Genady

I did not mean an analogy to trees at all. Just an example of long living organisms. (I don't use analogies and metaphors usually.) Even slow metabolism is not necessary, just a possibility. Another possibility is their natural ability for long hibernations. I'm sure there are many more.

I don't see why biological evolution would be correlated to the age of the universe. Constrained, yes, but correlated? I don't say that it happened, but I don't know why it couldn't happen (unlike the c problem.)

What do you mean "developed as us"?

Sure. To start with, I guess such aliens wouldn't be biologically anything like us, but rather organisms with an extremely slow metabolism. More like trees that live for thousands of years.

z should be equal to y+w rather than greater than. I don't have any idea how to calculate these dynamics, but thinking about an infinitesimal step in the process: A body rising by some small distance allows a small amount of fluid to move down, which releases some energy. It also creates a pressure difference on the wall causing it to move a bit, but this motion is not free as it works to move the water. The energy is somehow split between a small rise in the fluid column on the right and the kinetic energy of the moving fluid, but the wall can move only so that the sum of the latter two is equal to the former. As this equality holds at each infinitesimal step, it will hold at the end after all the steps are summed up.

Your solution is a bit different from the one mentioned before, but it seems to be the same in principle and will work as well. +1

Unless they are wandering aliens, without a mother planet, not sent from somewhere, but rather living in their ships, generation after generation, while moving from place to place. Nomadic aliens.

You can safely ignore W. It can be, in this ideal experiment, equal zero, because the wall mass doesn't play any role and can be equal 0. OTOH, the mass of the fluid cannot be zero, because in that case the body would not rise.

You're right, of course, +1 But what kind of trouble... At first, its answer was very impressive: "If Teresa's daughter is your daughter's mother, then Teresa is your daughter's grandmother. Therefore, you are Teresa's son-in-law or daughter-in-law, depending on your gender." Isn't it smart? Doesn't it demonstrate logical thinking abilities? To see if it in fact does, I've substituted Teresa->John, daughter->son, and mother->father, and asked the same question in this form: "If John's son is my son's father, then what is my relationship to John?" And the ChatGPT's answer was: "If John's son is your son's father, then John is your spouse or partner." Why? What happened to the logic? Of course, logic was never there. The "Teresa" form of the puzzle, verbatim, has been very popular on Internet several years ago. The search returns hundreds of thousands of links. So, it has been included in the ChatGPT training data. While for the "John" version all it could find was something about son, father, relationship... and all it could come up with was the stupid answer. Yes, stochastic parrot is a correct definition.

What is a critical mass of nothingness?

So, new "laws" stopped being added in physics, chemistry, and biology sometimes in the beginning of the twentieth century, but continued to be added in geology, geography, economics, linguistics, sociology, etc. at least into the last quarter of that century. Is it correct?

Not all the DNA, but only a DNA in a gamete. Perhaps a DNA in some ovum or a spermatozoon thinks, "My host needs eyes", modifies itself, and prays to be the chosen one.

If Teresa's daughter is my daughter's mother, then what is my relationship to Teresa? After you answer it, I will describe a little experiment with ChatGPT that sheds light on how it works.

THIS is the essence of my OP question, rather than some epistemological definition.

Now you have added yourself to my Ignore list. Bye-bye.

No, not philosophy. Speculations.

Then, this thread should be not in the Evolution forum, but in the Speculations forum. Which I ignore.

You can un-ignore.

Yes, I am wondering the same. Can't find an independent source of it.

What do you think of Llinás's law - Wikipedia? I never heard of it before this discussion and don't know what its scientific status is.

What do you think was the last "law" in biology?

It seems to me that the Hubble's law was the last one that fits this description. (Thanks for the list again, @Jez. +1)

Actually, the wave function describes probability amplitude, a complex value. The probability distribution is a squared modulus of the wave function and contains less information about the state of the system.

I also don't think that the body rises more slowly when the wall moves. But I think that there is another term in the equation that needs to be taken in account, namely, the kinetic energy of the fluid replacing the volume occupied by the body. When the wall does not move, this fluid has to come from above the body down to under the body. But when the wall moves, part of the replacing fluid comes from the side, horizontally, because the volume there decreases. Thus, less replacing fluid comes from above, which, I think, reduces the kinetic energy of the moving fluid. IOW, when the wall moves, the energy of the impact of the body and the barrier is the same, but the thermal energy produced by the moving fluid, is smaller. I am guessing here. Does it make sense?

LOL. Thank you. Interesting list. I've started to look at these laws from bottom up and immediately found - attention, OT - that Llinas's law points to a fundamental difference between the neuron in neuroscience and the "neurons" in DNN used in AI. In DNN, all neurons are interchangeable, and the only difference is in the weights assigned to their connections. Quite possible. Here is an anecdote: "I have an equation; do you have one too?" Paul Dirac, on meeting Richard Feynman. He didn't say "a law".