EL

Some rather than all makes you proportionally a bit rude rather than totally rude. Would you like to argue the mathematics behind what I just said here? I thought that you already searched and found out "My theory" and that you were explicitly insulting me about it without discussing it. You did not comment professionally yet on the extension of W&B theory. Now, now, we are not supposed to be playing hide and seek or are we! I can say whatever I wish to say as an opinion, not like you flaming me with ad hominem remarks. You dared me to post "Any Link" that relates significance to infinity and I did. Stop this straw man fallacy at once, please. I dared you to prove that significance was absolutely unrelated to any concept of infinity and you failed; then you escaped by asking me to present the proof that they are related, which is what I did; and now you are slipping away by pretending that there was supposed to be first and second instances of words being written! What a farce! Perhaps it was much easier for you to realise that I was right and simply apologise and your apology was going to be accepted (then). Parsing your English defies sanity. Are you saying that a lot of what I mentioned is garbage out of which some is good! Or are you saying that a minimal of what I posted was good while the remaining majority was identified as garbage since you are an expert on identifying garbage on sight? Please educate me about the criteria of garbage words, because I was under the impressions that only this {&*^%$##@^&*(((^%%^&} is identifiable as garbage characters that no intelligent being can decipher. If that was what you read in my post then change your browser. If it was not important and not interesting for you, then do not bother yourself with such trivial knowledge. I was paying attention when nothing was said. I am still paying attention and still nothing is being said. I will still pay more attention but I will not hold my breath for something valuable to be said. I extended on W-B theory by constructing a topological Zero Point as a boundary to define the absolute infinity, which is absolutely relevant to this thread, and you said utterly nothing professional as a comment, and rather you went spewing rude ad hominem remarks calling my post or some of it garbage. Is that what you call a civilized response?

50/m/EGP.

<http://homeofpoi.co.uk/articles/History_of_fire.php> {It is believed by some that fire was first created by lightening. Caveman saw the fire and was attracted to it. Maybe they would have thought that a part of the sun had broken off and fallen to earth. It is believed that fire was first used and controlled by caveman about 1,420,000 years ago. Although caveman did not know how to create fire himself using friction or flint until about 7000B.C. Fire was used to keep warm, cook, illuminate and later to clear forests of trees to create open areas to better hunt animals. Fire was also used in fighting and wars.} But: <http://www.moria.co.nz/sf/questforfire.htm> Is even better. QUEST FOR FIRE: {Plot: 80,000 years ago. The primitive Ulam tribe's most precious possession, their fire, is accidentally put out during a clash with another tribe. Three men are chosen and sent on a quest to find a new source of fire. Their quest leads them to a series of discoveries that takes them up the ladder towards civilization and finally to the very secret of making fire itself. }

The two links are about significance as you can read in the character concatenation of the links of course. The first link relates significance to statistics, which is a mathematical branch, which means that the subject is not off topic. The second link is extremely significant because it is about relating significant figures and infinite recurrence. If you still do not see how those links are significant to significance and infinity I cannot help you. I am a biochemist, not a pharmacist.

This is fine, Mokele, at least I have realised that we were talking past each other due to a prejudice of comprehension rather than a language barrier, since I was brought up by the British and educated by the British in a Royal school called Victoria, which was for the socially elite. * You asked me to define my terms, which is a fair thing to ask indeed, in this case at least. * I was under the impression that it was you who promoted the mythical common ancestor of the Bible disguised in a scientific jargon. However, you seem to deny it and even attack it, which leaves me quite puzzled. * * Now It is me who should ask you to clarify this contradiction; how can you endorse a theory of evolution from a single common ancestor and deny it in the same time! * As a biochemist, I cannot accept any theory telling me that any reaction have yielded a single life form (a single cell) from which all life forms exploded, this is utterly mythical and speculative. * I can try to collect for you references (if you ask for such), to empirical research demonstrating that before cell-based life there was an open biochemical pool that evolved into cellular forms, and by such demonstration it is impossible to claim that a single cell was the ancestor of all life. * Now let us come back to humans before you accuse me of talking off topic, which seems to be your target to ban me legitimately according to your rules, but I think that you may do that right away and prejudicially saving the efforts. * I have a book in my library that you might find enlightening: Origins of life on the earth and in the cosmos: (by) Geoffrey Zubay. * The term parallel evolution seems to be alien to you, so here is its definition: Parallel evolution is happening right now, all over the earth, because humans are spread out over all continents and they must be still evolving. Do you think that any single individual is privileged to be the ancestor of all humans after ten thousand years from now or even a million years from now? * What makes you think that ten thousand years in the past, a single human or even a single tribe, was in any way privileged for becoming our modern ancestor! * Migration effects as a pressure for effecting diversity through temperature and food types and feeding habits will not cause mutational level evolution, and rather than assuming a single tribe to grow to a migrating size, we can also assume that many tribes were absolutely unrelated but growing in complexity naturally from the same chemical pool under similar climatic boundaries. * You should be aware that linguistic diversity is severed at multiple boundaries and we cannot pretend that all languages evolved from one single language. Especially when that language is not even written or have any written form. * Similar to the mystery of dinosaur extinction or evolution into birds, can we claim that all birds evolved from any one specific dinosaur species? Of course not, and so did the humans evolve in parallel from ancestral species under very similar pressures all over the globe. The biochemical complexity is a function of absolute time or age of earth as the source of the crust chemicals that interacted. * Therefore the answer to the title of the thread is that all humans and mammals and life forms are born first and grow next. The very slow and gradual evolution is certainly much more tenable than the magic of religions. * That is why I do not even endorse a single "chosen" tribe to be God's Chosen People from which all humans came. That assumption is very far from science. Regards.

If we must use those ridiculous names with any degree of seriousness, then Black-holes and White-holes are nothing but the cosmic scale of charge (as within the microcosm). Like charges repel while different charge attract. The effect is on the separation space vectors resultant in contrast with the space in which those phenomena are embodied. From that perspective, relativity will not be applicable to the interaction, but a cosmic scale quantum mechanical model can do the trick. (Ask Wheeler).

From Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance > And <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures > {The concept of significant figures originated from measuring a value and then estimating one degree below the limit of the reading; for example, if an object, measured with a ruler marked in millimeters, is known to be between six and seven millimeters and can be seen to be approximately 2/3 of the way between them, an acceptable measurement for it could be 6.6 mm or 6.7 mm, but not 6.666666 recurring mm. This rule is based upon the principle of not implying more precision than can be justified when measurements are taken in this manner.} That paragraph was from Wikipedia's second link. Read it carfully: "not 6.666666 recurring mm" Can you see where significance of figures relates to a non ending decimal fraction (recurrence)? Think about it.

matt grime said "EL helped? but mathematically his post was garbage", and that was an unprofessional and emotional response with irresponsible and non-objective behaviour. He did not comment professionally on the way I extended the Weierstrass-Bolzano Theorem, and I dare him to say that this is off topic or that it is not mathematical as a subject. What did he say about the Zero Point as I defined it? The subject from a mathematical point of view is intricately interrelated. Boundaries and limits are at the heart of the issue as shown by very well known mathematicians (not me). Divergence and convergence of numbers in sequences of infinite series are absolutely related too. Significance comes in with the mathematics of infinitesimals. In science we can mean several things by "1", unity and one; it could be the name of a limit or the expanse of an interval, or a vector with a significant sign, etcetera. The old paradox of Zeno was shown to be a trivial problem that was solved by calculus. It is almost impossible to separate mathematics from physics unless we are talking about very specific numerical relations. If matt grime still thinks that the theory of chaos and the theory of fractals are not mathematical theories then I have to beg him to reconsider what he thinks before it turns out ugly. One does not call what others post as garbage unless one is absolutely sure that it is, but if you simply do not understand it, one should refrain from such ad hominem remarks. I was never off topic, and he who is in suspicion can demand from me to present the verbose version that exposes the unquestionable relation.

Do you mean that a common ancestral species is the same as a Biblical common ancestor' date=' Adam? Or do you mean that correct theories about our origin are irrelevant to whether we were born naturally or Divine Created? Nice Joke, but I am not laughing. They evolved in parallel, along the chemical pool. Finally we evolved unequal and some of us have garbled comprehension while others have rude manners, etcetera (showing diversity).

You are being notified to be posting a spiteful comment with a quoting that was not posted on this thread by me. However, Phi for All is a biased full of shaving cream God and increased my warning level to 10 points as a sacrificial goat whose blood is for your salvation. Of course it would be much easier for all of you to unsubscribe me if that option existed rather than torturing each other. What really worries me about all of you as human beings connected on the Internet, is that the average conduct is obviously much lower than anything that could be evaluated as good conduct, and any philosophical value of power is exercised tyrannically. I was thinking the other night about how much I would loose if I unsubscribed or was permanently banned from here. Emm. <thinking again> Absolutely nothing. On the other hand, you loose a payable X-professor who has strong ideas for sharing. So if you seek good debates let us do it, less your childish whining and laughable punishments. Then there is always that overvalued dignity and feelings of pseudo-dominance and power, where it would be best for you to permanently ban me right away. I promise I shall not hold any hard feelings, so do what you wish to do, but I shall not hold back my feelings and my intellectual judgement and that I have to tell you that I was on topic and you went off topic and that you are all full of shaving cream. Now give us a proof demonstrating that "Significance" as a topic is irrelevant to "Infinity" as a topic, if you dare, and you are being openly challenged, I mean both of you.

Hahahahahahahahaha Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha. And. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha. You people are hilariously funny. I shall not tell you how I built them of course or else it would not be a mystery anymore. LOL.

Are you still living in the black and white universe! In my universe now we already discovered the red holes, the blue holes, and the green holes. if the three holes suck each other a white hole will be dug, but if they all kick each other a black hole is formed in-between them. So throw away you old universes and buy a new one from Sony.

Do you think that if I explained the closed complex plane and a point at infinity denoting the class of all sequences of complex numbers {a_n} with lim a_n = oo, where (n---> oo) and talking about the Riemann sphere, that the subject will be perfectly clear? You are the expert, so why don't you tell us why do we have to truncate the infinite decimal figures of pi? Infinity is evident, but it contradicts with practical methods of demonstration and there is where significance becomes the criterion with which we decide when to be satisfied with our infinitely converging infinitesimals. If you see a mistake in my logic or expressions, feel free to correct me rather than giving out unfounded verdicts. I am willing to learn to improve my expressions as long as I live, so please contribute actively, and not stand passively and only complain. Regards.

No, I am sorry that your logical induction was non sequitor at all, because it was founded on statements that may not be agreed with to reach the conclusions you claim to stem from your premises. First of all, you seem to believe that consciousness is one of two binary states, which is a critical but common error. Secondly, do you have the direct experience of a palm tree to be absolutely certain that it has no consciousness of any sort at all? The Darwinian evolution is certainly the true model behind our evolution and reaching the top of the known food chain along with other predator-species. Thirdly, before you try to analyse the one consciousness of an individual human to relate it to neural cells embodying them, why not ask about the extra / supra individual consciousness and how does it happen? Huge industrial organisations that are in competition, do have boards of directors effecting a brain for each to take the decisions of what to be done as a reaction to feedback from the market and the availability of resources and materials. Such boards of directors can be sleepy, sloppy, active, awake and communicating, etcetera. from such a perspective, each member contributes by ideas, learns from others and modifies the ideas and share them again with others until a majority agreement is reached to dictate the decisions taken to control and move the industrial production power. This is identical to what happens inside a single brain by understanding that its consciousness is a function founded on the communication of the available senses, motor centres and data manipulators such as memory, etcetera. Blind people sleep and awake; the deaf too have consciousness; the paralyzed that did not enter a comatose state follow the same pattern with what they have still functioning and interacting internally and externally to information. In lower animals, they have perfect reflexes as an evolutionary level of consciousness; emotions too began functioning before intellect did. Plants must have there own way of sensing a state of being and an even lesser than reflexes way to respond to environmental information. This means that consciousness as we know it has definitely evolved and was crowned by the cortical layer of higher mammals. We do not need to die to be certain the consciousness is embedded in the brain and dependant on it neuro-chemical functionality because we do know exactly how to temporarily switch off consciousness by using anaesthetics. We can use NMR to scan the brain and determine which part corresponds to which type of activity. Oxygen and glucose are the chemical precursors of energy liberated by the citric acid cycle, and that energy is critical to maintain the health of the brain all the time regardless of the state of consciousness. Being subconsciously aware of being aware is a mental qualia that we register as a state of consciousness. We are not unique with this quality among the mammals but we exceed them by the ability of greater communication because of the development of linguistics and abstractions of sets of information. Such differences are "for" rather than "against" relating consciousness to the Darwinian evolution model.