If orgasms felt bad, people would avoid them, and very few people would reproduce.

Quite a few things about the reproductive process can feel bad. Ask any woman with a yeast infection or any guy with an exposed wound on his genitals (perhaps from an STD). The sexual drive is more than just the superficially sensual. And very few organisms are documented to experience the kind of chemical release associated with it, despite all of them engaging in reproductive activity.

The orgasmic release has a long-term social role, encouraging pair bonding between partners and inhibiting aggression in the male immediately afterwards. So maybe less an incentive to have sex and more an incentive not to kill your mate when you're done.

Same as every other evolved feature. Random mutation results in better reproduction. If orgasms felt bad, people would avoid them, and very few people would reproduce. For people who they feel good, they seek that reward, and reproduce more.

The physical motion of the billiards is two-dimensional, but wouldn’t the phase space be four-dimensional (since it tracks both position and momentum)?

I think the reason chaos needs at least three-dimensional phase space for continuous-time systems is that the orbits in phase space can’t intersect (which the paths of the billiards in real space obviously do).

Some further reading has led me to hyperchaos:

A hyperchaotic system is a dynamical system with a bounded attractor set, on which there are at least two positive Lyapunov exponents. Since on an attractor, the sum of Lyapunov exponents is non-positive, there must be at least one negative Lyapunov exponent. If the system has continuous time, then along the trajectory, the Lyapunov exponent is zero, and so the minimal number of dimensions in which continuous-time hyperchaos can occur is 4.

I'm not sure what the author had in mind exactly, but it's not accurate that at least 3D is required in continuous-time systems.

A common example in 2D is the chaotic billiard.

I am not familiar with the book and haven't studied strange attractors.

I edited/clarified my comment before I saw your reply—apparently the restriction to three dimensions only apples to continuous-time systems, which is what I had in mind when I posted the question.

"Chaos" describes dynamical systems that exhibit sensitivity to initial conditions. This can be made mathematically precise, but it boils down to when you start with two initial conditions that are "close," they will after some "sufficient" time be "far apart."

For example, turbulent air flow is an example of a chaotic system. This is fundamentally the reason why weather forecasts become less accurate further in the future. The data that goes into the weather model does not have infinite precision, small errors eventually lead to large deviations in the state of the system.

Hmm... the book I was reading (Complex and Adaptive Dynamical Systems by Claudius Gros) actually said strange attractors only occur in three dimensions or higher, but I changed that to “chaos” in the title to fit the character limit—I thought they were essentially synonymous.

Here’s the quote:

Strange attractors can only occur in dynamical system of dimension three and higher, in one dimension fixpoints are the only possible attracting states and one needs at least two dimensions for limit cycles.

Edit: I see that Gros clarifies a few paragraphs later:

Chaos may arise in one dimensional maps ... but continuous-time dynamical systems need to be at least three dimensional in order to show chaotic behavior.

I guess I was mentally thinking of continuous-time systems, but there was no room to fit that in the title.

Blood speed isn't a particularly useful metric. We're typically more interested in the volume of blood circulated, as that is a better measurement of blood (and therefore oxygen) delivered to end-organs. Most organs are very good at regulating the speed of flow through their supply, and are more dependent on volume of flow.

One of the more useful measurements we look at is cardiac output (CO). It's just the stroke volume (how many ml of blood is squirted out of the heart every heartbeat) multiplied by the heart rate. This tells you how many ml of blood are sent into circulation every minute. Doppler imaging can be used to show flow speed, though that's much less useful. Measuring CO is relatively easy to measure and is a useful measurement of how much blood is being made available to end organs. The heart rate is very easy to count or calculate, but the stroke volume does require an ultrasound study (preferably a transesophageal study). For an even more useful measurement, you can divide that CO by the person's total body surface area to get the cardiac index (CI) this gives you a more standardized number from person to person, which allows a more meaningful comparison than CO alone.

Wait, could you post me a link so I can learn about the things you mentioned?

Chaos can occur in 1+1D systems (1 spatial-like, 1 timelike dimension). A basic example is the logistic map.

Counterintuitively, systems with 4 and higher dimensions can often be simpler than 3D systems in a certain sense, because mean-field theories are often more easily applied to 4D+ systems.

The wiki link is very general, can you explain the mathematical meaning of causality?

My answer would have been that no, 3D systems already display all known behaviors of dynamical systems.

It varies depending on where in the body you measure. It's also function of your heart rate. A heart will pump up to about half a cup per beat, and that will be replaced by the next heartbeat. To transfer that volume to speed, we need to think about the size of the vessel- the aorta is large, so that half a cup doesn't have to move far to make room for the next lot in the next heartbeat. However, counter intuitively, this doesn't mean it moves faster in the smaller vessels. Because there is a greater total cross sectional area across all of the small vessels, it slows down. The water in the big hose moves quick, to supply lots and lots of small hoses which move slow. Searching around tells me it ranges from a fast walking speed in the aorta, to something like the second hand on a watch in some capillaries with a low oxygen requirement.

There isn't a simple answer here since your blood is in all kinds of places with varying pressures and moves to a beat and not continuously, meaning that the speed is different at any given moment. What you can calculate is how long it takes for all of your blood to do a full circulation through your heart.

For a 70kg man, an average heart should have a stroke volume of 90ml (the amount of blood pushed out by a single heart beat) if we divide 5.5L by that we get about 61 beats per full circulation, with a heartbeat of 65bpm this would be about 56 seconds.

So the closest "speed" i can give you is something like 0.94 circulations per minute.

Search up laser speckle velocimetry or metrology. That's the latest tech.

The thing is he probably didn't know how his grandma with Alzheimer's pooped, it probably wasn't good

Maybe the disease was always psychosomatic?

They finally had sale my grandfather truck when he torn down a fence. When they asked what he was doing he said he was going to the store for beer. He hadn't drank in 20 years. It fucked up a dease and the one I fear the most.

My grandmother had celiac disease. Always had special breads, snacks, cookies, the works.

In her last couple years, several years into her Alzheimer's, her body seemingly forgot or just got over that. When she did eat, she'd often ask for doughnuts and other treats she couldn't have before, and for whatever reason was just fine.

No good explanation, but always piqued my interest

My Grandfather just ended up forgetting that he just had a drink. Sometimes it was funny but most times it was not.

Considering people with alzheimers or dementia can forget to eat and drink an they'll just die, I'd say it's a real possibility. Though... Considering how messed up hardcore alcoholics look, I'd also say there's a good chance they'll die of organ failure before they're hit with dementia.

How would you implant the digital personality into a flesh body. Also, the way current machine learning large language models (what is currently called AI, and for this case, I think there must be a distinction) generate responses are not the ways a sentient generates responses, so the created being would not have the personality of someone, they would be closer to someone doing an impersonation. To see what I mean, tell ChatGPT to act like a celebrity you are familiar with, and talk with it over a long period of time. It will eventually get worse, and worse and worse as the conversation continues.

The only way we know that gravity acts in nature is based on mass. We have no real grasp of the mechanism, only that mass exerts it on other mass and the greater the mass, the greater the exertion. It's likely that gravity acts in a way that we can not perceive (maybe another spacial plane above the 3rd) and so we are unlikely to truly understand it unless we invest significant effort into a lot of types of non-practical physics research before we can get to even begin the practical stuff.

That's unlikely in current economic systems that heavily rely on capitalim since the majority of investment will always be in things that can create short term profit. Minimal funding is able to get diverted to the pursuit of knowledge that won't yield results for decades or possibly a century. So it will take many centuries at the current investment rate unless some accidental discovery is made that advances it significantly.

Woah. I want a real-world DBZ gravity room.