Leaderboard

More evidence that supports this idea being false is the very nature of a copy of anything. They're never exactly the same, there are always some slight deviations, additions, and omissions that become compounded the more you keep making copies of copies. If your consciousness was copied EVERY TIME YOU FALL ASLEEP, it wouldn't take long before there were noticeable changes (maybe not noticeable by the individual, but certainly by those who know them best).

When you will be a different person and so get a new allocation of "likes"

If I'm not too late to this discussion, I believe the answer resides in how we understand or define consciousness. If by consciousness you're referencing our general awareness and sense of self, sleep merely alters our awareness and partly suspends our conscious sense of self but it does not cause the kind of death and renewal your query implies. Consciousness, as a reference to or descriptive of awareness, is merely a measured response to stimuli. Generally, our brainwaves and brain activity amid sleep are responses to stimuli and are, therefore, evidence of awareness albeit an altered state of awareness. Sleep studies have provided evidence, for example, of a correlation of increased brain activity when sleep study participants received sound and heat stimuli. This in itself is evidence that awareness, as a measure of consciousness, doesn't cease or die when we sleep. Dreaming is an interpretive process our sleeping brain engages when it's stimulated to increase activity during sleep. Dreams are how our sleeping brain interprets what it believes it is experiencing when it is stimulated by the metabolic processes of the brain and body that occur during sleep. Consciousness, as it may relate to our sense of self and identity relative to our experiences and environment, is dependent on how brain function integrates and focuses that quality. From my perspective of the metadata, our sense of self and identity is dependent on how our brain is stimulated to activate and integrate responses from the stores of experience and memories it has amassed in our lifetime. For example, our consciousness of who we are while awake and aware is not the same consciousness suggested by our dreams. This distinction occurs because there is a distinction between the stimuli our waking and sleeping brain receives. That distinction is suggested by the low activation of our prefrontal cortex amid dreaming, which is attributable to diminished stimulation during sleep. So when we dream, our brain creates a consciousness that is generally oblivious of being asleep in bed because it is not stimulated in the way it is while awake.

They're reflecting on it

Milky way's black hole just flared, growing 75 times as bright for a few hours Abstract...

Infinite can mean no beginning or no end, or both. There are several versions of the Big Bang model where there is no beginning - that the universe is infinitely old. One of the simplest is the "big bounce", where the universe is expanding following an earlier collapse. There are also several types of eternal inflation. And at least one model that attempts to combine quantum theory with the Big Bang model which results in a universe that is infinitely old.

Also keep in mind we can only extrapolate our Observable universe portion. The original singularity we have no way of knowing if it is finite or infinite. We only know the portion of shared causality at [math]10^{-43} [/math] seconds that leads to our observable universe was an extremely hot dense state smaller than an atom but that is only our observable portion in the past not the entirety of the universe. Which could be finite or infinite. A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse. So if it's infinite now then it's infinite in the past. ( In volume portionality) which is different than mathematical singularities where the math no longer accurately describes it.

Hw does the center remain fixed when the ball moves away from it (and again toward it)? You are violating conservation of momentum in your animation, so it's no wonder you conclude that momentum isn't conserved. You have a force on the ball, but you aren't acknowledging it. Or you are essentially assuming an infinite mass is connected at the center. Put another way, you are showing an accelerating reference frame, not an inertial one, so Newton's laws can't be applied. Pick your poison. Show me a real system that acts this way and we can talk.

Nice journalism, but there is no science there. The singularity simply shows that our theory (ie. the mathematics) no longer applies. It is what happens when you take a naive extrapolation using just General Relativity. The only scientific evidence we have is that the early universe was very hot and very dense (and very homogeneous). "Actually stationary" does not mean anything. Two bodies could have never experienced any force but still be moving relative to one another.

You can always try tomorrow after you sleep tonight. I liked it, too, for its clarity and the good natured help it provided.

I was keeping it simple, but yes, there is some small variation in sun-earth distances due to orbital motions being altered by other planets - but the principle point is the overall solar system barycentre most closely follows the Sun-Jupiter barycentre but the Earth most closely orbits the sun and that combined orbit moves around that Solar system barycentre (very close to Sun-Jupiter barycentre) without change to distances from Sun to Earth. However I am not an astrophysicist and and deferring to the expertise of others This paper got some discussion at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/ and I will lift a comment from the host (who is an astronomer) there - No they are not. The Medieval Warm Period (or Roman or Little Ice Age) doesn't really present any problem for current best understanding of why our climate is currently warming - no matter that you and a small minority of pseudo experts may think otherwise; we've already far exceeded the temperatures during the MWP. Some "greening" does indeed appear a consequence of raised CO2 levels but so does raised temperatures - and depending on circumstances it will be other factors besides CO2 levels, including especially changes to rainfall and evaporation; I can assure you higher temperatures in places where dry conditions dominate (like where I live) mean less greening. No matter what conditions were like in the distant past it is the conditions that are recent, current and near future that matter - ie the period affecting people, agriculture, infrastructure and remnant ecosystems in the lifetimes of people now living. The claim that, without human emissions from fossil fuel burning atmospheric CO2 levels will drop to below that required for plant growth has no foundation; like everything else in this, it is the physical processes that matter - not blindly eyeing a graph and presuming a trend continues without physical processes that will make it continue. Do you think it is even possible keep burning fossil fuels for (going by the graph of declining CO2 provided) for the purpose of saving plant life for the next 5 million years? Utter nonsense! No, the Carbon Cycle will still be around and so will plants and CO2. I suggest you look to more reputable and non-partisan sources of information about climate change - such as the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society. They draw on the world's most accomplished and respected scientists to review and make sense of complex science. I continue to urge politicians and governments to treat such advice seriously and not fall for the illusion that the current understanding of climate and how it changes is inconsistent or uncertain or in serious doubt.

I thought it was the same. That wikipedia page refers to "neutron–mirror neutron oscillations"

Nature by Time.

I see that you think that you learned the lesson from this thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118214-the-nonsense-of-antropomorphism/?do=findComment&comment=1095679 and that now you try to repeat all my arguments (not just from that thread), about vitalism, subcellular organisms on the verge of life (viruses and others), protein synthesis, artificial intelligence, etc. in order to oppose me, basically pretending that you are convincing me now of something, that already I was convincing you previously, and neither of us did forget about it, such as the fact that there is no sharp delineation between living and non living things, but despite of that, there is a clear and sharp difference between a rock and a lichen. So yeah, you are not quite there yet, you still didn't learn enough to accomplish such a swindle. For example, you should understand what you are saying, when you say that "many species just respond automatically to the environment", and compare that with "the speed of a simple chemical reaction that may vary depending on temperature or the nature of the substrate", "water flowing downhill", and such things. You are obviously not aware of the fact that automata theory is a study of designed systems, unlike theory of gravity for example (or electromagnetism, or chemical dynamics, ...) that is a study of physical laws. That means that one cannot fully describe and understand functioning of a mechanical automatic device just by understanding mechanical laws, or functioning of electromagnetic device just by understanding principles of electromagnetism, because that component of understanding is only necessary, but not sufficient. Because, automata contain the element of design, that is not contained in physical laws, which are merely basis for their functioning. That means that designers build their idea of how the automaton should behave into it, according to the purpose of that automaton, which is a key to its understanding, and that is the essence of the difference between things that are designed, and those that are not. So, when you basically repeat Descartes's argument: http://www.animalethics.org.uk/descartes.html http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/339/Descartes.pdf only in a milder form, allowing that not necessarily all non-human species are basically automata, but many of them are, and "just respond automatically to the environment", you unknowingly and unwillingly become a proponent of intelligent design, which of course for Descartes wouldn't be a problem, or a big accusation, since he was a theist and theologist, who in his theology insisted on the absolute freedom of God's act of creation, but for you, an average atheist and science lover in 21st century, that could present a serious identity crisis, since I bet you consider ID biggest possible heresy that should be eradicated from scientific circles by all means possible, and you are obviously rooting for it, unconsciously, at the same time. So, maybe that is a difference that you are looking for, between living and non living things. Instead of that swindle, you could have raised in that thread an argument that machine learning systems have issues with forgetting things they learned, but for that, one should study a little bit things one is talking about, and that requires a little bit of effort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophic_interference