needimprovement

Here's an interesting site I came across this morning that has a test that purports to measure what's described as one's "risk intelligence," which is described as: The idea is not necessarily to answer the questions correctly, but to see how well you can estimate the probability that your answer would be correct. It seems that this idea is related to the Dunning–Kruger effect, which is the idea that incompetent people have a tendency to overestimate their competence, while the reverse tends to be true for competent people. I scored 66, which was described as average.

I'll have to make the next one tougher!

Gentlemen (or Ladies!) I greatly appreciate your inputs. It seems that in theory, the "second" can be divided down at a near infinite number of divisions. The real question may be the "value".

Or the thread title/question should be changed to "What's the weight of a solid steel sphere with a 6" long cylindrical hole through?". Thank you, Mr Skeptic.

We all live in an extremely complex conglomeration of niches. Species who were once at an advantage because of their physical attributes can suddenly find themselves facing odds that will lead to their extinction. These odds could be caused by environmental factors including other competing species and environmental stresses such as meteorites, droughts, earthquakes. Or it can take a long time, as you've described. There are always stresses on a species. Evolution is not always a procedure going from simple to complicated. Look at the cockroach (if you can stand to). It's been essentially the same for an awfully long time and has been one of the most successful species time-wise. It has adapted so well that it can live just about everywhere. I doubt it will become more complicated simply because it is so successful in its current form.

I got your point. My friend in Chicago said that the smallest "slice of time" was defined by the interval between a traffic light turning green and the guy behind you honking his horn. But your point is very good.

We know that at the time, the constant for a yard was the length from the King of Englands nose to the tip of his fingers. What constant is the basis for the meter?

No prob. It is simple math. Here isone way and here is another. But there is a short solution for that. Try to find out.

I greatly appreciate your input, and understood all of it. It seems that the article might have too many logical flaws to be really useful. I will have to cogitate on this idea some more. Would it somehow change things if we found that life in the universe is *common?* If it's common, then you have many "unrealistic" probabilities occurring, instead of just the one ad-hoc probablility (Earth) that has been observed.

This equation was solved by great mathematician Ramanujan. It's your turn to solve this equation: √X + Y = 7 X + √Y = 11 Solve it.. prove it...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/hole-through-a-sphere_problem.html and then take into account the density of steel.

The Work Instruction sez: What's the weight of the part?

A research team proceeded towards the apex of a natural geographic protuberance, the purpose of the expedition being the procurement of a sample of fluid hydride of oxygen in a large vessel, the exact size of which was unspecified. One member of the team precipitiously descended, sustaining severe damage to the upper cranial portion of his anatomical structure; subsequently the second member of the team performed a self rotational translation oriented in the same direction taken by the first member. Pick your brains!

This is really an incredible information. I found another article to examine http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20Time.htm

Any scientists out there who are interested, I'd like a mathematical and/or scientific critique of the assertions made at the following website: http://www.scribd.com/doc/448517/Evolution-What-Are-the-Odds Note there are some comments on the side that are directed towards a mathematical critique of the poster's assertions. These critiques appear to be valid, but I think the underlying premise in the post has something to it. The underlying argument posed at the site is that it is, essentially, mathematically impossible (or at least so improbable as to be impossible) for life to have arisen on its own using pure random chance. The poster appears to believe that this means that life could not evolve from non-life without the intercession of a greater power (i.e., God). What I'm thinking of is recasting the argument in a more mathematically or scientifically correct way - if that's possible. It may not be possible, given lack of understanding of how amino acids could combined and eventually form cells exhibiting industrial complexity. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that while 4 billion years is a long time, the number is still quite finite and may be too small to support random chance. I suspect the counter argument may be that industrial complexity builds on itself as time goes on. However, I'm not sure how much that will hold water scientifically speaking; after all, you have to achieve some measure of industrial complexity in the first place. I know the basic argument of life from non-life, but to my knowledge the argument has never been positivistically proven; and thus is subject to skepticism in the scientific realm. To you atheists out there - I'm not interested in proving or disproving God using an argument of probabilities. While I admit that eventually I would like to use this type of argument as merely one argument in a range of arguments that, as a whole, point to God's existence, I first need to know if the underlying premise is sound before engaging in any kind of metaphysics. For, if the physics or math is wrong, then any rationale supporting metaphysical conclusions based on it (either for or against God's existence) must also be flawed (i.e., the premise is flawed and thus not helpful to the conclusion). Same thing to my fellow brothers in Christ: This is no challenge against God or proof for Him, I merely want to enquire if the premise is sound or weak - and if it is weak whether it can be improved so that it is sound. Accordingly, again, what I really want is a purely scientific or mathematical analysis of the argument posed in the website. From there I might springboard into another, separate, thread discussing metaphysical speculation. Thank you for your time!

Thank you for your responce and the links. I think "time" is a measurement of change, without change, there is no time. So time is based on change, so the smallest measure of change would by necessity be the smallest measure of time. Mentally, if change (as an idea) is made, for example, in making a descision, then the smallest measure of time would be one descision, or possible nexus point.

As far as I know the shorter than a second are millisecond > microsecond > nanosecond > picosecond. It’s a picosecond that we can consider the ultimate in time measurement. Or... Perhaps I would consider positive zero - approaching zero from the positive side. More interesting is the square root of a negative zero (approaching zero from the negative side), or 0i...imaginary zero. Any other ideas regarding the shortest slice of time?

Can anyone provide any evidence that our body is more real than our intangible thoughts, feelings, sensations and decisions? We know our body exists only because we infer its existence from our perceptions. Our mind is our primary datum and sole certainty.