1. ## Strange

Senior Members

59

18175

2. ## iNow

Senior Members

32

18601

Moderators

32

40114

4. ## Sensei

Senior Members

29

4329

## Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/21/18 in all areas

1. 5 points

## Why doesn't the electron fall into the nucleus?

Because the electron is not a classical particle (“little ball of mass and charge”), but a quantum object. As a first approximation, you can picture an electron as a 3D standing wave around the nucleus - you can only get standing waves of a given wavelength in specific places, which is why orbitals come in discrete levels. Crucially, there is a lowest energy level, which corresponds to the minimum distance an electron can be with respect to the nucleus (let’s assume here there is only one electron) - and that lowest energy level is not zero. Therefore the electron cannot fall all the way to the nucleus, it can only fall into its lowest energy level, which corresponds to an orbital that is still some distance outside the nucleus. This is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics, and coincidentally one of the questions that motivated the development of quantum mechanics in the first place.
2. 4 points

## are there more views than deterministic and indeterministic

If only it was as simplistic as you think it is First of all, quantum physics is both completely deterministic and stochastic. What is deterministic is the evolution of the wave function - given any initial wave function, you can predict with certainty how that wave function will evolve over time (assuming you know the respective boundary conditions etc). However, what is stochastic is the relationship between the wave function, and physical observables - observables are represented by hermitian operators, and which of their eigenvalues you actually measure is - in general - purely probabilistic. For example - you send a stream of photons through a double slit. Given knowledge about the initial conditions (slit separation, photon frequencies, etc) you can predict with certainty what kind of an interference pattern you are going to get on your screen at the end of the experiment. However, you can not predict precisely where each individual photon will hit the screen, that is purely probabilistic. And we’re not even talking about the question which slit each photon goes through. So this is your third possibility - it’s come to be called “determined probabilities”. That’s the first thing. The other thing then is that determinism does not imply an absence of free will, and conversely, indeterminism does not imply that free will is necessarily possible. There are four different philosophical positions that encompass the four possibilities here: hard determinism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and libertarianism. You can look these up yourself. The main point here is that this an ongoing debate, and there is no consensus about which is the correct one. And just to top things off - the human brain is a macroscopic system, and as such classical. So one would expect it to be deterministic. In reality however, in spite of its classicality, it is an example of a complex non-isolated, non-linear, chaotic system. So even if it were completely classical (which actually it isn’t anyway, since it’s fundamental building blocks are quantum mechanical), you still couldn’t predict its precise state very far into the future, because it is extremely sensitive to initial and boundary conditions, never even mind way too complex to mathematically model with currently available technology. It’s also an open feedback system, since it continuously receives external inputs, and generates responses that can modify those very inputs. So is the brain deterministic? You decide yourself, based on the above. Whatever your conclusion, what does that imply for free will? Again, you decide yourself, based on the philosophical positions on this subject matter. I think it is safe to say that there are no straightforward answers either way here.
3. 3 points

## Indian Postoffice Services website.

! Moderator Note Posting to try and get others to do your work is getting rather tiresome. You have a question about a website, you go to THEIR help page and look for an answer. You want to know where to find information, use a search engine to find it. Stop posting crap like this here.
4. 3 points

## If (illicit) drugs were legal.

I asked a sincere question and I’m here to learn. I assumed you being the forum chemistry expert you could lend a hand. And yes, since you’re the chemistry expert - it is your job John.
5. 3 points

## Can you believe in evolution and in god?

Agreed. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. (It's your thread, so you should know this.) Obviously, there are people who don't believe the theory of evolution, or the Big Bang, or that the large scale structure of the universe is formed by gravity or that the Earth is round. So what? That is totally irrelevant. Your question was whether you can be religious and still believe in theories of evolution. And the answer is obviously "yes". Pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that some people don't doesn't change that fact. It is like I asked if you can have two legs and believe the Earth is round. Then, when someone points out that there are people with two legs who believe the Earth is round, you say "but some people with two legs don't believe that". Can you not see how unbelievably, monumentally irrelevant that comment is? Sheesh.
6. 3 points

## What is faith?

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science. Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.
7. 3 points

## Can you believe in evolution and in god?

I'd hate to think how mortifying it would be to get an award from the same people who thought Mother Teresa deserved one...
8. 3 points

9. 3 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

He has pointed out that there is no real basis for myths, that you have little knowledge of the Big Bang theory (an objective fact) and commented on your behaviour (coming to a science forum and making emotional accusations about the inadequacy of science). Nowhere did he say, or even suggest, that you are an idiot. For someone who has come here to attack scientists, atheists and materialists, you are remarkably sensitive to perceived but non-existent insults.
10. 3 points

## hope

I hope you have references for this story. Just speculating a bit in advance: I've been practicing Aikido for many years. One of the exercises was 'reading the intentions' of your opponent, so you can react correctly in time. I can assure you, there are many bodily but subtle signals when somebody starts a movement. So a samurai might be able to react even before the gun was shot. It is not magic, it is practice (and talent, I suppose, I never made it to the black belt... ). Seems so. But because you corrected me elsewhere, now I correct you . The Chinese Room is from John Searle. But it is the case, that many people believe he has a point with it, and recently I saw an interview with him on Swiss Television, and Searle still adheres to it, even that I also think that it was definitely debunked by e.g. Hofstadter and Dennett in 'The mind's I'. Dennett therefore calls it a false 'intuition pump'. BTW, I once hat a chance to have a small chat with Penrose, and he is really a very nice, bit excentric (in the positive sense) guy. And he is not very dogmatic. He clearly saw that his and Hammeroff's 'Orch-OR' theory is still a hypothesis, and definitely not a full blown picture of reality. He did not become angry when I confessed I did not so much believe in his theory. Edit: Now I got a +1. But it was there before my remark on Searle and Penrose was merged with my comment on the samurai. So whoever gave me the point, read if you still agree with the new part. Otherwise you can remove it again. (no please don't... ).
11. 3 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

would I say all my questions were answered? Not entirely but I can say I can walk away content with the answers I got knowing I still have a lot to learn
12. 3 points

13. 3 points

## hope

You do realise that is just a bit of journalistic sensationalism, not a real thing. And what if it is clockwork or powered by wet string (both equally well supported) And where does that 20 millihertz come from? Entanglement happens between individual particles. It is a bit bizarre to use the rule that says it involves pairs of particles to claim it applies to entire “computers” Check out the concept of “evidence” 1. Argument from authority 2. Penrose’s stature is as a mathematician and physicist 3. There are plenty of people of similar stature in the relevant fields 4. Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience even if done by scientists (there are lots of presedenti for this) ALL chemistry is due to quantum processes
14. 3 points

## solutions to overpopulation

Hello, I live in Muslim country and i have to say something about that. Actually, in educated side of our country, people are informed about birth control methods . However, in uneducated side , it is beyond women's power. Womens doesn't have right to speak, so that all control is belonged to men. Our goverment is handing out preservatives to prevent this problem , but I think nobody use them. Even,a few years ago, I heard some news about that. Some kids were using preservatives like balloon. On the other hand, even if they were educated, probably they don't do something. They aims to having much kids, they use them like soliders. they protect themselves and make money through their kids. Nobody doesn't care life standards of kids, especially girls. These people do that to live. Goverment, police or any defensive force can't prevent them, because they are not enough to stop hunger , terror and unemployment. In my opinion, education can be part of the solution , but this is not enough. It is releated with economy and politic situation of country. Solution is being social democracy. As for me, this is not about religion. In our country, nobody against abortion, it is totally about management.
15. 2 points

## Generating Gravity

I don't think so. You can easily check this with your current configuration (without the tube blocked/sealed) if you put something that creates smoke (a cigar maybe) instead of that paper. The smoke would enter the tube in the center, along the rotation axis, where the air has a low presure, and exit near the walls, were the air/smoke is pushed by the centrifugal force (the rotation creates a vortex). Still, I recommend the wooden board I mentioned above, in order to block both air and electrostatic forces (if any). Gravity is not blocked by wood.
16. 2 points

17. 2 points

## Liming Lake Kivu

Do you know how CaO is produced? Mostly from CaCO3... CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2..
18. 2 points

19. 2 points

## Calculus

The question was not about using computers to solve calculus problems anyway. Since computer science is mainly about proving asymptotic behavior of the maximal running time of algorithms, there are lots of results in computer science that cannot or only with some extra difficulty be proved without calculus, e.g. typically using that the limit behavior is given by a suitable Riemann integral. Generally you cannot escape using limits to get general bounds on running time.
20. 2 points

21. 2 points

## If (illicit) drugs were legal.

Your imagination is irrelevant. There are people who use heroin (under it's more respectable name of diamorphine) regularly for years. In terms of toxic damage done to the body, alcohol is worse- simply because the doses (ounces rather than milligrams)are so much bigger. Of course there is. Several countries have relaxed the legislation on drugs- notably Holland and Portugal. There is typically a small increase in the number of users of pot (and a slight drop in alcohol use). There's a huge saving on police time etc. The problem isn't people using drugs. There is a problem with people how use them too much, or too often. But there's a huge problem with people who are injured- not by the drug use, but by the illegality of that use. The people killed in gang wars over drug territories are killed by the fact that the drugs are illegal. The people who die of overdoses from drugs that were sold with uncontrolled strength and make-up were killed by the fact that the drugs are illegal. The people who die from infections from sharing needles are killed by the fact that the drugs are illegal. We could save most of those people. Why are we not donig so?
22. 2 points

## What is an intuitive way of understanding and describing the "Weak Nuclear Force"

Actually, this is not correct. The charge that is associated with the weak interaction is a quantum number called “weak isospin”. All particles possess this, and it is conserved in all types of interactions - unlike flavour, which is carried only be quarks, and is not conserved anyway. Thus, the weak interaction concerns more (elementary) particles than just quarks. To be honest, I don’t think there is an intuitive way to really understand the weak interaction. It’s really quite a complicated mechanism, and requires quite a bit of background knowledge in quantum field theory to fully understand.
23. 2 points

## A secret that all scientists in the world should know.

Most scientists do accept that we are probably not alone in this universe. Many reasons for that starting with the fact that Earth does not hold any privileged position. Along with the facts that the "near infinite" extent and content of the universe, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, leads reasonable opinion to conclude that we are not alone. Still the fact remains that so far we do not have any convincing evidence of any life off this Earth, let alone any Alien visitations and anal probing on Earth. Those are the facts at this time, not withstanding the sensational claims of impressionable gullible folk who are so fascinated and in awe of mystique in the world around them, that it clouds any logical judgement on their part.
24. 2 points

## Mammals turn to night life to avoid people

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer! From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage. Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.
25. 2 points

## Argument against suicide

I would argue that you do not know what might be round the corner. You have 1 chance at life. It is an incredible opportunity just to even exist and be aware of it, whatever the pain you have to go through. I would urge them to try something new - they say 'time heals all wounds'.... although it might not be true you can only hope. If someone makes that decision to end themselves I think it is a shame and a waste of the chance for future joy/pleasure/whatever or the chance to pass on your wisdom to someone else. Look to what you can do for the world rather than what it can do for you. Be a part of something greater than your self. Anyway - what do I know? - just my opinion... It is very sad that people hit the lows that make them feel this way imo. We need more unconditional agape love in the world. If I had a prayer for the world - more Agape in all our hearts please.
26. 2 points

## A quite Sunday and Super massive Black Holes:

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-quiet-sunday-night-supermassive-black.html Earlier this year, on a quiet Sunday night, my colleague Jack and I found the fastest-growing supermassive black hole in the known universe. We were fortunate to be part of the team that made one of the greatest discoveries in astronomy this year. This supermassive black hole, or quasar, is 20 billion times the mass of our Sun and is 12.5 billion light years away from Earth. It expands 1 per cent every million years and it devours a mass equivalent to our Sun every two days. Officially, it is called SMSS J215728.21-360215.1, but we call it the hungry monster. The 'we' that made the discovery was a small team led by Australian National University astronomer Dr. Christian Wolf and his team, and included two postgraduate students from the University of Melbourne, Jack Hon and myself. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-quiet-sunday-night-supermassive-black.html#jCp
27. 2 points

## Can you believe in evolution and in god?

Nope, hence the impasse and suggestion of moved goalposts / evasion / willful ignorance
28. 2 points

## Where to submit my proof that the set of real numbers can't be well ordered

There There are two related but different definitions of "dense," and completeness has NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER. * A set is dense if there's a third (distinct) point between any two points. So the rationals are a dense set and so are the reals. * A set X is dense in a set Y if every element of Y has elements of X arbitrarily close to it. For example the rationals are dense in the reals. * A Cauchy sequence is a sequence that should "morally" converge. For example the sequence 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ... should converge, and in the real numbers it does, to 0. But in the open unit interval (0,1), it does NOT converge, because there's nothing for it to converge to. Its limit, namely 0, isn't in the set. * A set is complete if every Cauchy sequence converges. The real numbers are complete, the unit interval [0,1] is complete, and the half-open unit interval (0,1] isn't. Note that completeness is a metric property and not a topological one. The open unit interval (0,1) and the real numbers are homeomorphic, that means they are identical topologically. But the reals are complete and (0,1) isn't. These are all perfectly standard definitions and any book on real analysis will define them the same way. Your posted proof is a train wreck full of misunderstandings and logic errors. Also, I'll assume you meant to say, "Thank you wtf for putting some effort into this to help me when nobody else in the world did" but simply forgot because you're so busy with other important things. ps -- Your approach is hopeless, by the way. Well-ordering has NOTHING to do with denseness or completeness. A well-ordered set looks discrete. It's got a first element, a second, a third, etc. A well-order can't be dense, because for example there are no integers between 2 and 3. In a well-ordered set, given any element there's a successor, with no other element between them. So your approach simply can't work. Likewise, completeness can't work either, since it's based on a metric, and most well-ordered sets have no metric defined on them. For example any transfinite ordinal number is well-ordered, but there's no metric defined on it. So the concepts you're using to attack the problem are the wrong tools. I do encourage you to learn more real analysis, it's a wonderfully interesting subject that will forever clarify your understanding of the real numbers. But flailing away with half-understood and misunderstood concepts, in order to disprove a standard theorem that's already been proven and accepted as true for well over a century, is not the most productive way to go about learning.
29. 2 points

## Pressure underwater

I am an open water certified diver, the pressure increases by one bar every 33 feet you go down. Looking at it from that perspective then at 33 feet you would be under 2 bars of pressure but one bar more than at the surface... I am going to say from the perspective of decompression tables you do not consider the surface pressure to be 0 bar. Traveling in an airplane after a deep dive can be fatal even though you are fine at the surface...
30. 2 points

## A question which has always intrigued me

No offense, Brett, but you really should read the forum rules before posting anything else on this site. It is required that you back up your claims instead of just making stuff up. Whenever I see your name pop up, unsupported nonsense follows. Please at least do a Google search to check your "facts" in the future. You are of course welcome to ask questions to learn.
31. 2 points

## Split from Big Bang - doubts ?

Have you seen the program - The Big Bang Theory? The song at the start suggests - "the whole universe was in a hot dense state...." Before the big bang the universe was in a hot dense state - this is not nothing and it is not claimed that it was nothing. What was before the hot dense state? I don't know and nobody does - many may 'speculate' that it came from nothing, but that is nothing to do with the big bang theory and is pure speculation. Your question was regarding the big bang theory - not 'the creation of the universe' - which is why people are asking you if you really understand what TBBT says - which clearly you don't. As I said - I am not an expert - I only have a degree in Physics and chemistry - I never covered it at uni so I will let others that are more knowledgeable explain it to you - but if you don't accept what they say then why would they bother taslking to you - you seem hung up on this 'something from nothing' nonsense - it sounds like something your pastor might claim. What about these newly discovered particles that appear and disappear out of 'nowhere' in a vacuum.... I'm sure they don't come from 'nothing'... they must come from somewhere - no-one knows. You are clearly not listening... bye. Just repeating the question isn't going to help you understand it when you have been told you are already barking up the wrong tree. Sorry - your question doesn't prove or disprove anything. God is a myth - get over it.
32. 2 points

## Exoplanets and the likelyhood/unlikelyhood of life:

Obviously it goes without saying, that if we were to find signs of basic bacterial/microbial life in our own solar system, that chances of life even beyond and at all stages, would be significantly increased.
33. 2 points

34. 2 points

## Does physics say my notion is incorrect?

Why not learn what physicists have learnt by experiment instead of making it up?
35. 2 points

## Is zero finite?

It is hard to come up with any generally applicable definition by which zero should not be finite. Dedekind: 0 (understood as the empty set, so that the definition applies) does not allow an injection into a proper subset. Hence 0 is finite. Russell: 0 has a bijection to a set {1,2,...,n} for a natural number n, namely for n = 0 and empty bijection. Hence 0 is finite. All well-orderings of 0 are isomorphic. This implies 0 is finite. Every non-empty family of subsets of 0 has an inclusionwise minimal element (Tarski). Etc. There are strange sets that are Dedekind-finite but Kuratowski-infinite. 0 is not one of them, since 0 is Kuratowski-finite by definition. I prefer Russell myself, probably because I come from Combinatorics. For us it is important not only to know whether some things exists or not, but also to count the number of them. An expression like n^m for natural numbers n and m means, by definition, the number of different functions from a set of m elements to a set of n elements. In particular you are quite aware that 0^0 = 1 means that there is the unique function $$\emptyset$$ from the empty set to the empty set, so Russell's definition applies nicely.
36. 2 points

## Time and space

No. It is a practical concept in daily use. Like 'here'. Both have no meaning without any context. Both are called 'indexicals' in linguistics and philosophy. And, alas, there is nothing that corresponds with it in physics. The idea of 'universal here' does not make sense already in classical physics. The idea of a a 'universal now' would mean that all watches in the universe agree on the time, and have the same pace. Since special relativity we know this idea does not make sense either.
37. 2 points

## Factorial

If I have three objects, for example a red ball, a blue ball and a green ball, there are 3! ways I can arrange them. RGB RBG BRG BGR GBR GRB With just two objects there are 2! ways RG GR And with 1 object there's only 1! way to arrange it G There's only 1 way to arrange zero objects And that's why 0! =1 It's adopted as a convention so the maths gives sensible answers for things like probability.
38. 2 points

## Time and space

Thank you, I will await with interest. I assume the rest of your post referred to your 'discussion' with Strange. Perhaps I can pour some oil here because I think you two are talking at cross purposes. The reason is simple. One way of looking at simultaneity in the four dimensional continuum you mention is to plot isolines (contours) of constant time coordinate. The problem is that these contours are different when viewed from every point in the continuum. That is you have as many different statements of 'now' as the are points in the continuum. Worse you have no reason to accept any one of these as 'the rightone' or 'the best'. This is the same chain of reasoning that leads to the idea that there is no absolute frame of reference.
39. 2 points

## hope

Found it. It is on youtube.
40. 2 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

Hmm, so you chose emotional, ignorant, and unsupported beliefs over evidenced based science? Do you have any evidence at all supporting any of these religions and or any soul? Whatever "evidence" there is that in anyway supports what you claim, it pales into insignificance to the evidence totally supporting such beliefs to be all scientific woo, myth and nonsense. Perhaps it is just patently obvious that evidence for any supernatural/paranormal myth is lacking, and that alternatively, the evidence for the BB, evolution of life and universal Abiogenesis is overwhelming. Irrespective there are intelligent people who are also religious but phycologically speaking their desire for some warm inner comforting feeling over rides their logic, and of course science as yet does not have all the answers, such as why the BB banged, but it continues to search, for answers, rather then short circuiting it with unsupported myth. No, you don't just get the BB theory. The BB theory as first proposed by a Catholic priest, was based on observational evidence. That evidence over the last 100 years has grown so that it is by far the most accepted theory on how the universe/space/time came to be...Yes, an accident, speculatively explained by a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Richard describes it adequately and well...a happy little accident. The chances of the universe arising is quite real, considering that we are here. More to the point, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc So as Carl said try being couragious, and honest...It's not hard. Well again, it is you that has ventured into a science forum, on your white charger conducting some crusade against science. Is it not you with this weird mind set?? I also have plenty to say about the wonders and awe and answers that science and the scientific methodology has given us. But I will express them on forums such as this, and not venture into church next Sunday, expressing what a lot of gullible fools they are. Perhaps you and I actually swung in the same tree before science evolved?
41. 2 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

You have now Nickel's worth of free advice? You'll get along much better here if you remove that giant chip from your shoulder and approach posters as individuals, not stereotypes and labels.
42. 2 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

I’m in my forties and still have insomnia (now just habit) that stems from 5 years of age due to fear of death. Trying to get your head around the self not existing anymore ever again was too much to bear and I struggled with life because of this. At some point I was able to control my thoughts from this slippery slope and it’s not a problem these days. I hope the same will happen for you. in Buddhism there’s a saying; ‘If you can do something about it, you don’t need to worry. If you can’t do something about it, you don’t need to worry ‘. Simple but true. And anyway - there’s always hope Why must this be clarified? My feeling is that most people don’t need to label or call themselves an atheist. Rather they are just indifferent to religion as it simply doesn’t concern them. At least, that’s how I see it anyway.
43. 2 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

Yes. Precision matters (which is why a lot of discussions are mathematical, because language is often imprecise). Welcome to science.
44. 2 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

Is it? What do you base that on? I know plenty of atheists who are thoughtful, kind, modest, ... I don't find that at all surprising. There might be a tendency for conservatism to be associated with religiosity, particularly in the USA perhaps, but it is not an absolute rule. I'm sure there are left-leaning fundamentalist religious types as well. There are many atheists where the "a" seems to stand for "anti"; they can be very strongly anti-religious. Richard Dawkins is one, and I despise him for it. There are also several on this forum (who I occasionally get into arguments with because of it!). My attitude to religious belief is similar to my attitude to golf: it is incomprehensible and of little interest to me. I don't disapprove of people who have faith and I certainly don't despise them. Faith has prompted great acts of human kindness, the creation of beautiful music, etc. (And, obviously as the anti-theists will rush point out in their usual whataboutism, has also been used to justify inhuman acts.) What I will argue with is people trying to use evidence or logic to justify their belief (or lack of belief), or saying that science/evidence must be wrong because some book says so, etc. Hello. Nice to meet you.
45. 2 points

## Anti gravity room on earth?

Not quite a room... This is currently done by NASA using an empty passenger plane to approximate weightlessness for training purposes The effect won't last as long, but buying and modifying a plane for such a purpose is immensely cheaper than your scheme..
46. 2 points

## solutions to overpopulation

I think you would be on far better ground if you said "Religious people exhibit a higher birth rate", which doesn't have to be associated with fertility.
47. 2 points

## hope

20 mHz? 0.02 Hz? That means you are aware only 1 time in 50 seconds? (1/50 = 0.02). I assume you mean 20 MHz, 20,000,000 Hz. But neurons cannot fire that fast. The individual components of the brain are, e.g. in comparison to computers, very slow (a neuron fires at a rate of about 6 Hz, computers are at a few GHz now). It is only due to the massive parallel processing in the brain, that it still can fulfill certain complex tasks in fractions of a second. But it is interesting to note that the fastest reactions people are capable of, are not aware immediately, but often only afterwards (this is one of the aspects of sport training: to learn to react automatically on situations, because first becoming aware is just too slow). Of all the process in the brain, awareness is one of the slower ones.
48. 2 points

## Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

Well, at least your specific existence is an accident. When you were conceived, the sperm that made it was one of about 1 Billion. If another one had made it, you would not have existed. Is that depressing? If not why would it be depressing for the universe as a whole? I think panpsychism is nothing more than the statement that 'all matter is also conscious'. I have no idea how you can make science of that. If you accept that the more complex a system is, the chances increase that the system can be conscious (our brain is a very complex structure), what does the addition that 'all matter is conscious to some degree' helps? Or do you think every corn of sand is just as conscious as we are? On what would such a belief be based? Consciousness is not a thing, it is a process, and it is normal for processes that they can stop. Where is the wave, when it has broken on the shore? Where is the clock, if you hammer it to pieces? Where is your proof of the law of conservation of consciousness? 'I cannot imagine', or 'it does not make sense to me' are not very strong arguments. Spirituality is not some kind of (meta)physics, i.e. there are no spiritual entities. 'Spirituality' is a way to relate to the world, whatever this world really is like. So there is no contradiction between leading a spiritual life, and having a materialistic world view. As a counter-example: take the big religions. Most believers have no spiritual attitude at all. They just have a set of beliefs. But it is interesting to see that nearly every religion, has its spiritual corners, i.e. those people that want to experience what they take as true as intense as possible. Same is true for a materialistic world view. You can just believe it (in contrast with religions however there are very good grounds to believe in the results of science), which I think the majority of science minded people does, but you can also try to deeply feel this, and stand in awe for what science discovers: the working of the universe at the grand or micro scale. Let me just add that many mystics, if you look at their life stories, went through a crisis, before they could accept what they took for true, and found a way to live a happy life with what they accepted as truths. Bending the truth, based on how the universe needs to be so that you feel comforted ('it does not make sense to me') is wagging the dog, and means you have left the spiritual path.
49. 2 points

## Is Israel evolving into a fascist nation?

So the Article 4 states that Islam is the official religion (and the sanctity of other heavenly religions shall be maintained. Two things of note. First, there are other countries which have state religions (including some nordic states, England etc.). In itself one could argue for or against it, but it is not quite the same as what is proposed in the bill (which one probably should read). Before I continue with it, I should mention that even if the Palestinian constitution had questionable provisions (I'd have to read the whole thing, for which I do not have the time right now) one would hope that Israel would provide a better example (after all, it is supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the middle East. Also I want to re-iterate that while there are little practical provisions in terms of shifting to more autocratic system, it does show a certain political shift. Similar to the rise of right wing groups in Europe, which could lead to constitutional issues (as seen in Poland). Among the problematic provisions are the following and to make sure, I do not have any expertise in that area, so my interpretation could be way off but: This seems to imply that non-Jews (regardless of citizenship) should have less influence on the State of Israel. In contrast to setting a state religion (and assuming there are no further provision to diminish others) this implies an exclusion of a certain citizens just based on their cultural background. In most Western countries this would be clearly unconstitutional and in certainly seems undemocratic. I do not know enough on how current and future treatment of Arabic is going to shift. I will just note that if one traditionally had two accepted languages and removes one (if that is what is happening) then it is quite a different thing if one was always only used in official capacity. I think that is kind of self-explanatory. Then there is the baffling issue that it does not mention equality of its citizens anywhere, which is found in virtually all democratic constitutions (and is also included in the Palestinian constitution). Perhaps even more so, as it has been in the declaration of independence in 48. Note that the bill is also controversial among Israelis, including President Rivlin. Now there are several layers in which this bill can be considered problematic. One is the general tone for further legislation, second is its possible consequence for the conflict with the Palestinian people (partially due to the ongoing conflict over Jerusalem, part due to the explicit mentioning of settlement expansion in a basic law) and third is of course as it could be seen as an indicator of how Israel sees its future in relationship the contentious situation they have with their Arabic citizens and neighbours/rivals. Western countries see it as Israel moving away from a two-state solution.
50. 2 points

## Hot vs beautiful - hot will mate without commitment?

It's a classic slut versus virgin dichotomy and is not rooted in fact. It's much more rooted in stereotypes and objectification, desire to use broad labels to justify broad mistreatment. It ignores individual differences and suggests no books need reading, that all information needed can be found on their cover.