All "eyes" and "feet" count, even the stuff we only call that like the "feet" of a chair, the "foot" of a bed, the "eye" of a storm, etc. I will avoid further defining what counts and what doesn't count, you must decide that for yourselves. Make your arguments and present your math!
I will be the abjudicator, and will only resolve if I am convinced or perceive consensus; I will not bet. I do not "know" the answer ahead of time. YES is Eyes, NO is Feet.
I may extend the close date if it seems necessary.
Definitions, as agreed by the market:
/Stralor/what-does-the-world-mean -> Consensus: Earth. (Unfortunately) this is not a question about life or storms in the broader universe. We must constrain to stuff within our planet's boundaries.
/Stralor/do-feet-imperialus-unit-of-length-t -> Consensus: NO
/Stralor/does-an-eyespot-apparatus-count-as -> Consensus: Inconclusive. I won't consider eyespot arguments. This may mean a "foot(spot)" or whatever argument of complementary value gets thrown out down the line, at my discretion
This is part of a short series of thought puzzles:
1,000
3.00After many well-laid arguments (and some not so much), consensus has mostly been reached, and I'm inclined to agree. Would this have been a fascinating question if it became about the Fermi Paradox? I think so! But it wasn't to be, and once we were sealed to the terrestrial plane so was the answer. Thank you all for participating.
@Panfilo some further research points to birds and most reptiles having it as well. Not sure about fish. I think even if bony fish did have such a structure in their fins (the sinus tasi is basically just a joint) it would be hard to call it "the eye of the foot"
With the new info about "the world" bounds.
Most fish have 2 eyes and no feet. Most insects have 2 compound eyes and 6 legs. Spiders have 8 eyes and 8 legs. Legs are not the same as feet.
Amount of things created by humans to have feet in my intuition is far less than the amount of fish.
Amount of fish in my intuition is far bigger, than the amount of ground-walking vertebrae.
I think Eyes win by several orders of magnitude.
the poll about the definition of "The World" has concluded. from my comment there:
looks like sufficient consensus says that "Earth" is the definition of "The World". I personally use a broader definition and think interpreting the riddle as a Fermi Paradox question would have been fascinating, but I will constrain it to the boundaries of Earth!
The dominant model of atomic attraction back in the early 1900s was the hook-and-eye model, where each atom has some number of hooks and eyes that other atomic hooks can latch on to, allowing them to form chemical bonds. We tend to use different analogies nowadays, but that doesn't invalidate the previous model; we wouldn't say that protons don't exist just because we have more complicated models involving quarks and quantum wave functions. This gives us a lower bound of about 10^50 eyes in the world.
@IsaacKing Personally I think that both this atom eye thing and the lower part foot thing are a stretch, but do we need this market to become an endless series of polls?
@IsaacKing Like the "lower parts = feet" thing I find an outdated model of atomic particles to be unconvincing and I don't think it needs a consensus poll. These eyes don't actually exist, even if we once thought they did!
@Stralor I agree. If the concept not used anymore means the word "eye" is not used there anymore. They have only bonds now.
@IsaacKing clearly you can't find a logical refutation, and must resort to a rigged poll. This happens every time the feet win the argument, a poll is made and the eyes steal it. Enough!
@Odoacre More partisan lies. Three polls have been conducted so far; one went in favor of the feet, one in favor of the eyes, and one was tied; clearly an even and unbiased playing field. Unfortunately Big Foot must have gotten to Pat Scott, because he chose to rule the tied market in favor of the feet, disqualifying all eyespot apparatuses, despite the inconclusive poll results.
@IsaacKing I think I'll just make a ruling on this one, as it feels like an easy one that doesnt require a consensus poll. We don't call the bottom of a grain of sand "the foot of the sand". So not all lower parts are feet; I personally find any argument otherwise to be unconvincing.
2) Definition of feet: the lower or lowest part of something; the base or bottom. The result is 2 x 10^23 as all stars have a low point. Also, if you think the world refers to the earth, there are 7.5 sextillion grains of sand on earth, which all have feet.
Source(2):https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=76c68a2d4a39925c&q=feet&si=AKbGX_p11GTjV-sToDBfT3--HQl2J6DKB8F5gJfcKC8YND7xJidgBor5aOmTi1ij2zyZSQS6w4-rpr3u_Q3CA5KKEBSvcvNz3Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjiy-P9toyEAxWgTWwGHeeEBZoQ2v4IegQIHhB0&biw=1920&bih=953&dpr=1, https://www.astronomy.com/science/astro-for-kids-how-many-stars-are-there-in-space/#:~:text=There%20are%20approximately%20200%20billion,big%2C%20it's%20hard%20to%20imagine, https://www.oklahoman.com/story/lifestyle/2019/02/05/more-stars-than-grains-of-sand-on-earth-you-bet/60474645007/#:~:text=Scientists%20estimate%20that%20Earth%20contains,75%20followed%20by%2017%20zeros.
@Panfilo it shouldn't be! the others in the series resolved fairly quickly, and this one has gotten close a couple of times
Metaphysically, there are more eyes than feet.
Biblically-accurate angels have lots of eyes. More eyes than feet, on average.
Mass-production of angels has begun. The last known price is $25/2.417 Quintillion angels.
I believe this is enough to shift the "counts of discrete things" arguments below.
@ShyamJayesh If we were to operate with imaginary creatures, then I would define that I have an imaginary friend, which "has the amount of eyes equal to the amount of all feet of all objects in the world plus the amount of all feet of all imaginary things + 2". Instant resolution, as it is not mathematically possible to create a new definition favor for feet-heavy imaginary friend without causing contradiction.
Thus yes, imaginary things are good to be excluded from the riddle.