More to the point, the product of the two cycles gives a much greater
period than what their predators can track - in effect implementing
the linear congruential pseudo random number generation algorithm.
Evolution is very smart!
Cheers
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 12:43:01PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote
On 24 Dec 2013, at 18:18, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen
wrote:
Bruno,
No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the
concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math.
Really? Discovery channel would disagree with
On 24 Dec 2013, at 17:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the
concept of prime numbers.
Show me the dependence.
I think you confuse the human math, with math. "17 is prime" is
defined without mentioning any humans. It just means tha
On Dec 24, 2013, at 1:13 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote:
Jason,
Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an
even number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant?
Yes.
If you meant factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that.
What, in your mind, d
Jason,
Factor into exactly two factors? Just divide by 2 assuming it's an even
number. Nothing to do with primes! Is that what you meant? If you meant
factor completely I'm not sure reality ever does that. It's likely
something that only human mathematicians do. Can you think of a process in
n
There is also a 13 year cicada. Is it a coincidence they cycle their
mass appearances on large prime numbers?
It is thought that this strategy prevents predators from tuning their
population cycles to those of the cicadas.
Jason
On Dec 24, 2013, at 12:19 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote:
Cowb
On Dec 24, 2013, at 10:42 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote:
Bruno,
No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the
concept of prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico-
mathematical system of reality has no such concept as a prime
number. Why? Because reality doesn
Cowboy,
The fact that cicadas tend to emerge at 17 year intervals has nothing at
all to do with the fact that 17 is a prime number. It's simply counting. If
I find 17 cents in my pocket that's just counting - nothing at all to do
with primes or prime theory.
That should be obvious...
Edgar
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of
> prime numbers. That's human not Reality math.
>
Really? Discovery channel would disagree with you ;-)
> The logico-mathematical system of reality has
Bruno,
No. "17 is prime" depends entirely on humans who invented the concept of
prime numbers. That's human not Reality math. The logico-mathematical
system of reality has no such concept as a prime number. Why? Because
reality doesn't care whether a number is prime or not. The computations of
Hi Craig,
First thanks for your thoughtful and detailed comments. A lot of meat there
and I'll respond to some of them as I think we see the implications of the
initial agreement somewhat differently.
First, of course there are plenty of differences between the various
categories of the very v
On 24 Dec 2013, at 16:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for
thinking otherwise.
However you state that "This (reality is entirely computational) is
logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am
computational, but i
Bruno,
OK. Glad we agree, pretty much, on defining reality. Sorry for thinking
otherwise.
However you state that "This (reality is entirely computational) is
logically impossible. If reality is computational, then I am computational,
but if I am computational, the UDA shows that reality, whate
Richard,
Sure it's an assertion, just as your post is, but it has plenty of basis in
physics and logic. It's a consistent part of the whole web of my theory
which is quite consistent with modern physics, though not always with its
current interpretations...
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 24, 2
I think that you are on the right track and I both understand and agree
with your view of theory and reality all being part of the same ocean -
however, there is a difference between an artist painting a picture and a
painting of an artist painting a picture of himself. The former can be said
t
On 24 Dec 2013, at 13:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to
include theories about reality.
The theories can be real, even when they are wrong. You should quote
the assertions said, as I have no idea what makes you think I said
t
Edgar,
Even what you wrote above is entirely assertion with no basis in math or
physics:
"Reality is a single ocean of ontological energy and everything that exists
exists as a computationally evolving information form within it. There is
nothing outside of it because there is no outside. Therefo
Richard,
First you are wrong. There is some math in the book. Apparently you read
only part of it. As for my book being composed of words, most books are for
gosh sakes! And ALL YOUR posts consist ONLY of words with Zero math. Does
that make them not credible or meaningful?
Of course my book c
I read Edgar's book and it is entirely words and mostly assertions- no math
at all.
In my opinion that makes his book not credible
Richard
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> All,
>
> Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include
> theories about r
All,
Both Roger and Bruno took issue with my definition of reality to include
theories about reality. But the proper definition of reality is that
reality includes everything that exists and theories of reality most
certainly exist. Roger and Bruno seem to be coming from the old dualistic
defi
20 matches
Mail list logo
