Rasher Null

I don't think the arguments for maths training being useful in everyday life translates to science education though, does it? Also, very few people who learn compulsory maths beyond numeracy are able to use it creatively, as far as I can tell. For most people it's a struggle to learn and they jettison it from their minds as soon as the exams are over.

Fair point about examples of application. But if you think about how a layperson might use the SP in their lives it is likely to be something everyday and/or practical, rather than a particular area of scientific research/knowledge.

The "scientific principle" is very short and learnable. Add in the importance of critical thinking and you have the most important aspects of scientific education for the layman; something incredibly important and useful that can be written on a postcard and does not need a curriculum of subjects. As for scientific knowledge that has been gleaned from application of the scientific method by scientists - this would be far better learned informally as general knowledge at the layman level, rather than insisting on formal academic study. The trouble is that the education is system is wedded to "subjects" because that's the way it has always been ....

Is "every piece" meaningfully labelled though? Especially if continually being destroyed and recreated as you said earlier...

There will be things like memories and other neural settings that will have a large part to play in the final "decision".

That was the sort of crazy speculation I had hoped for, though I'm not sure about the essential role of consciousness....

mmmm not sure you explained the situation clearly... "The astronaut is holding straight out in front of her a 6 foot ruler, marked in feet. ....... If the astronaut rotates the ruler through a right angle as she passes"

It will trace a circle, if the astronaut is more or less moving straight towards the observer??

Hehe! In a similar vein, if any two persons disagree then one or both of them is thinking irrationally.

Surely a metre cube ,say, would yield an image with different edges contracted by different amounts, for some arbitrary motion of the cube?

This is a great thread and I've read it all, and found new insights and paths to follow - so thanks Kip et al! But you asked this in the OP- 1) Have you tried believing that you are a machine (to put it rather bluntly)? Is it scary? Impossible? Depressing? Insightful? 2) Have you read Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" ? I'm nearly through a second reading I suspect I will need a few more to absorb it all - but there are some very interesting sections on reality and consciousness.

Glad to see this topic is getting a bit of traction still I felt some progress was made in satisfying my personal puzzlement over the "nature" of motion when reminded of the existence of length contraction. By observing the length contraction of an object one can, in principle at least, calculate the relative velocity of the object. although the direction will be ambiguous by 180 degrees, it seems. ??

hmmm ... apparently babies prefer beautiful faces according to research. (which I can't post a link to for unknown reasons).

Babies like faces best of all...

I hate capital punishment BTW , but I also dislike Kant's categorical imperative, which I believe the quote above is an example of. Just sayin' Hell no I ain't "just sayin'" ... the categorical imperative is a travesty against liberty and pragmatism. Sometimes.