[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Oct 2 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

I have a lot of problems with eternity, no doubt a human brain can't think of anything infinite. But my biggest problem was about god think of what happened before, and before, and before, I can't conceive something without a begining, except if its cyclic.

Maybe god sees time as a 4th dimension and travels through it the same way we would take a walk.

I was thinking about evolution this evening and asked myself why there isn't any form of life who lives exclusively between water and air?, a life form whose density is almost constant and would never sink nor get above the water.

Such life form wouldn't need eyes, since its habitat is 2-dimensional, would only perceive things wich are in his 'world'.

Ok, this actually has no sense since all physic rules we know are 3 dimensional, and senses are based upon them. But still I wondered if there wouldn't be a 4th dimension out there wich we were unable to perceive at all.

Actually, most simple physics is 4 dimensional: time is a dimension (hence space-time). Many more dimensions have been posited, which we lack the means to detect but whose existence becomes necessary for certain theories of the universe to be reasonable approximations of the world we can experience.

Fluffy: you continue to make posts that, while displaying an innate intelligence, reflect that you truly lack any basic understanding of the current state of human knowledge. Thus you raise questions that have already been well-resolved or, at least, deeply investigated to the point that a reasonably curious layperson can easily gain some level of knowledge (from sources both more erudite and more intelligible than anything I can write).

As for god walking through time, read some Vonnegut, or other (fairly old now, because the idea is old) science fiction.

[jtfanclub]

Fluffy, on Oct 2 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Quote

Such life form wouldn't need eyes, since its habitat is 2-dimensional, would only perceive things wich are in his 'world'.

Such as a water strider? Most of his threats come from above or below.

However, I seriously question whether worker ants see in 3 dimensions, or if they simply map uphill as "bad terrain", unclimbable as "unpassable terrain", and falling down as "easy terrain". Worker ants, from what little I've seen, seem to have no knowledge of three dimensions, except when ordered to dig..and even that can be mapped to two dimensions.

[Gerben42]

Quote

And I see this analysis as saying that the best and brightest of earlier times would fare well in comparison to the best and brightest of today... but there may be more today than yesterday, pre capita, because more infants today, per capita, will have favorable circumstances in which to develop.

I wonder if this is even true percentage wise compared to the Roman era. The sheer number of poor people today is mind-boggling. Let's not fight on semantics and say that although humans 2000 years ago had the same potential at birth as nowadays, fewer actually reached this potential due to malnutrition and fewer intellectual impulses.

What I think is arrogant, but this was and is not directed toward anyone particular, is the stance that modern day humans (meaning industrial age in particular, but can also be applied on the species in general) are the pinnacle of evolution.

[mikeh]

Gerben42, on Oct 2 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

What I think is arrogant, but this was and is not directed toward anyone particular, is the stance that modern day humans (meaning industrial age in particular, but can also be applied on the species in general) are the pinnacle of evolution.

I would go further and say that the very idea that evolution has a 'pinnacle' is anthropocentric. If we judge by biological mass, then the bacteria are the most successful 'pinnacle' of evolution. If we move up the physical scale, then we have to deal with insects...heck, there are many billions more beetles than there are humans

And evolution is an ongoing process. Admittedly, we may be members of the first species that may end up making intentional genetic changes to ourselves.... once we know how to do it, it will happen. It may start by allowing wealthy parents to genetically edit out certain diseases, and then go on to allow for eye and hair colour, sex, and so on, but once the gene-ie is out of the bag, its going to be tough to control.

But whatever happens, a million years, or 10 million years from now, it seems improbable that the then-dominant species on earth would be interbreedable with a 21st century homo sapiens, even if it were descended from us.

[Fluffy]

Well Mike, I told you before, it is way funnier to try it yourself than to read the solution

[helene_t]

Lol Gonzales, home-baked cookies are inherently more delicious, we saw that in the envelop-problem thread as well.

As for ants' vision, what JTF says makes a lot of sense to me.

[onoway]

hi I thought people might be interested in this site, which suggest evolution may not always take such a long time.. http://www.livescien...terfly_evo.html

[han]

Gerben42, on Oct 2 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

What I think is arrogant, but this was and is not directed toward anyone particular, is the stance that modern day humans (meaning industrial age in particular, but can also be applied on the species in general) are the pinnacle of evolution.

I'm glad it wasn't directed at anybody because I don't think anybody claimed or implied this. I certainly didn't mean to. I don't even think it makes sense to talk about the "pinnacle of evolution".

Fluffy, on Oct 3 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

Well Mike, I told you before, it is way funnier to try it yourself than to read the solution

It is always a good idea to think about ideas yourself. But just as in today's world you cannot be a top bridge player by figuring everything out by yourself, it would really help your understanding of the world to read some of that has been written by others.

BTW, if someone thinks my claim about bridge isn't correct, please reply, it is an interesting topic.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Oct 3 2007, 06:30 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Oct 2 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

What I think is arrogant, but this was and is not directed toward anyone particular, is the stance that modern day humans (meaning industrial age in particular, but can also be applied on the species in general) are the pinnacle of evolution.

I'm glad it wasn't directed at anybody because I don't think anybody claimed or implied this. I certainly didn't mean to. I don't even think it makes sense to talk about the "pinnacle of evolution".

Fluffy, on Oct 3 2007, 01:04 AM, said:

Well Mike, I told you before, it is way funnier to try it yourself than to read the solution

It is always a good idea to think about ideas yourself. But just as in today's world you cannot be a top bridge player by figuring everything out by yourself, it would really help your understanding of the world to read some of that has been written by others.

BTW, if someone thinks my claim about bridge isn't correct, please reply, it is an interesting topic.

It was Isaac Newton who wrote: 'if I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of ye giants'. (ye now commonly changed to 'the')

Bridge is not as complex as physics, but it is too complex, in the current state of the art, for anyone to master without learning from others.

At least, I like to think so

[Fluffy]

yeah its a lot easier to learn bridge that way. But I am pretty sure all of us would love to see how would bridge evolute if you teach only basic rules to a big group of people who have to develop their own systems, conventions and carding for lets say a hundred eyars (2 or 3 generations) and then compare where did they get compared to us.

[Al_U_Card]

You hit the nail on the head.

The synergistic effect of growing numbers of people opening up new lines of endeavor creates convergent lines of development. Better systems come from experimentation as the cream agglomerates and rises to the top.

This is a natural progression and is mirrored in our own societal reality. The only problem is that the cream is hard to find and the rest is very voluminous. We must continue to try as we will eventually succeed.

[mike777]

95%?


Please, 95% do not believe America or Holland or humans will exist in 1000 years let alone evolution of humans.

Please take poll and ask...in 1000 years will......x....exist?
1) Humans
2) America
3) Holland

[matmat]

mike777, on Oct 4 2007, 12:32 PM, said:

95%?


Please, 95% do not believe America or Holland or humans will exist in 1000 years let alone evolution of humans.

Please take poll and ask...in 1000 years will......x....exist?
1) Humans
2) America
3) Holland

humans will exist 1000 years from now
america will not exist 1000 years from now
what is holland? does it exist now?

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Oct 4 2007, 12:32 PM, said:

95%?


Please, 95% do not believe America or Holland or humans will exist in 1000 years let alone evolution of humans.

Heck, more than 5% of Americans think Holland doesn't exist right now!

I'd be willing to wager that if you stopped the average American on the street, and asked them "What is Holland", less than 90% would would even give a land area (city/state/country/continent).

[matmat]

true story!

when i was in school in new york I was once asked where i was from. I answered loudly, and clearly, that i was from Poland.

response:
"oh... they have lovely tulips and windmills there!"

[helene_t]

I think The Netherlands will exist in 1000 years in some form, maybe not as a political entity, maybe with somewhat different borders, and almost certainly with a different coastline. I can imagine that the Netherlands will be reduced to some vague geographic unit that hasn't any particular function but still exist as a concept in people's mind, sorta like "Balticum" or "New England". I doubt that the Dutch language will still be spoken in 1000 years, but there may still be some reminicenses of a Dutch national identity among parts of the population.

As for North Holland and South Holland I doubt that they will have any significance as political/administrative units. Maybe maps will still indicate them for historical/nostalgic reasons but even that I consider unlikely. I don't think the concept "Holland" (as distinct from "The Netherlands") will give meaning to anyone except for historians specialized in that region.

Humans will certainly still exist. Whether they will still be going strong is less clear but I think they will. I think people will generally be wiser and healthier than today, and more abundant, and in a reasonable harmony with whatever remains of their quasi-natural environment. I also think that people will generally be happier in year 3007 than they are today, although that is obviously difficult to measure. Maybe happiness measurements are uncontroversial in year 3007. I have mentioned some future trends in human evolution, but those are very slow trends. A year 2007-baby teleported to year 3007 and adopted by 3007-parents would appear as a completely normal child, just like a year 1007-baby teleported to year 2007.

America (North- and South America) will still exist of course. If the U.S. will still exist as a significant political/administrative unit? I don't think so. Once the boarders with Canada and Mexico disappear, the political bonds between Hawaii and Texas have little reason to be stronger than those between either and Mexico/Canada. This is different from the situation in Europe, where the cultural identity of the countries is stronger.

One day, the political borders between the continents will disappear, but I don't think it will have happened completely by 3007. I can imagine the political bonds between North America and Europe to be similar to those between Australia and New Zealand today. This is a very bold prediction, of course. Maybe the borders between the continents will have largely disappeared by year 2200 already (except for Zwitserland, Norway and San Marino, of course).

[Codo]

If I look back for 1000 years, I can see that there had been no USA, no Netherlands, no Germany etc. So I doubt that these countries will be there in 1.000 years. Maybe some states will live so long, but I doubt it. But who knows, maybe we will have a global state in some centuries, which will fall apart again and there will be a "new" Holland"

Human will still be there if nothing really spectacular happens.