> Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. Up

> Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. Up to a point understanding reality has survival value. We're well beyond that. For example, dunces are still able to have kids and thus are just as fit -- if not fitter -- than smart people. Evolutionarily. No, the computer I'm sitting at doesn't require understanding quantum theory. Computers are (largely) built out of transistors and they're decidedly classic devices. You don't need any quantum mechanics to understand a transistor. Quantum effects only come into play when you're making exceedingly tiny transistors, and they hurt rather than help. > No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. GPS can only work because we understand relativity and thus can correct for it. Transistors can work just fine if we're ignorant of quantum effects. GPS's locating ability goes from meters to many kilometers without understanding relativity. If you want to argue that GPS would be just as good if it could resolve only 10km, OK, but most would disagree with you. > Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. Most reproduction is done well in advance of deep learning and understanding so I might argue that the ideas don't play in evolutionarily. Dumb or uneducated people reproduce just as successfully as smart or educated ones. I don't have a study to back this up but if you can find one to the contrary I'd love to know about it. > We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. Actually a lot of research shows that we're the dominant species because we've taken a serious evolutionary right-turn by shedding all the fur, walking upright and having hands that allow us to carry things. All the things that you would need for the persistence hunt where you basically walk/jog/run an animal to death. Our ability to shed heat by having a fairly high surface area to mass ratio and little/no fur might be more important than our brains in many ways. > But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything. I'll ignore the part where you pass off opinions as fact and move on. This is a logical fallacy, nature absolutely does waste things. Suggesting otherwise is a bit nutty or requires that you construct a tautology. The idea that every single species on the planet is 100% tuned optimally is patently ludicrous; if that were true no evolution would take place anymore since everything would be perfect. If we accept that the world changes (which it does) and that adaptation takes time (I don't know how else it happens) then we can't help but conclude that nature is wasting things all the time, however good it's doing. Since evolution can't predict the future it wastes plenty with unsuccessful mutations.