October 31; 7 BILLION people on Earth

[Seze Mune]

I think our population growth is more of something of a Sine wave, where the negative peak is > 0, obviously that we don't go extinct (and all animals, for that matter). Plus, I don't see carrying capacity as a "phase" on the curve, but more as a threshold line on the curve, in which three phases: incline, stabilization, and decline. For an organism in equilibrium with it's environment, the + peak will always level out soon after crossing the threshold of carrying capacity, before declining, stabilizing, and inclining again (without declining too far, thus putting the organism in danger). In other words, an animal in equilibrium will follow a low amplitude, low frequency sine curve. Unfortunately the further the species goes beyond the threshold line, and the more it stretches it's resources, the shorter the frequency in the line will become, as well as amplitude (meaning the - peak will become closer to 0), and the more abrupt the transition from incline > stabilization > decline will become. The fact that a wave (and our cycle) can stay on the incline phase for quite a while while passing the CC threshold is why I say we might have passed the line already and not even know it, and we are also unaware of the approaching abrupt curve changes.

Wou, tse that sine wave is WAY over my head. o.O

[guest2859]

I think our population growth is more of something of a Sine wave, where the negative peak is > 0, obviously that we don't go extinct (and all animals, for that matter). Plus, I don't see carrying capacity as a "phase" on the curve, but more as a threshold line on the curve, in which three phases: incline, stabilization, and decline. For an organism in equilibrium with it's environment, the + peak will always level out soon after crossing the threshold of carrying capacity, before declining, stabilizing, and inclining again (without declining too far, thus putting the organism in danger). In other words, an animal in equilibrium will follow a low amplitude, low frequency sine curve. Unfortunately the further the species goes beyond the threshold line, and the more it stretches it's resources, the shorter the frequency in the line will become, as well as amplitude (meaning the - peak will become closer to 0), and the more abrupt the transition from incline > stabilization > decline will become. The fact that a wave (and our cycle) can stay on the incline phase for quite a while while passing the CC threshold is why I say we might have passed the line already and not even know it, and we are also unaware of the approaching abrupt curve changes.

Wou, tse that sine wave is WAY over my head. o.O

I could get into Trigonometry to explain it all, but it's complicated.

I think on a global scale, the "Facist" (Illuminati Preset, just an example) Population of 2 billion would be the carrying capacity, without sudden loss or droughts like we've been getting. So, if I put it that, we have 7 billion, 3.5x more than the Earth really could manage completely. So, basically we should be getting to a point where the population actually declines. So, based on my amateur estimate, i'd say at about 8 billion, we'd start seeing a decline somewhere, even though many areas might already be seeing this. (Again, just a guess) So, we could basically say:

Y= 8,000,000,000sin(x)
Y= 2,000,000,000

Might be the non-time based graph I would expect to see, maybe others, but that's just my view. So, though we seem fine now, I'm sure many places in the world are already suffering from this. (I'll let you guys decide that)

[Tsmuktengan]

Are you sure all this stuff is linked with maths? I have my doubts...

[guest2859]

Are you sure all this stuff is linked with maths? I have my doubts...

Not saying there is a math link, I'm just putting out what I think other people could understand.

['Itan Atxur]

Everything is linked to math in one way or another.

[archaic]

Creativity?

Soul?

Inspiration?

[Seze Mune]

Creativity?

Soul?

Inspiration?

Love?

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Creativity?

Soul?

Inspiration?

Love?

All linked to math. There is a function called "Random Number" for creativity. As for the soul, it wouldn't exist if not for math, since existence and casuality itself is linked to logic, which is linked to math. As for love, you love something to a certain degree based on a few parameters, so love could be modeled as a function with a huge number of inputs with an output - output larger than 0 is love, smaller than 0 is hate. Simple 

['Itan Atxur]

Creativity?

Soul?

Inspiration?

Love?

I agree with Uniltírantokx. Creativity, inspiration, and love all come from the mind. I don't believe in "soul" so to me at that's neither here nor there.

All linked to math. There is a function called "Random Number" for creativity. As for the soul, it wouldn't exist if not for math, since existence and casuality itself is linked to logic, which is linked to math. As for love, you love something to a certain degree based on a few parameters, so love could be modeled as a function with a huge number of inputs with an output - output larger than 0 is love, smaller than 0 is hate. Simple 

[archaic]

Um, no that's assigning a numeric value. You could assign anything, color, letters, types of truck. Running up and pinning a number on something does not mean that it is inherently number driven.
Any more than pinning a note on somebody's back that reads 'Kick me' makes them a masochist.

[Seze Mune]

Um, no that's assigning a numeric value. You could assign anything, color, letters, types of truck. Running up and pinning a number on something does not mean that it is inherently number driven.
Any more than pinning a note on somebody's back that reads 'Kick me' makes them a masochist.

I'm voting with archaic.   

In my opinion, being able to reduce something to math doesn't mean you grok it.  Doesn't mean you actually comprehend it, iow.  If you reduce love to numbers, what does that do for ya? Certainly doesn't explain it in experiential terms at all.  You could probably reduce the color 'red' to numbers, but how would that explain one's experience of 'red' to a blind man? 

If in a cosmic sense the totality of life could be experienced and explained solely numerically, of what value is human life, or any kind of life at all?  There would be no reason in it....or let me put it this way, there would be no sense in it, and I mean that on several levels.

Math is only a language, and language by its very nature is limiting. They are reductionistic. It is only a stand in for 'the thing' it attempts to describe, and is never 'the thing' itself.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Math is the only sense and the only reason.

[Seze Mune]

Math is the only sense and the only reason.

All the math in the world could not create a flower.  Seems to me it takes more than that, ma letstunwia tsmukan.

[guest2859]

Math is the only sense and the only reason.

All the math in the world could not create a flower.  Seems to me it takes more than that, ma letstunwia tsmukan.

My calculus teacher brought up that Euler's constant is a number ( 2 < e < 3 ) that can be derived from Nature, and she even tried to count that number on a plant she has. She say's it's real, but I've yet to find it.

[Key'ìl Nekxetse]

All the math in the world could not create a flower.  Seems to me it takes more than that, ma letstunwia tsmukan.

Er, well, it sort of can. Try looking at Lindenmayer Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system#Example_8:_Fractal_plant
Although I admit that example isn't a flower, it can do flowers with some modifications and adding some random factors makes the result more realistic.
On the other hand, without a "theory of everything" I don't see a sensible way that things can be reduced to only mathematical expressions; at best all the mathematical models we have are just approximations of reality. This includes things like Newton's laws, Relativity and PI (the name is accurate, but we can only have approximations for its real value).

[Seze Mune]

All the math in the world could not create a flower.  Seems to me it takes more than that, ma letstunwia tsmukan.

Er, well, it sort of can. Try looking at Lindenmayer Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system#Example_8:_Fractal_plant
Although I admit that example isn't a flower, it can do flowers with some modifications and adding some random factors makes the result more realistic.
On the other hand, without a "theory of everything" I don't see a sensible way that things can be reduced to only mathematical expressions; at best all the mathematical models we have are just approximations of reality. This includes things like Newton's laws, Relativity and PI (the name is accurate, but we can only have approximations for its real value).

The fractal plant is interesting, ma Key'ìl.  If you applied it to a real plant, it wouldn't entirely fit because there can be so many anomalous variations.  And I don't see how it would cover spontaneous mutations, either.  Certainly you could write a mathematical description for the mutation after it occurred, but that wouldn't be predictive - and I think the value of math is partially - if not primarily - its predictive quality. 

As you say, "...at best all the mathematical models we have are just approximations of reality."  I can agree with that!

[Seze Mune]

Back to the topic (and to further the discussion at hand), here is a very interesting Reuters article entitled" Extra billions can be fed, but who will pay the tab?"

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE79O6C620111025?rpc=969&ca=moto&feedType=RSS&feedName=lifestyleMolt

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

All the math in the world could not create a flower.  Seems to me it takes more than that, ma letstunwia tsmukan.

Er, well, it sort of can. Try looking at Lindenmayer Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-system#Example_8:_Fractal_plant
Although I admit that example isn't a flower, it can do flowers with some modifications and adding some random factors makes the result more realistic.
On the other hand, without a "theory of everything" I don't see a sensible way that things can be reduced to only mathematical expressions; at best all the mathematical models we have are just approximations of reality. This includes things like Newton's laws, Relativity and PI (the name is accurate, but we can only have approximations for its real value).

Quantum theory does say that there is a random component to the real world. But aren't random numbers also numbers?

I'm not saying that the world can be reduced to Newtonian/Classical physics with no random numbers. However, anything is either determined or random. So, controversial statement follows: Blah Blah Blah. In other words, everything is based on some subset of math.

[Seze Mune]

In other words, everything is based on some subset of math.

Holy cow, I have an absolutely awesome intuitive grasp of higher math, then!!   

[guest2859]

In other words, everything is based on some subset of math.

Holy cow, I have an absolutely awesome intuitive grasp of higher math, then!!   

4^295x = My Hand ... anything change?