MWresearch

You're right, an inanimate list does not have a mind and thus it is unable to think at all, making it relatively stupid, without mental acuity. Quite an astute, intellectual and profound observation.

Aside from the fact that I already studied chemistry over multiple classes and used it for the construction of machines in engineering, the discrepancy is probably because I don't do a lot in chemistry, more physics, and I know for a fact that at the very least, people get paid money to test the coefficients of friction of different common substances. Furthermore, a list such as this does not publicly exist on the internet it seems, so, this site might as well be the first. If you would like some more strict guidelines then the staff could collaborate as to make it a sticky.

When I started out, it was my fault that I did not be more specific in a science forum, you are right to point out vagueness and I am right to specify what I meant. I was expecting more posts like the first few, sociably understandable, people who comprehend the type of list i compiled. But, I am on a science forum so I should have been more specific, the list will be updated when it is edited.

I see the point you are trying to make, even though you could have a controlled combustion reaction contained inside of a cup without the presence of a solid. But, it is a particularly well known chain reaction, and from what I specified up to now I do not see a problem with it being on the list. If you think it would be a good idea, since it is possible for the list to be edited at some point in the future, I could break down the list into physical materials and substances with another category for physical phenomena. It may clear up some confusion.

Fire isn't a chemical, which, does not inhibit it from being a useful item on the list nor does it magically prevent other items on the list from being chemicals. I did not specify that items on the list were limited to chemicals and in more than one post I specified it could also be a physical phenomena or event with the same parameters. Chemical substances tend to be the main focus as they are more easily collectible, but there are other things the universe which take up physical space and interact with matter and energy and are commonly seen by different people which are not in of themselves chemical substances, like fire. And do you have a problem with the fact that numerous people have reviewed information and observed data regarding magnetic monopoles, strange-matter and neutronium? As I said and you ignored, I will not accept substances that are made up out of thin air, they must be at the very least be accepted by science as being plausible before being subject to the parameters of whether or not the substance or material has been in any way assimilated into every day discussions and interest. For magnetic monopoles in particular, there is a back and fourth debate, I see some papers support them and others deny them with both sides being credible and making research efforts in labs on Earth for their position and I am fine with taking it off or keeping it based on any new information I find. But, you of all people implying neutronium and strange matter don't scientifically exist is frankly surprising and analogous to saying black holes don't exist. With their exceedingly high probability of existing based on observed and reviewed data, they are assumed to exist or be physically possible to create by the bulk of the scientific community and I therefore accept them as a physical material. Their position on the extremes of our knowledge has attracted attention which has allowed those materials to be known by a variety of people who do not specialize in those fields of physics. You can see those materials occasionally pop up in pop-science and news articles, sci-fi tv shows and games. Does that clear it up?

Oh, a post I can respond to. Well in that case both your conclusions are illogical. The fact that fire isn't useful as a chemical to chemists mean it is not useful to anyone, and, you seem to have ignored the fact that more people than just chemists have use for the items on the list. In addition to that, it is in fact extremely scientific that I am omly accepting items that have a confirmed relavence and repeated observation and review by a variety of humans over a period of time. I aaid I didn't mind it being in the lounge, but I never said I didn't care about why. If it logically suits a field of science with relvence to a variety of physical substances and phenomena, it will receive the most appropriate attention there.

Not responding to any particular post, just wanted to describe a more scientific aspect of the list by saying that there exists such a job where physicists test the coefficients of friction between different common substances, sometimes for commercial use even. There also exists such a job where sound waves are tested on a variety of substances, both organic and inorganic for the purposes of finding harmful or beneficial effects or the limit of the compression waves they can handle before their structure starts to degerate. There exists chemists who test certain chemicals on a variety of average substances to determine if an average person could be harmed by them. Specifically, there are also chemists who do this for geology ad minerals, like for instance that pyrite decomposes into sulfuric acid. A list of many average substances such as this does not exist on the internet as far as I have found or I would not be here trying to add to it, so, this list may be of some use to people working on scientific or non-scientific projects. Specifically, I also do remember specifying standards that were not arbitrary which I also bind myself by, so as a note, any person has a chance to contribute to the list.

Even if your vague description was true which I don't see the reasoning for, I'm assuming you're indirectly referring to Euler's identity and a unit circle on the complex plane, how would an infinite set of numbers prevent those numbers from being greater than another number? There are infinitely greater numbers than 2, but that doesn't mean we can't measure that numbers of that infinite set, like 3 and pi and 4, are greater than two. Similarly, there may be an infinite arrangement of numbers which achieve the same coordinate as 2i+1, but that doesn't mean we cannot measure those specific complex numbers distances from the origin. You will have to explain the actual meaning of what you said.

If you want to allow a self-absorbed perspective of superior intellect to ironically preclude you from learning new information and engaging in a discussion that would challenge your knowledge, then I suppose the topic is done with you. If you would actually like to debate the topic, the rules are clear and you may start to do so at any time.

Well what do people actually know or theorize about such a phenomena? Am I right or am I wrong in my thinking? Are there many micro tremors like Earth quakes on Earth? Or is everything so locked into place than only an enormous fault can develop?

Why is that not true of complex numbers when their absolute value yields a real distance along the complex plane? Can I not say that 2*i is a greater distance from the origin than 1/2? The way you define that is with a limit, like the sum of 3/10^n with n going to infinity, which, approaches 1/3.

Since the thread is not about the project but rather scientifically established substances and physical phenomena that exist in a repeatedly measurable way, which, without me specifying could be used for scientific research, it does still fit into the genre of science. But, I wouldn't care if it was moved to the lounge if you feel that strongly about it.

Also valid for the list. There is actually the potential for something in the project to harness substances like boogers and snot and bile, it just has to be done in a manner that makes sense, which, you don't have to worry about. So semen and other sex-related stuff in particular is probably an exception, a "no we're never ever ever going to use that..." because the nature of the substance may attract both unwanted attention and anger people.

Suppose a person "believes" in giving people apples. You ask them why, they may say "because it benefits others." But if it is already a measured outcome that giving apples benefits people, how is it a belief? I keep trying to tell you, logic, beliefs, instincts, they are all different, you are being too liberal in your usage of the word "belief" which has lead to logical fallacies such as the one I pointed out. A belief as we were using it implies a lack of reasoning or logic even though it has to be some formulated thought, created at least in part by the transfer of information that is not controllable by the person involved in the interaction. If there is a society that benefits from a particular practice, resulting from a "belief," unless you are arguing it is purely mindless randomness, it can't be purely made up, it cannot have an absence of rationale especially when you consider a system of logical responses that creates the action as governed by the laws of physics, the inherent nature of the system that it has some amount of logical deduction, voluntary or not, it cannot be a pure belief in the sense that you treat it. This topic is more muddied than you are giving it credit for. In short, according to our current models, a person cannot purely "believe" something, there must logically be some reason for it by the very nature of the brain itself. Therefore, there is no room for performing an action that lacks the relative evidence that it achieves the desired outcome from a sequence of events within the brain to result in nothing from nothing more than a belief, which includes those of survival. Are you familiar with the "computational theory of the mind?" So, moving on and back to where we started, using this new approach, is there a "reason" to believe anything? In a strict sense, there is objectively always a physical reason that actions and the transference of electrical signals appears to generate an action based on what may appear to be a lack of evidence, but you cannot "believe" something without some relevance to what is logically estimated to be the truth. There is always some reason to believe something, even if you don't consciously realize it, your brain formulated many smaller patterns of signals to analyze the situation, like "mini-thoughts" which collected to form a single thought. Whatever you "believe," there is some reason for it. The only thing left is quantifying "good" which appears to be completely arbitrary with no definite answer. However, you could and already do define good as certain parameters, but then we would have to somehow use statistics to show such complex actions are more likely to achieve that goal within those parameters, the formulation of which is already the result of logical processes governed by physics. In this physical definition of belief, you could be right in a certain scenario to say that a confidence interval of certain outcomes without proof of their result that is used as a measurement of which action to take could that could lead to a more likely survival, but a purely meta-physical construct in a realm untouched by physics as the original discussion of this topic seemed geared towards is by definition not physically possible as far as our current science shows. So no, you cannot "believe" in something to lead to higher chances of survival in the sense you speak of, there cannot be an absence of logic in a thought. I guess, if you want, you could argue for some meta-physical component of the mind, one which is not governed by physics and carry on the discussion in that manner. I suppose you could also argue for an absence of logic within the universe. Can something that isn't logical actually "happen?" However, I find that problem reduces to "can something outside the parameters of reality happen within the parameters of reality?" to which the answer is no, by the definition of parameters. It's like saying "can I do something I can't do?"

I will give you some leeway though. Suppose a person can believe something that it is beneficial, but do they not only choose to "believe" it because in their knowledge they have rationally deduced a beneficial outcome, even if it is for another person, thus making it logically based?

I see a different between instinctual traits of grouping and a formulated thought of belief. How can you deduce that an beneficial action is not based on the involuntary transfer of synaptic patterns, that a true free will allows one to act upon a belief?

So, go head, cite it.

Technically any thought is a measurable outcome since we can observe synaptic patterns that form a thought, but that doesn't mean a thought can't be irrational. It's a measurable outcome that someone at a bar occasionally gets angry and punches someone, but that doesn't mean it was logical to do so. But as I asked, can you cite something where "believing" increases the chances of an individual's genes surviving? If not even lying or holding the same beliefs as ISIS would save one from the inevitable violence it causes, what is viable? But wouldn't a group that lets people die for not holding a particular belief be more likely to create violent situations, thus decreasing the chances of the genes of the members being passed on indefinitely? Wouldn't any societal structure built from the premise of merely acting on belief inevitably be subject to inevitable failure caused by inaccuracy?

I did not bring up the project as an objection to putting the substance on the list at all, I simply stated that the nature of the project is such that the developer likely will not use that substance as with a great deal many of these substances, and since the project itself is not strictly science related to these substances, getting hush-hush about it is exactly what I will do. Perhaps one day you will find it on the internet, one day, by coincidence.

The list is what this thread is about, not the project. You are right about the substance, so it will be put on the list, but the project this list is for probably won't use it, not everything will make it through to the project.

I would put it on the list but it definitely wouldn't get approved by the project developer.

But when you say "beliefs" which set of beliefs are you talking about? What situation can you cite as an incidence where "believing" a particular thing ultimately leads to an increased likelihood of survival for an individual? Even if you say "yes let's blow up that country and cut off all their heads" to survive getting killed by ISIS, are you not in effect stimulating violence that would ultimately create a much more hostile environment which would directly effect not only you but any offspring you have even if you manage to survive for some increased time on your own? Are you saying we "believe" 1+1=2 and thus those who understand math are more likely to survive? Because then we would need a discussion on empirical observation, whether observation and rules of logic are not subject to interpretation. Or are you referring more the nature of ethics, religion and social affairs, in which case I refer you to known history? Does the mere act of believing condemn one to inefficiency and being less likely to survive? I see no definite answer in favor of your argument, not in this time period, because a lot of history shows beliefs have caused very large problems that get many people killed and cause massive damage to infrastructure around the world. But as I told you before, perhaps believing in something like a large group as a church allowed more people to survive, even though they could have logically deduced on their own individual basis that it would be more beneficial to their survival to not kill and steal from each other. But, I can't really say the same for today's civilizations.

No I asked you a question that you're not answering. If I'm not interpreting correctly then it is up to you to elaborate. You claim being part of a certain group is a reason to believe something because the belief of the group leads to survival, I want to know what groups you're thinking of when you say that. Exactly, an individual can be killed if they are part of a certain gang or religion, get dragged into a war they did not start or denied opportunities because of race or gender. So, which groups are you actually talking about when you say "a reason to believe is because of survival...?" Except for the fact that it is recorded history that there have been incredibly large fights with groups of people who disagree on how to govern themselves and their belief as well as the fact that the growth of the global economy is stimulated on the development of new technology to support a growing population at a rate maintained by the efficiency of production achieved only through international trade. If all countries only kept all resources to themselves, the world wouldn't be as developed as it is today.

I don't know that it can't be changed for certain, better to make sure with one of the people that runs the site.

Can you elaborate as to what groups you think being a part of constitutes a reason to accept something as proof without empirical data (believe)? But then we arrive at my other point, why would one group surviving be worth more than other groups surviving? Why would it be better to develop survival in groups as opposed to more isolated at all? So then why should surviving as a trait of a group be the focal point for belief? But if the goal of believing is survival, how do you compensate for the fact that identifying as part of a group through a belief can create inefficient pride and violence among people who are biologically almost exactly identical? If they were all in fact opinions I would say thanks.