Two logic puzzles


What envelope have the dollar?

Have two envelopes on a table but just one of them have a dollar. In the envelopes have affirmations that are true or false.

One say:

This envelope have a dollar!

The other say:

Exactly one envelope lies.

What envelope have the dollar?

If the second envelope lies, it means that both are false: The affirmation that the first envelope have a dollar is false (then the second have the dollar). Or both are true, if both are true then the affirmation that exactly one envelope lies, is false too.

Then the second envelope affirmation is true and the first is false, the second contain the dollar, the proof is done.

What is the color of your hat?

You and the characters of the present story, know that have three red hats and two blue.

Every story character selected a single hat randomly, but without seeing the color the hat that he caught. Those are with the eyes closed.

The goal of each character was guess the color of his own hat. If they are right, them his win a lot of money, otherwise they are decapitated. But someone can desist just by saying that they do not known.

They stood in line and opened the eyes. Of course nobody can see their own hat.

But everyone can see the hat color of who is in their front.

The last of the line that see the two in the front said “I not know“.
The middle one, that just see the first of the line, said “I not know“.
The front said such colorand are right, what is “such color”,  red or blue?


First because the last of the line said that his do not know?

Because they do not saw two blue hats, otherwise they know that his hat color is red. He saw one red and the other blue or two reds.

Then because the middle on the line said that his do not know? Because they do not see a blue hat. If he had seem a blue hat, will know that they hat a red. Then they see a red hat. The first used the reasoning that we are using now and are right. The color of his hat is red.

The sociecity irrational prejudice against GMO

I think that Avaaz should not be used for theological, reactionary campaigns against the progress of science. I also think that fanatic, irrational conservationism is a reactionary viewpoint.

My opinion on this subject is the following:

1) Theological thought says that genetic research is “playing God”, a sin and an unmoral work. They are afraid that science challenges  theological dogmas. But for propaganda reasons, many times they do not appeal to theological arguments, but they use ethical and pseudo-scientific arguments. “Ad ignorantiam” reasoning are frequently used to emphasize the danger of the unknown. The main critic to doctor Frankesntein is made in this sense: he is playing God, because only God can create life. The name “Frankestein fish” suggest this theological viewpoint: “non tangitur” (does not touch!) because is God work.

2) But neither God nor the “wise nature” made a fine work, because every year born thousand of children with genetic disorders caused by DNA mutation.

3) Genetically modified organism (GMO) are not more dangerous that naturally random modifications of the DNA. Biochemical variations “n’ai pas d’oleur”, do not matter how this happen. A naturally random modification of DNA is not different that human made modification of DNA. As biochemical modifications both are identical. Analogously, NaCl is only NaCl independent of how been obtained.

4) Scientific genetic engineering is essentially not different that traditional artificial selection methods. The wheat of our every day bread is also a Frankestein, but that was obtained in thousand of years: it does not have pairs of chromosomes, as  you, I and the mushrooms, but it is hexaploid, i.e. it has three pairs of chromosomes.

5) Theological thought also yields the old fashion, scientifically incorrect “equilibrium ecology”. Nature has an equilibrium, ecosystems have an equilibrium and always it is preferable do not modify this equilibrium, said this erroneous view. Many modern research does not share this. For example: “periods of equilibrium are often interrupted by even longer periods of nonequilibrium”, “Evidence for nonsaturation and nonequilibrium in ecological communities is more convincing than evidence for saturation” (see at the end of this e-mail). Mass extinction is happen today, now.

6) “Long term testing” for a fish meat is a delirium. There are poisonous fishes and other problems with fish food, but long term testing make no sense. I ask you: “if is not a GMO, but a natural being: do you demand long term testing?” For example, if coelacanth fish becomes very common and many people would eat it: do you question for a long term testing? I doubt.

7) The humankind, long time ago, has extincted many species in an irresponsible way. Many examples can be cited: the megafauna, tiger of tasmania, etc. Today humankind can create and extinguish species intentionally. The variola virus is practically extinct, for example. The “Frankestein salmon” probably causes the extinction of the wild salmon. Sanctuaries for the wild salmon, storage of its DNA, etc., can be made to prevent eventually “ecological disaster”, as the rabbits in Australia. But our level of prediction is very limited in this and similar cases. I think that the humankind should assume this “calculated risk”. The extinction of a species is not a bad thing by it itself: it depends of many circumstances. The irrational, fanatic conservationism: “no species should be extinct” ignores the modern ecology and the history of the life in this planet and, for these reasons, it is a reactionary viewpoint. This is another form of “non tangitur” (does not touch!), with theological prejudices.

8) If you defend the humans rights, then you are very concert with the malnutrition in the world. See the statistics:

Any human being with hungry hurts my heart. Some countries of Africa needs urgently food assistance, for example. The research in GMO is a very hope against the hungry in the world. We should be very careful in this matter for does not stopping GMO research. If I have to choose between the food for a child and the extinction of the wild salmon, you already know my response.

9) I am not ignorant that the way that companies and corporations behave. “Res non verba”, they only seek to profit, while they talk about ecology. For this cause, they should be controlled. I am not against this control.

10) I think that we need to change the pseudo ecological discourse by scientific criteria and do not mixture theological or mystical viewpoints with scientific ones. Ecology do made more testing prior to become a militant cause. But the ecological militant cause actually assumes many times anti-scientific premisses which are forms of conservatism. Irrational conservationism is conservatism. Non tangitur species, non tangitur climate, because they have hungry but we have food. Avaaz said that wants to change the world. The environment, the species, the DNA are part of the world. I want to change the world. As a part of the world, I want to change the ecosystems, the nature, the species, the DNA, the environment, the climate of the planet and many other things.

11) I am not against the propagation of theological or mystical viewpoints. I am against the diffusion of this viewpoints as scientific or ethical ones. Or another form which disguises their theology, religion or mystic behind they.

Apologize the bad English.

Carlos Gonzalez

Klaus Rohde, “Nonequilibrium ecology”,Cambridge University Press, 2005,  p. 182,

Logic and time

I expect the reader of the present text to have some knowledge on set theory. And have been read the previous post about philosophy.

If the time is really 1D, I expect it to be static, not dynamic as supposed. Something static with some mathematical properties, such like, time arrow.

You can get a moment to think, now I’m reading a text about I reading a text … And it is very real to me. I can feel, that this is happening now, is not the future and is not the past.

But, now, when you remember that precious moment, you see that this moment is past. But you remember too, that you felt so precisely that this moment are present and not past.

The time are a illusion generated by the human brain too. Because one are so real as other, then if these moments are true observation of the “real world”(what is false), then different things are occurring at the same time. What show that they can’t be the “real world”, because we never see different and contradictory things occurring in the “real world”. The proof is done.

In some way we can visualize the time a being a set. This remember when I studied how to represent numbers as sets.

The successor of a set are the union of previous and the set of the previous: x U {x}. We can see that the new set contains the previous ones.

Now we visualize the sets as being numbers:

0 = 0 (empty set), 1 = {0, {0}},  2 = {0, {0}, {0, {0}}}, etc ..

Remembering that {0,0,0,0} = {0}, then we can’t count in that way.

This visualization of the time as a set consist, consist as visualizing these sets as being the time. Per example representing seconds, instead of simply numbers.

A scientific ethical critique

Philosophical basis

The thing itself

The “thing itself”, is an abstract concept. But in some sense, means nothing more than the nature, the reality.

But if that concept means just the nature, the reality, because it is abstract and not concrete?

Because none of the things that we can feel, think or listen are concrete. In some sense none of these things are real.

This may seem a surprising conclusion, it is what our knowledge show to us. In reality today that conclusion is so clear to us, that, we could not understand the world on other way.

To understand better I will give some examples. Think in 3D glasses, you can see so clearly, that the objects pop off the screen. That is a illusion created by sending different images, one for each eye.

That is the way that we see the “real world”, as the point of view of each eye are different, the images that we see are different too.

Imagine two eyes looking to a wine bottle:



Each eye will see a different image.

The left eye will see:

And the right eye will see:

The objects that are more closer to the eyes, are more far when comparing the point of view of each eye. But in the objects that are more far from the eyes. Are more close in the images.

When you see with 3D glasses you will see a apparently 3D image. But you know that this is a illusion generated by your mind. And it is not directly related to that occur in the reality or nature.

But when you see 3D objects in the real world, occur the same. You mind generate that illusion of 3D. Then what we see is a illusion generated by the human brain. And not directly the real world.

But even without 3D glasses. If someone show to you, per example, a cube. You will recognize that, this is a 3D image, and not a plane:

But if you look at the same image,  looking at your monitor on its side and not front you will see the image as flat and can not recognize a cube. Because even that image have a illusion of 3D, generated to your brain.

You can see so clearly that the color of the cube showed above  is red. But what you mind receive are a sequence of electrical signals, we can’t see electricity and electricity have no color. Then if you see a color, that aren’t in the real world. They are a projection generated by your brain, these things are not part of the “real world”, they are generated by your brain and are abstract. I expect that the above text guided you to find, other examples showing that all things that we see are abstract and not part of the real world.

But, if these things aren’t part of the nature, what they are? What explains it? The answer to that question, nobody is sure. Nobody know so precisely the human brain and the human perception. The thing itself is the “concrete”. We can’t see them.

The feelings and ethics

If your mind is skillful enough, you can see that not only the 3D objects are abstract and not concrete. But everything else too: 2D images, what you hear, you tact, your feelings etc …

Your feelings like
anger, fear, etc are generated by your mind, and are independently of what occur in the “real world”.  That means that you, potentially, can feel anger or fear when everything is in peace.

Generally when people say that something are right or something are wrong, is because they feel it. But that are feelings, are abstract and not have so much to do with the “real world”, are things generated by the human brain. But sometimes, these feelings create new laws. Per example, Richard Stallman was been written an article about Extreme Pornography, laws that his expose as being irrational.

Occur something similar on other aspect, per example, some people not worry about the age of consent alone, but think that the difference of age should be relevant. But that is irrational, it is just because many people think, that a high difference of age on that aspect is disgusting. But disgusting is a subjective matter, not should be used to create laws.

About age of consent

Some other example is age of consent itself, it is based on the unfunded disgusting aspect. Many people think that the sex itself is something bad and disgusting. Based on that criteria sex and marriage are relevant things.

Exposing age of consent, age of majority, etc as prejudice

Even if it is a relevant decision, judging someone to be able to make that decision just be the age isn’t a good practice. Judging people just by the age is unjustly, and may expose some mediocrity.

Per example, some music organization, may accept songs, for evaluation just from who is over 18 years, or just from who is over 14 years. Even if it seems right, this means rejecting some music of Mozart without evaluation and accepting many compositors without any value.

But it is not restricted to art, per example, some people have high intellectual capabilities at low ages. When other are moron. A age restriction for a job proposal, may let the moron try, without understanding very well what his is doing. And avoid some very able young people, that will be happy to help.

Exposing maturity


Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone

I liked more the book than the film. I consider the end of the book, much more interesting. I never can say that the changes are trivial. Even that relatively short, they are very significant.

I recommend reading the book, even for those who have been saw the film.  Maybe it is better to wait some time, to forget the film, a bit, and then read the book. Or read the book first.

As spectated in the film, Harry is more hero. In the film he it’s who defeat Voldemort. I solved the logical problem in the book, reveal a possible sequence of potions. To create a film, they need to solve that problem (or remove it, was that they do).

In the book Hermione solved  logical  riddle. The logical riddle is consistently, but, need be solved, to put in a film. But removed it too.
A possible solvable sequence are, when numbering as the size is:

2 7 3 1 5 4 6

The solution of this problem are:

Poison Wine Poison The fire “The potion of the front fire” Poison Wine “The potion to of the behind fire”

[Warning: Story line revelation]:

But in the book, Harry felt an unbearable pain in the head. Harry thought to cause so much pain to Voldemort that he was unable to move and pick up the stone.

 He fainted hearing the groans of pain from Quirrell and Voldemort shouting: Kill him, Kill him ...

But Dumbledore, rescued Harry and defeated Voldemort.

Actually to be more accurate, to the Owlery Hermione was going, when he met with Dumbledore and he knew everything.

So he let him see the mirror, for you to know how it works.

Ron criticized that could killed him. Harry explains that Dumbledore thought Harry would have the right to face him.

That end, is really much more interesting, than the film.