Mindscape and evolution

Whats the population; if male and female literacy is given as percentage.

May I add one more small note, see how easy it becomes to understand an “order of estimate”; A good student, that is one with a good maths background, should immediately pick up, population ~ 1.19 million. 61.26 % male. 58.04 % female. (Not only literate but total male and female). Then even, one question can be asked, what is male-female disparity, in terms of their population. (That is, without regard, to any further attributes, such as literacy numbers, or purchasing power distributions etc, which are btw non-existent variables in India, because research in India means Governmental Apathy.)

Its a slightly tricky question, if you already note, there is a mistake in the above, The % is not scaled to 100. Its an over-estimation by a factor of 1.193, and the really smart student recognizes this, (s)he doesn’t go and change all calculations. See how all numbers came just from the first few digits of the given numbers; 11,92,948 >> 1.19 million, vs over estimation factor; 1.193 (or less precise 1.19). Male: 6,12,597 >> overestimated percentage: 61.26. Female; 5,80,351 >> overestimated percentage: 58.04.

You would know they are over-estimated, because these two numbers, male and female population, while exclusive parameters, hence must add up to normal: 100 or 1.00, added up to 61.26+58.04 = 119.30, or (61.26+58.04)/100 = 119.30/100 = 1.193, do you see how easily, without doing any further adding etc, I caught the actual overestimation factor, above, to be 1.193? Cool Huh? Just from the first few numbers. If maths runs in your mind, you can do all these, if it doesn’t, but you have the right numbers, you will be led to believe nobody would catch your mistakes, and lie about the numbers. Possible. Just from the numbers as are stated, we can, catch the inconsistency, thats why maths education is important. In-fact, I committed the mistakes and wanted to catch the inconsistency, and from the calculations gradually caught it, so a more consistent picture was envisaged.

When India failed English.

“Pakistan is advanced than India, in how it accepts English, as a non-primary language. ~50% of people in Pakistan ( — total ~ 90 million) are speakers of English, compared to 12% of India (125 million out of > ~ 1.20 billion). In percentage terms, all non-native English speaking countries, like Nigeria, Pakistan or Philippines are higher, than India’s population, speaking English. The norm is 50% or more (for all others) while for India its 12%. In absolute numbers only, India surpasses them. The acceptance in India, for English, is really low. On an average, major regional language do not cause such a response, because; we are anyway counting English as a 2nd or 3rd language. “

Why human eyes are sensitive to only visible light?

“Why Human Eyes Are Sensitive To Only Visible Light”. These processes are arbitrary, which is somewhat more technically referred as “contingency”. Its not just for the case of vision that this arbitrariness is present, but all forms of biological properties. eg A conch shell is spiral in a certain way and this is only specific to the snail-likes. Fur is different for different animals. Arms and limbs are different for different animals. This is because of such arbitrariness which are present in 100s of different ways depending on exactly how a life form develops. ( — We are all describing this on general terms, here in this discussion).

Technically, adaptation has to do with exposure. One has to be exposed to the kind of situation one is borne in. Human beings are not borne deep down, on the ocean bed, but on ground with optimum temperature and other life conditions. So, there has to be optimal amount of heat present. Human Beings can’t survive huge temperatures. But many animals can, so they are exposed more harshly to Infra Red (IR) etc. Its the whole body which evolves and then different parts might evolve differently. [w.r.t. different thermodynamic and other life defining conditions]

Just a wild guess: may be some animals were borne [created by contingent chances] very close to volcanic eruption, eg snakes, which is why they could be sensitive to IR type of vision. etc etc. On planet earth, optical light comes only from Sun, (in its profusion, can turn off the sun during night or moon some nights and its total darkness). This sun-light in optical radiation window is extremely intense in visible spectrum but with IR spectrum its intense only during summer. This intensity going from one place on planet earth to another can vary between say 10% – 60% during a year. That means the likelihood of birth can be reduced by that factor towards IR exposure, if it were to come from sun but not from volcanoes. The actual condition on earth might …

सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं।

बिज्ञान अक्सर परिभाषाओं के दायरे में सिमित रह जाती है क्यों कि इस से ऊपर उठना अल्बर्ट आइनस्टीन के भाषा में “बिज्ञान चमत्कार है अगर इसे कमाने कि एक पन्था से दुरी से देखा जाये तो” जैसे “पूर्ब सोम कि सत्य” जैसा प्रतीत है. यह अलग बिचारों से अलग हो जाती है, पर सत्य एक मात्र उपलब्धि न होने पर भी बहत सारे उपलब्धि भी नहीं हैं, कुछ और सीमित उपलब्धियां सत्य कि भरमाई करते हैं।

चेतन भगत के बिकने के कारण भी ढेर सारे हैं जो बिज्ञान से तालुक नहीं रखते, इसके परिभाषाओं के दायरे में, लेकिन क्या हम कह सकते हैं वो कामशास्त्र से ज्यादा महत्व रखता है? चेतन एक जातीय आशा कि कयामत से परिबंधित है, पर कामशास्त्र एक प्राचीन अतः अंतराष्ट्रीय, तथा एक कोमल भाबना कि महिमा जैसे परिकल्पनिया है. यह चेतन कि महनीयता के ऊपर प्रश्न नहीं, बल्कि सत्य कि बिबिधता के ऊपर आलोकित करने की चेष्टा है।

सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं।

सत्य अनिर्बचनिया है. यह सुन्दर भी है, शील भी है …