Re: Did prime numbers evolve?

On Apr 13, 5:48 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lorentz wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:28 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, of course they did. Prime numbers are concepts in human brains,
and human brains obviously evolved. Prime numbers have no independent
existence outside of human minds. If humans went extinct, prime numbers

To expand on your thesis, the prime numbers would go extinct when
the insects that use them go extinct. Certain insects reach maturity
and swarm periodically. Concsider the seven year locust. Almost all of
them use a period of time equal to a prime number of years.
Why a prime number? Well, if they reach maturity at the same
time there will be too many of them available for predators to eat.
That is unless the predator swarms with a period equal to the number
of years divided by an integer. By swarming with a prime number
period, an insect minimizes it chance of being eaten.

This theory is a bit of a reach. Why doesn't the seven year locust
swarm with a period of three, five or eleven years?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-cicadas.htm
"In fact, scientists have observed that the life cycle of cicadas
seems uniquely designed to ensure survival. Both annuals and
periodicals tend to hatch and grow to maturity in prime numbers, 2, 3,
5, 7, and up to 17."
The prime number behavior has more than one fitness advantage. For
alternate explanations of this well studied correlation, read:
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20040519/Feature1.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicicada
I first read about this correlation in a book by Dawkins, which I
forgot.

These are prime
numbers as well. And why don't the predators just swarm with a period
of one year, or of seven years if their existence is central to being
able to prey upon the locust.
For the individual predator, swarming only increases the
competition for food. If the predator swarms at the same time, there
are more of that species around at that year to compete for resources.
The individual prey, on the other hand, has safety in numbers.
A similar mechanism explains why many prey animals travel in
groups. For example, fish often travel in schools. When a predator
comes, it can only attack so many fish. The individual fish has a
better chance to escape if it is surrounded by alternative targets.
With a period of one year, the predators
could feast upon any insect species no matter what the prey >species period was.
Which is why few predators have such long cycles. Of course, most
predators are prey to something else. I am sure the cicadas prey on
something, if only on a plant. Their genome would love to reproduce
every year, munching that poor defenseless plant. Their main problem
is that they are the prey of something else. So it is in the
individual cicadas advantage to defer maturity until all the other
cicadas are out. This way, the cicada has the best chance of surviving
to make other cicadas.


The insects have absolutely no awareness that they are swarming with a
prime number period, let alone that that prime number is part of an
infinite set of prime numbers with a common property.
I was being slightly facetious to make a point. Your implicit
assumption is that something only exists if a human being thinks of
its existence in words. I can not believe that a word, even from such
a smart species such as ourselves, can bring something into existence.
You can't build a cat out of a poem.
You are assuming that only human beings, in fact only human beings
that know mathematics, actually perceive the existence of prime
numbers. This may be or may not be true. However, the only way we know
that human mathematicians perceive prime numbers is by their behavior.
They say so verbally and in writing. If everyone forgets math, but an
artist nonverbally learns to use prime numbers in his paintings, does
that still mean he doesn't perceive of prime numbers? How about an
animal.
More than 90% of our minds work on a nonverbal levels. I do not
wish to say "unconscious level," as I think our use of pictures and
words are conscious in a sense. Just because an animal doesn't talk
doesn't mean it doesn't have a clear image of the physical feature of
the world that stimulates its behavior.
I'll sum it up in three points:
1) I don't know how you can be so sure that behavior and perception
are totally separate.
2) I don't see how you can be sure that only human beings, and no
other organism, have any sort of perception.
3) I don't see why you can be so sure that perception is necessary for
the existence of a physical universe.

If perception is physically real, then it can probably evolve
like every other physically real quantity. Physical reality comes
first.

You are right in saying the insect probably has no perception of
using prime numbersA behavior does not always imply perception. On the
other hand, you are making an implicit assumption which is just as
bad. You are implying that behavior and perception are totally
uncorrelated.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: yellow and black
    ... more likely to evolve in harmful insects than ... Camouflage would do you no good, because predators ... the poison. ... Anything BUT the lowest common denominator ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yellow and black
    ... scheme to appear harmful. ... colouration than non-harmful insects. ... common pattern because that allows the potential predators to learn to ... wasps and bees, and this is mimicry, but why are the wasps and bees ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: yellow and black
    ... more likely to evolve in harmful insects than ... Camouflage would do you no good, ... if an animal has two predators with different ... aposematism can be made flexible by becoming capable of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wasps
    ... planet's existence at least. ... Insects have been around for about 415 million years, ... consolation. ... Tim C. ...
    (uk.rec.gardening)
Quantcast