It is currently Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:36 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Taking logic further
Post #1 Posted: Fri May 21, 2021 3:50 pm 
Dies in gote

Posts: 56
Liked others: 101
Was liked: 1
OGS: Elom hmW K
Universal go server handle: Elom, Windnater
This is a mental exercise I've been doing for a while and I just saw something that reminded me of it

https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 70#p265170
Mike Novack wrote:
ElomKW wrote:
It just makes sense in the case of mammals for XY's to have their mother's surname and XX's to have there father's surname.


I think for mammals makes most sense to take the mother's name. It is certain who is the mother but never more than strong likelihood about the father.

Different for seahorses and their kin. Perhaps more than one female has deposited eggs in his pouch. Maybe also for the various sunfish if more than one females deposits eggs in his nest.


It's hard to describe it but taking logic further is the I can do. Another example may be figuring out that in the opening, small differences in win percentage, for moves are meaningful.

Here, if all mammalian societies that developed linnienal surnaming took the purely logical route and gave offspring their mother's surname, we would have been rewarded by advanced technology :).

Another example is when Isaac 'the boss (or maybe gangster. Leibnitz was quite unfortunate) Newton extended the additive triangle to create a cooler way to calculate pi.

https://calculus-help.com/2020/09/03/fi ... -calculus/ factorises a problematic function to (x – 4)(x – 2) / (x – 4) and shows that cancelling the x-4's allows you to see that the limit when X=4 is 2. But the cancelling x-4's show 0*2/0=2, exactly as my hypothesis predicts! Since igo, shogi, chess, xiangqi and all perfect information game professionals are technically by definition 'psychological mathematicians' the inverse of mathematical psychologists, we might be able to intuite why mathematicians' have rejected conserving multiplications (and divisions) of zero or infinity by a number, and why zero is considered a number any more than infinity.

The homonyms qi/gi/ki mean the spiritual life force, used poetically to refer to a stones liberties in go, and a professional in these extalled arts. I'm on the side of using the most original meaning of a word as it's primary meaning, so I think it makes sense in english to combine the to and translate the latter meaning of kishi as spiritartist. This is based on the strictest definition you can have of the word spiritual. If something has an effect on the physical world, who are we to say it's non-physical just because it's not from the realm of physicality we're not familiar with. Everything is physical and material except mathematics. So mathematics and mathematical arts like perfect information board games--randomness requires a physical world to exist--, are the only truly spiritual things. I thought of this a couple of years ago but I've been to stuck in my own head to think of writing it down.

The next idea of mine I might write about on my next post in this topic here supposes that the answer to the hard question of consciousness would be found in personality psychology--in the form of personality morphology. Also everyone would like each other more :). But the hard problem of consciousness may only be solved if personality morphology is understood in detail and physicists treat the question of how matter came into existence as the same question as how does consciousness arise. If someone takes their brain and puts in the soil, they may reincarnate as a plant, and any fruit or flowers it has, and any worms in the soil if you'd rather not be a worm go in a pot plant. Or just live healthy.)--the every cell is conscious theory.

_________________
Practical honeytarian

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Taking logic further
Post #2 Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:29 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 56
Liked others: 101
Was liked: 1
OGS: Elom hmW K
Universal go server handle: Elom, Windnater
On shipping superfoods across many miles using many carbon emissions to people who would have never come across it in their native environment and then saying they ought to have this superfood to be truly healthy, I understand that people want to eat well. But our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago. If eating healthily required fruits from far distant lands, well--it seems a bit of an odd idea to my eyes. Saving foods that would be more unnatural for special occasions seem an idea consistent with are past situation, as it doesn't imply the highest health is only possible through the invent of efficient shipment.

The contrary to that is that if the healthiest diet is that closest to what hominins have eaten historically over time, then it does stand to reason that the healthiest foods would lie around the area the most modern hominins evolved before distant migration. Yet a counter argument to that would be that there is no reason to believe that evolution would adapt us to foods (and foods to any animal) much longer than the time we would naturally avoid an accident, or perhaps mathematically it could be shown to be notably longer than that if the bell curve for passing by accidents was uniform and wide, but then that would be the sticking point of whether the counter is correct :).


Faithullness
theBloomCurve (Flowerdom)

_________________
Practical honeytarian

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group