Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Douglas got it wrong, the answer isn't 42 it's 37

Reply
Created by decrepit > 9 months ago, 23 Dec 2014
decrepit
WA, 12812 posts
23 Dec 2014 6:57PM
Thumbs Up

This looks very interesting but don't tell the intelligent designers, they'll have a different take.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg22430000-900-is-the-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything-37/?ignored=irrelevant

KiwiDave
VIC, 192 posts
23 Dec 2014 10:37PM
Thumbs Up

I'll never forget reading Mr Adams' book on a beach in Fiji. I found the answer to be profoundly satisfying, it was like a weight lifted off of my sholders!

The meaning of life is whatever you decide it is. For me that is mathematics. So not too far from 42.

But 37. I'm not ready for that.

Darkspi
SA, 171 posts
23 Dec 2014 11:52PM
Thumbs Up

I watched the movie and the mice plainly said the answer to life the universe and everything was 42 I choose to believe the talking mice rather then some kook from Kazakhstan

woooot 100 posts celebration !!

Davage
VIC, 182 posts
24 Dec 2014 1:52PM
Thumbs Up

And more importantly I bet you never forget to pack a towel.

GreenPat
QLD, 4098 posts
24 Dec 2014 6:11PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
decrepit said..
This looks very interesting



Select to expand quote
newscientist.com said..
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.

Cambodge
VIC, 851 posts
24 Dec 2014 11:27PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
GreenPat said...
decrepit said..
This looks very interesting



newscientist.com said..
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.




Hint....copy-paste...cough...any...cough...subscribers...cough...out there?...cough

decrepit
WA, 12812 posts
24 Dec 2014 8:28PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
GreenPat said..

decrepit said..
This looks very interesting





newscientist.com said..
To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.




Sorry greenpat, I'd copy and paste, but it's a long article. But the gist is that the scientists, investigated numbers in the genetic code and found some strange patterns.
here's some excerpts


Select to expand quote

A cosmologist and astrobiologist at the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Makukov says the numbers reveal that all terrestrial life came from outer space. Not only that, it was planted on Earth by intelligent aliens. Billions of years ago, the planet was barren and lifeless. But then, at some distant and unknowable moment, it was seeded with what Makukov calls an "intelligent-like signal" – a signal that is too orderly and intricate to have occurred randomly.
This signal, he says, is in our genetic code. Highly preserved across cosmological timescales, it has been waiting there, like an encrypted message, for anyone qualified to read it. All of the teeming varieties of life on Earth – from kangaroos and daffodils to albatrosses and us – carry it within them. And now Makukov, along with his mentor, mathematician Vladmir shCherbak of the al-Farabi Kazakh National University in Almaty, claims to have cracked it. If they are right, the answer to life, the universe and everything is... 37.


Select to expand quote


To test the idea, Makukov and shCherbak devised a mathematical approach to analyse the code, searching for patterns unlikely to occur at random. Their arguments are often dense and impenetrable, filled with complex mathematical formulae. But at heart, Makukov says, "it's very simple". The genetic code is like some type of combinatorial puzzle, he says. In other words, once you begin to analyse it, hidden regularities emerge. "It was clear right away that the code has a non-random structure," says Makukov. "The patterns that we describe are not simply non-random. They have some features that, at least from our point of view, were very hard to ascribe to natural processes." Exhibit A is Rumer's transformation. In 1966, Soviet mathematician Yuri Rumer pointed out that the genetic code can be divided neatly in half (see "Rumer's transformation"). One half is the "whole family" codons, in which all four codons with the same two initial letters code for the same amino acid. The AC family, for instance, is "whole" because codons beginning AC code for threonine. On the other are "split family" codons, which don't have this property. Rumer first noted that there is no good reason why exactly half of the codons should be whole. More profoundly, he also realised that applying a simple rule – swapping T for G, and A for C – converts one half of the code into the other. That might sound inevitable, but it is not. In 1996, mathematician Olga Zhaksybayeva of the al-Farabi Kazakh National University calculated that the probability of it occurring by chance is 3.09 × 10-32. And Rumer's transformation is just one of many patterns and symmetries within the code. Another example: you can create a subset of codons including those with three identical bases (AAA, say) and those with three unique bases (GTC, say). Using a Rumer-type transformation, these 28 codons can be divided into two groups each with a combined total atomic mass of 1665, and a combined "side chain" atomic mass of 703 (see "Transformation #2"). Both are multiples of the prime number 37, which has interesting mathematical properties of its own (see "Symmetries of 37").




TheSailingMoose
VIC, 142 posts
24 Dec 2014 11:29PM
Thumbs Up

the ultimate answer might be 42 but the tricky part is working out what the question is in the first place :P

decrepit
WA, 12812 posts
24 Dec 2014 9:07PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
TheSailingMoose said..
the ultimate answer might be 42 but the tricky part is working out what the question is in the first place :P


Actually that's the easy one.

What's 6 X 7?

Pitbull
WA, 1267 posts
25 Dec 2014 10:01AM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
TheSailingMoose said..
the ultimate answer might be 42 but the tricky part is working out what the question is in the first place :P


The question is - 'How Many Roads Must a Man Walk Down'

quikdrawMcgraw
1221 posts
25 Dec 2014 4:27PM
Thumbs Up

Im good at maff too 25kn and im ****in out there

NotWal
QLD, 7435 posts
25 Dec 2014 10:49PM
Thumbs Up

Geez that's all we need. Wait 'til the Intelligent Design crew get hold of this

Mahanumah
VIC, 336 posts
26 Dec 2014 7:42PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
decrepit said...
TheSailingMoose said..
the ultimate answer might be 42 but the tricky part is working out what the question is in the first place :P


Actually that's the easy one.

What's 6 X 7?


Slightly wrong... the question was "What do you get if you multiply 6 by 9"...

Kinda says it all really...

As for 37... Dennis wasn't and old woman... he was only 37...

Cambodge
VIC, 851 posts
27 Dec 2014 7:44AM
Thumbs Up

The more information you handle, the more noise that looks like a pattern but isn't.

gkawo
VIC, 193 posts
27 Dec 2014 9:25AM
Thumbs Up

I think it's most likely to be the average of the two

evlPanda
NSW, 9207 posts
28 Dec 2014 6:00PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Cambodge said..
The more information you handle, the more noise that looks like a pattern but isn't.

That's what I think too. And even though the chances of something occurring may be incredibly remote given enough time anything is possible.

However I am also pretty sure that the researchers know all this.

DNA is incredibly tough. It has built in error correction. Modern example of this is the lack of birth defects post Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We expected generations of defects but they petered out after one generation.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Douglas got it wrong, the answer isn't 42 it's 37" started by decrepit