Phi for All

I still fail to see the benefit of viewing complexity in terms of balance/imbalance. Aren't you simply saying that without an imbalance in the matter/antimatter ratio, we wouldn't exist? Or "complexity", or "initial". It would be so much better if you used accepted definitions instead of interpreting what you think they should mean wrt your idea. Who knew, right?

That's untrue, because you've given up questioning whether your god is real or not. What if that assumption is flawed?

I'm sorry, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors guessing about evolution. It's one of the most evidenced theories we've ever had, and with all the empirical observations available, if something as simple as "balance" was a generalized effect it would be heavily noted, and it isn't. If it helps, stop thinking in terms of balance and start thinking equilibrium. Equilibrium isn't a goal so much as a standoff. If you think of walking only in terms of balance, you'd never move. Establishing equilibrium between balance and off-balance is how walking works, and many other things as well. But even equilibrium isn't appropriate for the way you're discussing evolution. When traits are selected for, they don't necessarily reflect environmental changes, nor do they have to balance anything else, or even achieve some sort of equilibrium. The only thing that matters is that a trait improves the ability to survive until those genetic markers are passed on. The environment isn't a "balancing force" determining which species survive, since it's undirected and entirely capricious. A cold-snap that wipes out a population doesn't do so to balance available resources, or "prevent life from spiralling out of control" (there is ample evidence that animal populations have spiralled out of control before, and it's not the environment that stops or controls it).

You presuppose your god is "almighty", yet claim man runs amok unopposed, so why not presuppose it's allowed since it seems to be? You presuppose yours is the "TRUE GOD" but obviously your interpretation is incomplete since you don't know if man has the total freedom to act or not. Why don't you question your demonstrably flawed concept of a "TRUE GOD"? If it's flawed in one place, perhaps you shouldn't think of it in such bedrock, absolute terms? Ha Ha. It doesn't. It really doesn't.

I feel, since there are so many more questions that actually involve reality, that this is the proper mindset. It's the neutral position between active belief and active disbelief, and is where it seems most reasonable to "turn".

I prefer to view wisdom as an added layer of information-building skills. Sometimes it makes us seem slower, or even crazy, or like we're having to process harder, but we're filtering our responses through greater experience. We're not having processing problems when we decide to let the forest burn instead of rushing to put it out. And we're not slogging through our full hard drive when we decide not to text with one hand while holding coffee and steering with the other.

I'm sorry I linked to the NPR story instead of another take on Diaconis' machine. I was more interested in the machine than in what the other threads were already talking about regarding chance. Here is another machine inventor, Nitipak Samsen, who has made several machines attempting to get consistent flips on a coin. Still nobody with a machine that can do edges, and I haven't seen anyone with the money and curiosity to even try. Or they may realize there are too many variables that even a machine can't control.

First, that's not what the Lounge is for. Next, it was moved because you stopped asking questions and started making assertions (I'll quote that in a bit). Next, theory is not a guess. Theory in science is more solid than you can obviously imagine. The only reason we don't call them facts is the very nature of science, which is constant examination, which means we can learn more and add it to what we already know. That's how theory works, and every one of them has mountains of evidence if you bother to dig instead of assuming they're wrong because you don't understand them. Next, you're making another assumption that science is built on work that's assumed to be correct. See above, scientific theories are constantly examined, challenged, and updated with the best current data. Theories are the most supported explanations of natural phenomena we have. You don't know what you're talking about on this one, trust me. Finally, you claim "all I offered was questions": These are non-mainstream assertions. Our rules told me I needed to move your post to Speculations. Please stop claiming you've been abused.

Sudden shortcomings? That's not how it's usually viewed. Evolution selects for advantages over time, things that make a species more successful at surviving to procreate. The species of squirrel that would eventually lead to flying squirrels didn't have a shortcoming that needed balance. It gained an advantage slowly over time that gave it better odds at escaping predators and competing for food. There's really no "balance" there unless you either push or stretch the definition to fit your concept.

There are a bunch of things that can cause chills when it isn't cold, from lack of sleep to low blood sugar. You don't mention taking any medications, but it could be a reaction to a change in meds. As Raider5678 mentioned, it could be the beginning of an infection as well, so if it persists you may need to see a professional.

People's perception of their ability to multitask is almost always exaggerated. As mentioned above, switching between tasks is often much more difficult than we give it credit for. There are some things that go well together, such as the multiple tasks involved in cooking a meal. The other night I was making bacon cheeseburgers with seasoned fries. I had separate timers going for the the bacon in the top oven, the fries in the bottom oven, and the burgers on the grill, chopping up the veg while I waited for a timer to tell me to flip something (yes, I labeled the timers on my phone, "bacon", "burgers", & "fries"). Everything was going well until my sister-in-law asked me about something in my schedule for the next day. I told her I had too much going on at the moment to think about tomorrow. I didn't think it would throw me off as much as it did, but my burgers ended up two minutes behind the rest, and it usually works out perfectly. I read an hypothesis quite a while ago that proposed women are better at seeing the bigger, strategic picture because they spent so long evolving as the "gatherers", while men became much more tactically oriented as the "hunters". I remember it seemed to make an intuitive sort of sense, but didn't have much evidence by experiment to back it up. It seems to me that women in general tend to think about a broader range of things that extend farther into the future, where men in general seem better at focused, short term goals. Unfortunately, since then a study found that actually men are better at identifying targets from farther away. Intuition is a bitch.

Since the word "cleaners" was used, I took it to be an envelope you'd attach to clothes you wanted cleaned or pressed, or shoes shined. I don't use those services much when I travel, but it wouldn't occur to me to tip the dry cleaner/launderer. I'd assume they were paid better, but I'd tip the person who brought the clothes back to my room. The housekeepers always get tipped $2/day/bed in cash, which I put on the bed so they know it's for them. That's got to be a total drudge job, mostly neutral and mundane, but also full of crabby travelers at their most put out, and only saved by the really nice people who like to enjoy instead of nitpick, and treat you like a person instead of a caricature of wealthy person's maid.

In analyzing the discussions on coin tosses we have going, I came across a question that might have derailed the other threads, so I'll open it here. Persi Diaconis had Harvard engineers build him a coin-flipping machine for a series of studies. Apparently the device could be adjusted to flip either heads or tails repeatedly. I assumed the next natural test would be to see if the machine could be calibrated to flip a coin on its edge every time, but I couldn't find anything on that. How easily/cheaply could a device be made that flips a coin onto its edge (virtually) every time?

People who know they need help with a concept don't normally walk in claiming it's wrong, they claim it's hard. I'll show you how this looks: You walk into the locker room of an NFL football team at halftime and say, "I know you guys are professional football players and I'm not, but I've been studying football for a while, and though I've never played, I know exactly how to play the perfect game of football. What you've been doing is wrong, and while I can't explain why in terms you'll understand, you're just going to have to take my word on this." Now imagine the head coach of the NFL team looks at you and responds in much the same way the members did to you here. Now imagine you respond with this: Dude, if you had questions, you should have asked questions.

I think you're trying to force some importance on balance it may not have. You'd have to explain why you think evolution relies on imbalance. What we observe is that it relies more on selecting advantageous adaptations over time within a population. Also, because of the way chemistry works, your comments about complexity are wrong. "Forces bring balance in times of imbalance" is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness, yet you seem to be using like an axiom. Your knowledge seems full of holes to be speculating based on it. There is balance in having oxygen around flammable carbon in wood, and balance in the resulting chemistry of fire when heat is added. But there are imbalances as well, and the same forces that can create a complex life form also dictate when simplicity is best. Unfortunately, your concept of balance assumes one thing is equal to another in terms of balance, which is hardly supported and seems more like wishful thinking as opposed to reasoned speculation.

Because life is better at using energy from the sun, and can develop and repeat and improve and refine processes that non-life can't. I also think you're confusing yourself with the idea of "appear out of nowhere". Appear? Nowhere? Not the words I would use to describe any of the situations present in a young Earth.

Why is life a form of balance for "turbulent earth"? Life is actually much more efficient at using light from the sun than non-life is, so it really doesn't balance anything. Why is thinking a form of balance for instincts? Again, intelligence seems to be a property that's been evolved from instincts, a more efficient form rather than some kind of balancing influence. Actually, many natural reactions couldn't happen without an imbalance.

I figure I can't be generous enough to servers to compensate for the pittance paid by their employers, so I tip to please myself. Everyone gets at least 15% (I can't think of the last time a server was so bad I didn't give them anything, and I would never leave an "insult tip" in coin). If you did a good job I tip 18%, and if you were outstanding somehow I kick in an extra five or ten bucks. I do it because it makes me feel good. I know the server really needs it, because the system treats them like dirt, but I've found I'm more generous when I view tipping as something that brightens my day, rather than as charity for a deserving but underpaid worker. Weird maybe, but it works for me. One of the cheesiest, most awful touristy restaurants in Denver has a system I wish more places would emulate. You can get a busy server to stop by your table by raising a decorative flag on your table. Leave it down if you don't wish to be disturbed. I mention this because while it's wonderful to have a server who respects that my meal conversation is important, when I actually do need service I have to split my attention between my companion and looking for the server to signal them.

! Moderator Note Then you need to open a blog, because this is not behavior befitting discussion, especially in a mainstream section here at SFN. You need to reconsider why you're here if you're so close-minded.

I see much of the craziness in the House bill as an amalgam of wealthy Republicans who have their own coverage and don't care what lesser people have, and the religious right Republicans who don't want public funds to help those with lifestyles they disapprove of.

! Moderator Note Moved from Science News (which this is NOT) to Speculations (due to its non-mainstream proposals).

! Moderator Note Science isn't interested in what you "believe". Dimensions are a well-known part of modern science, so if you've got some other idea, you're going to need to show why it's better than current mainstream theory that has mountains of evidence supporting it. You can try to support your non-mainstream ideas in our Speculations section, but be aware that it's not a place for guesswork. Support your concepts, please.

We are equally agreeable to JohnLesser 's request to be banned.

! Moderator Note Please make sure your family spells it correctly on the tombstone. Violation of rule 2.3, hazardous procedure description. Thread closed.

Thank you, I thought it was just me. It sure would be nice to have the time to ponder unfalsifiable concepts, and the resources to pour down rabbit-holes.