All Activity

Amen OP confused "theory of everything" with "everything I think is a theory".

Ah, so many 'wanna-be' Philosophers who think the universe resides in their mind, and its reasons and workings can be divined in their own heads. Good Philosophers temper their ideas with science and evidence based facts, before attempting to preach to us peons.

Yes, yes, this is bias. This is exactly what I was implying from the get go. Not only in neuroscience, but in many disciplines. The brain is definitely not a computer, But when discussing this with many neuroscientists, they do not even have a fallback position, only being able to discuss the matter in a computer analogy context.

Or the weapons used by the android world at the end of Picard S01, that looked like flowers. Maybe they should call Swansont back to consult on the science, as all the new shows are destroying a dynasty, and I will not watch them. Except Strange New Worlds, which I like.

If you don't wish to build anything, there are, at least for infrared, 'off the shelf' cameras that can be purchased, which detect infrared sources and dispay them on a screen. I used to use one for detecting integrated circuits that had failed ( or were close to failing ) and heating up due to excessive power draw. Digital multimeters are available for $20 on eBay/Amazon for detecting low voltages and low currents on automotive or digital circuits. If you are going to test for voltage/current on your mains or higher, I suggest something with good protection, like a Fluke. The cost will be much higher, but there's nothing worse than testing a 300 or 600 volt circuit, and having your meter blow up in your hand and catch fire.

Well, to be fair, he did say and, true to his word, he didn't present any, and there is nothing to dispute or discuss on this discussion forum. Might as well close the thread, then.

10 microns is mid-IR, beyond the range of standard silicon photodiode; the energy is too low. You’d need a more exotic type, like HgCdTe, or possibly some other material. Hamamatsu is one company I recall that makes photodiodes. 10 microns is in the thermal IR range; bolometers are one detector that are used. Such as in IR cameras; I have one from FLIR that attaches to my iphone Pickup loops can be purchased; I recall being shown one that were marketed to people checking their microwave ovens for leakage. (the person showing it used it to detect pulses from a step motor in a watch)

Agreed that wiki article is lousy on the correct details. It's almost as if someone who wrote it was half guessing what's involved.

No, he's trying to retrofit his understanding with endless dead end's, rather than a meta approach to ending the circle...

Not sure, but Luc might be letting panpsychism in the back door. If its conjecture, that all matter has some residual consciousness, were somehow supported (so far, zilch in the evidence department) then it would retrofit the hard sciences. It's a bit like the Star Trek Discovery rubber science idea that outer space is permeated by a mycelium - mind-blowing but lacking in empirical basis. Science has the method tools it has - where observation and objective measure can't go, is meta to science.

... so some say. I'm in no position to defend the concept at a deep technical level, however, others are and do so. Admitting the advanced wave solutions seems to offer neat solutions to some otherwise seemingly intractable phenomena such as EPR. Perhaps more pertinently, the apparent and 'unlikely' flatness of our universe just shouts 'negative feedback - asymptotic approach' to me. Okay, that sense implies some sort of retrocausal effect. It's a tough call, but I'd sooner trust to Feynman's gut feel than the dim designer of the OT.

Can you recommend a specific make of mini IR sensors. Say can detect 10,000nm IR. The sensor must not need external voltage source;, just two leads. Loop antenna is too much for me to build!!!

Repeating this strawman does not make it true, but if there are things not materialistic and mechanistic, how would they manifest themselves in a way that can be objectively observed and measured? Which it doesn’t. Some people reject science. How does the issue of living and consciousness affect the study of chemistry, physics and geology? Or even biology, outside of neuroscience?

I can't think for you, but as @Genady suggests have fun thinking one up, it doesn't have to be high-brow to throw up interesting answers and tangents worth exploring. But if you push me, why was Led Zeppelin so popular in America?

Especially relevant given all the empirical evidence to the contrary I would want evidence of this (they don’t believe the subjective exists? seriously?), but more to the point, these science folks are trained in is limited to biology, and the “four horsemen” discussion the had was about atheism. You’re making a massive and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a narrow field to all of science.

None of this crap is fact. There's no evidence for anything you've asserted. Nobody wants to hear you preach or soapbox. This is a discussion forum, not your blog. Please go away if you can't follow the rules.

It's been a good question. I think there have been assumptions made by many in cognitive sciences on how the brain works, that are a sort of bias. Once again, cognitive scientist Robert Epstein's famous article which takes down the notion that the brain is like a computer.... https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

The requirement of time-reversal symmetry plays havoc with causality. In FWAT, emitters and absorbers are interchangeable. I think later interpretations like Cramers TIQM have tried to resolve this. Or maybe one just throws out all the advanced wave solutions and restores the traditional arrow of time? You don't have to use ALL the math. 😏

It is maybe "I" that is the fatalist in all of this, not science. I think also that Dawkins is deluded. I am getting very dizzy being on the merry-go-round and soon will fall off into silence. Have any suggestions for a better question? I still think that mine is good as it seems to encourage thinking about bias. But, maybe, you know, all of this may be very all for nothing. Correction - But, maybe, you know, all of this may very well be all for nothing.

OK. Then the Wikipedia article needs editing, because it's very confusing. It explains nothing of that. Not a thing.

Hi, I have been looking into modelling bioremediation of oil spills as a project and was wondering what types of bioremediators would be effective. I have done some online research and bacteria such as Bacillus Subtilis have come up, as well as the possibility of using things such as compost or manure, as they may contain bacteria which is capable of degrading hydrocarbons such as oil. I was wondering whether there are some other relatively easily sourced homemade additions which I could add to these, as well as how effective the methods mentioned above are. The Bacillus Subtilis is in a powdered form and is approximately 100 billion CFU per gram. Sorry if this question is not appropriate for this forum, I wasn't sure where else I could post it. If so, I will delete. BTW, would dissolving the Bacillus in a suitable amount of water and then introducing it to the contaminated water be an effective way of introducing it to the oil? I have done some research but haven't really found any definitive answers

Well, for a start I think Dawkins is deluded. but come on @Luc Turpin enough of this merry-go-round. Think of a better question, please... 🙏

I think your issue is not realizing that the linear translations are between groups. For example the last example I gave is translating between SU(2) to SU(3). The original groups contain the information your looking for. The LCTs is how to take that information from one group to another group. Correct and what you are doing is using the correlations to establish how to transform from one group or map to another.

Sorry I missed this. There seems to be a correspondence between one and the other, right?

Evidently your perception is mistaken. I assume that it is based on pop-science rather than actual science sources. In my direct experience, science is fun and exciting.