the thread I created dealing with the supernatural. First of all, I noticed that they differ by changing one digit the slightest amount, and second I calculated the probability of this.