Leaderboard

Have they? Again, the word fetish can drive otherwise sane people to make atoms to be real in the same sense that soccer balls are real. But anyone who's had a Bose Einstein Condensate around, where all the atoms merge into a single quantum mechanical entity, might wonder if they're real in quite the same way. Generally, I think "observables" describes the appearances without assigning the ontological status that we give macro-level stuff like soccer balls. OK, time for scrambled eggs and Fats Waller. I ain't misbehavin.

Don't go away Airbrush. The Big Bang theory is based on certain observations, like galactic recession increasing linearly with increasing distance and the CMBR. It is also predicated by GR, and the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. So yes, you are right, it is an assumption.; and at large enough distances, a fairly accurate assumption, for the observable universe. Similarly GR does not allow for preferred frames, and a center of expansion certanly implies a preferred frame ( never mind the fact that the expansion with a center would look totally different unless we are the center; and what that implies for Religion ). So, unless drastic changes were made to GR, it would cease to be a viable theory. You are then left with the problem of having to explain the observational evidence for isotropic universal expansion, and the homogenous/isotropic CMBR. These are actual physical observations, and cannot be assumed away; they require an explanation. How would you do that ? B

Trumpism is all memes and slogans and other things that replicate easily on social media. It rolls its angry tank treads over facts, nuance, insight, expertise, evidence, accountability, and error detection. Like fascism, Trumpism thinks the world must be simple. And people, too. So when you are beguiled by some really simple solution to a complex real-world problem, you're getting a little taste of what Trumpism is all about.

The traditional social strictures have been explained by a number of theories. Each, and very likely a combination of several, is plausible. I would add that the taboo against incest goes back to a time period when many small groups of people lived in relative isolation, so that looking for mates outside the group required an effort, while marrying one's cousin was convenient - and there was little choice in either case. And we have seen how harmful protracted inbreeding in a limited population can be. We have also seen in the royal families of Europe the effects of consanguinity on later generations. In modern, large and diverse societies, the danger is much diminished, simply because young people are exposed to a far wider choice of potential partners, all of whom are more intriguing than the sister or cousin with whom one fought and vied, or played and colluded through childhood. Incest in these societies is by far more likely to be non-consensual. This is the main reason for the general disapproval. However, consensual incest over 18 (though I question the freedom to choose of one participant in some of those relationships) is not universally against the law, and consanguinous marriages are still accepted in many places.

If one becomes inexplicably depressed , with no known current cognitive/emotional issues, either internal or external, that, would imo, probably point to a persistent endogenous or organic cause. I'm a 40 year+ on/off chronic depressive, and can experience it spontaneously, even when my life seems to be going well and basically happy in myself. Being acutely depressed over one-off life issues, such as job loss and bereavement are responses to known events... and natural. The ability to distinguish between endogenous and reactive states is likely down to assessing behaviour patterns and life events timeline. There is everything in between, of course.

That is NOT true, and could not have really happened! You are not 300 years old so you could not possibly have heard him say that. On the other hand, it is certainly true that he said that, Don't you see the variability of the word 'true' ? Atoms are now real ? Their effects and interactions can be observed and measured for sure ... Ask Mr Perrin if the mass of three quarks, which cannot be separated, that make up a proton/neutron in an atom, add up to the mass of said proton/neutron. Ask him to measure the diameter of one of those quarks, or an electron, that make up those atoms. Then ask him by what definition of reality do the masses of three dimensionless points add up to less than 2% of the mass of the particle they make up. Surely his definition of 'real' is not the same as yours. I am learning a little Philosophy from you, as I hope you are learning a little science from me, however I must admit, I am a little puzzled by this Philosophical technique you are using. What do you call it ? Beating your head against the wall, and insisting others use your definitions to describe their concepts, even after being repeatedly tol that your definition is not applicable ? Oh, and I fail to see why the opinions of the scientists you quote are any more relevant than the opinions of the scientists on this forum. If anything, they simply illustrate the variability of words like 'real' and 'true' to scientists, as opposed to the one-and-only definition, written on a gold bar and stored in a vault in France, that you Philosophers think everyone should use.

I'm not trying to diminish the practicality's of science (I love what science has taught me, for real @studiot), I'm trying to show philosophy to be equally valuable and practical in most people's lives... If we consider most people to be religious and I think the stats would support this, so real for most people is philosophy, on a background of science that they don't understand. Science doesn't care either way, it just tries to predict a future, but Buddha et al does. So, if we want a world in balance and sustainable; we need philosophy, via people's current understanding, to build a bridge of understanding that doesn't involve fear of tomorrow. If we want to fear less, we need to laugh more.

I do think the discussion about reality has failed to demonstrate the flaws in the concept. Last night (to me) or yesterday afternoon to her, along with millions of others I watched Radacanu win the US open (congratulations to her). So whose 'reality' was correct ? Was it really yesterday afternoon or last night ?

Yet your posts continue to reflect an obtuse nature, and your claims are wrong to boot. Again for your information, a scientific model and/or theory, was never meant to reveal any possible truth or reality, or deeply underlying make_up. Gravity exists...we just do not know its true nature. Phlogiston has been shown by further observational and experimental evidence to be falsified. Yes, and I don't believe I am the first to note such "qualities" of yours.. You see, I'm pretty sure evry man and his dog understands that gravity is real. And I'm pretty sure most while knowing it is real, do not know what it is exactly...as in the true nature. That's where obtuse comes in, and intellectually dishonest, and obstinate, and bad faith argument.

You’ve been intellectually dishonest. You argue in bad faith. You evade clear direct questions. You’re a waste of time.

Yes it is not just a dirty energy problem but that is the biggest part - and we have solutions that work now and can be made to work better; I think the growth of clean energy should be the principle response whilst still adequately supporting efforts to reduce GHG emissions from other activities like agriculture. Aiming to eliminate or at least greatly reduce methane as well as CO2 emissions from rice, livestock and other agriculture is necessary and whilst it can help to encourage less meat or rice eating, like with population control I don't see regulation of consumer food choice as a viable option. I do see carbon pricing rather than direct regulation as a regulatory mechanism - and more to encourage producers to use the options R&D develop rather than than to influence consumers directly; carbon pricing works when there are existing alternatives and the level of pricing imposed make the alternatives commercially viable. Greater policy ambition becomes acceptable option if Doubt, Deny, Delay style "climate policy" loses it's popular appeal and power to demotivate; people accept some level of sacrifice for the common good if it is clear and uncontroversial that it will do some good but even those who care will struggle to do so when led to believe such actions are pointless - as opponents of climate accountability encourage people to believe. I see the population issue being used like that - encouraging the view that climate action is pointless and or is some kind of slippery slope to tyranny. I think we are on a slipperier slope to tyranny by failing to address this profoundly serious problem than by seeking to evade and delay - tyranny becomes most popular when things are going from bad to worse. Nations of the world do make efforts to address population growth through their UN memberships and participation - they lead the UN, not the UN leading them. What policy responses nations make are entered into freely. Any regulation is their own, not the UN's, even where the UN (because nations want it) provides aid and assistance. I suspect that delay on doing the things we can do near term - like shifting to clean energy - may be a more serious risk of rising methane concentrations than near term agriculture emissions, because of warming feedbacks leading to large releases of "natural" methane. That being one of those hard to pin down "tipping points".

There are three possible types of universe...Open, Flat and closed. An open universe is one with negative curvature much like a saddle. Such a universe would be infinite. So far the evidence points to a flat universe, one where two parallel beams of light would remain parallel. This would also be infinite. The other is a closed universe with positive curvature. The evidence for the flat universe [WMAP] though still has small margins of error, and obviously those small margins could be parts of a larger curvature. A finite [closed universe] would have spacetime shaped like a globe, with no centre or edge. If the universe is infinite, then again, we can have no centre or edge. In essence whether the universe is open, flat or closed, depends on the amount of matter/energy and consequently gravity, trying to close the universe, and the rate of expansion, and DE/ CC [cosmological constant] pushing things apart. This is called the "Hubble Constant" and at present is calculated at 74kms/second/mega parsec. In essence, we are sure there is no edge to the universe that is flat, open or closed, and if there is no edge how can there be any centre to speak of? This may explain better then I.... https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/05/how-is-the-universe-accelerating-if-the-expansion-rate-is-dropping/?sh=6e000d340937 or this one....https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data The other possibility also is some sort of exotic shape, like a torus for example...

On the highlighted part by me, isn't much of that political...science split the atom...it can be put to good use or bad...we can go on and on and on. The same applies to ancient stone age man and the use of fire, which I saw comments on somewhere or other..... Thanks for your answers...I more or less generally agree, although and havn't too much critical argument against them...except perhaps.....at Q2 you said "I agree only with the first part of your sentence": then you follow and say it should aim for truth [albeit a simpler concept of truth] as opposed to my not necessarily aim for truth. I see that as a roundabout way of agreeing with me. Then at Q4 you mention and comment on my remark of "absolute certainty"...My personal view, based of course on my non limited knowledge is at least in one case, we have reached certainty...the theory of evolution of life. Other theories of course are less certain then others, eg: DM and its existence is less certain then GR or stellar fusion being the mechanics of stars, or our theories of say DE and the age and shape of the universe being less certain then the evolution of space and time [spacetime] in the BB account. Perhaps the certainty I speak of with relation to the theory of evolution of life, is different and apart from this truth and/or reality that personaly I find annoying. Just gave you a like, you lucky fella you! This is the most disturbing parts of your posts...your catagorising of realists and/or non-realists. Scientific models and theories by definition, do not set out to reveal whatever truth and/or reality that we can be aware of. A scientific model is as follows......https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+a+scientific+model+do&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=what+does+a+scientific+model+do&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j0i390l3.10608j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Models are useful tools in learning science which can be used to improve explanations, generate discussion, make predictions, provide visual representations of abstract concepts and generate mental models: or A limitation of models in science is that they are usually simplified versions of the real situation or concept. Sometimes, models spark debates leading to new and improved models. A model may be used when it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to test a concept or theory. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-scientific-models/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My other only comment re your "philosophy" is that at least imho, you have linked to a few scientists and philsophers of note, claiming that they support your philosophy. They don't. At least not in the cases I have read. Einstein was one of them in the other thread, where you finally did relent to some extent.

[math]\frac{2}{{40}} \times \frac{{1000}}{{250}}[/math] is wrong, can you see where ? This is homework ? Hint read the question again. But a jolly good idea to post the whole question and your working.

Nobody is advocating ostracizing victims. Quite the opposite. They need love and kindness. Who are you responding to?