sethoflagos

You don't say whether or not your rear end is moving likewise. Either way, my money would go on dot items 3 & 5 working in tandem. Gravity provides the driving force for pulse-induced creep. Every heartbeat lifts and lowers you ever so slightly allowing gravity to slowly inch (millimetre?) you down the gravity well. It's an unsupported hypothesis, but I'd be willing to accept a reasonable research grant if you'd like more flesh on the bones.

This is the York Marygate I remember from the early '60s. I'm not sure top left actually is Walker Street (during 'slum' clearance), as they were all very similar. I We were right by the river and I do remember being flooded out a couple of times. A bit of an inconvenience, but the area had more character than you can easily find these days.

Yes, but his 'incoming' was 10oC so 600W is more than enough for him for that room. I guess we're both old enough to remember unheated bedrooms with ice on the inside of the windows. Mine became a town centre car park in the 70's.

The OP room is ~ 40 m3 air space - typical of say a medium sized British bedroom. British bedrooms are typically not ventllated as much as they might be, especially at this time of year, but for the sake of argument let's give it the full 7 volume changes per hour: 280 m3/hr. Air density is oto 1.2 kg/m3 for a mass flow of 336 kg/hr or 0.933 kg/s. Air specific heat is 1,005 J/kgK for an energy flow of 93.8 W/K. Therefore 600W dry heat input gives a room temperature of ~600/93.8 or 6.4 degrees above that of the incoming air. Since the incoming air is likely to be preheated air from elsewhere in the house, I suspect the room will be noticeably warm by most people's standards. Add to that the 80W or so contribution from @StringJunky's metabolism and taking the reasonable assumption that the room is not fully aired continuously, then things might be getting a bit toasty, don't you think? We're certainly well above his 15o C upper threshold of comfort. No You referred to in belittling my initial post are typically not references. They are predominantly unreliable as you implied in your original post. You are once again being deliberately disingenuous in your argument. This is not worthy of a figure of your standing in this community.

Find I have nothing I can usefully add now. Thanks for the reps anyway.

Good luck in getting one 😉

Strawman. I said no such thing. Far from the first time you've responded in this way to my posts. Just saying.

With respect, when I use the phrase 'standard target' I mean the middle of a range specified by the internationally recognised industrial design standards relating to a broad range of HVAC applications that I've been contractually bound to observe in the course of my professional working career. I do NOT mean 'the first bit of bs I found via google'. These standards are in general not available outside of a paywall, so what source exactly would you wish me to quote? (My employers generally take my CV as sufficient authority. Would you prefer me to attach that? 🤨) Electronic gear etc is not 'people'. Similarly, I've worked with slightly different ranges for long term paper products storage etc. The OP case is the OP case. @StringJunky is not likely to swell and crinkle when the air gets a little damp I trust.

Define 'comfort' Okay, that's an unusally low temperature. Recommended humidity for occupied rooms is 40%-60% RH because reasons. Air @ 10oC and 100% RH contains 9.4 g/m3 moisture (calculator here) Air @ 15oC containing 9.4 g/m3 moisture is @ 73.3% RH (same resource) If its a contractual obligation job, then dehumidification seems obligatory. However, there are other considerations to bear in mind. Maybe 73% RH is tolerable to you in which case, a modest addition of dry heat would do the job. Same if the initial humidity was more like 85% If the room is humid only because of your breathing/perspiration and it's less humid outside then maybe all that's needed is a small fan to increase the ventilation rate a bit. Most typical occupied spaces are best served with ~7 air changes per hour or they can get a bit clammy. (Up to double that figure for say a computer room) People are walking humidifiers emitting 6-7 MJ/day largely as moisture saturated warm air so there's major shifts in emphasis when dealing with small, busy rooms versus large sparsely occupied ones. Guess it's down to the individual. Personally, I find 50% a bit on the dry side these days, but it is the standard target for the HVAC industry etc (eg industry source) 600W of dry heat input would make a room this size quite warm quite quickly. I checked the site and it does indeed say that. Absolute nonsense. These values are what would be required to prevent condensation on say the inside of a single-glazed window. Following this guidance would be a health hazard for any occupants.

What is the frequency of purple? Purple (and all other hues) are purely constructs of the mind, and exist in the external environment only as approximate correlations with certain bands of emr. The many records of inviduals with chromaesthesia who experience colour from sonic stimuli further strengthen this point of view.

A priori (deduced) determinism demands no empirical evidence and is compatible only with faith based points of view. A posteriori (induced) determinism takes on board the empirical evidence. So it could be either. There are many different flavours of determinism.

What if your neurologist was so competent that he became a Laplace's Demon and provided you with a scheduled listing of all your actions for the next 24 hours? Wouldn't a compatibilist's belief in determinism conflict with his freedom to deviate from the Demon's prediction only to fall foul of some time reversed Grandfather paradox? Even if you claim that predictability has nothing to do with free will it appears from the above that compatibilism requires the future to be unknowable for free will to remain meaningful. The macroscopic diversity and non-linearity I mentioned were intended to suggest that there may be profound reasons why that future is indeed unknowable; we do not and never will know exactly the point where lightning will next strike, and that seems a necessary condition for the very existence of free will. They give free will 'elbow room'. When you talk about the predictability of your behaviour are you not not really just talking about trust? The habitual repetitive patterns of behaviour that you have developed over a lifetime in defiance of random external stimuli? Those patterns that a wife may find reliably secure and comforting, in contrast to an archetype impulsive free spirit like Peter Pan? How would we ever know that a Peter Pan had any free will at all? It surely takes an effort of free will curb one's impulses and train oneself to be a person a life partner could trust. This seems to be Spinoza's vision of free will While initial urge may arguably be deterministic, the development and regular practice of 'good habits' further distances action from external influences. Having made elbow room for some definition of free will: As a philosophical construct that definition of free will must be an idealised perfect form. One issue I might raise here is that evolution doesn't habitually create perfect forms. It strongly prefers 'sufficient' forms. Given a choice of multiple alternative means to an end, it invariably seems to go the recurrent laryngeal nerve route. However, evolutionarily desirable free will may be to the survival of a species, I suspect that the most economic structure to build from readily available materials would be some merely sufficient simulation. Your decision to engage in a sensible diet was a result of logical deduction. Logic transcends the boundaries of the universe and is therefore an uncaused cause.

Where I come from, the leftover contents of the roasting dish become the spread on the next day's bread and drip sandwiches.

This evening in London was dark, clear, still, and not too chilly (~80C -ish) with a day-10 moon quite high in the southern sky. It was surrounded by quite a bright diffuse pale disc about 10 lunar diameters across with a chestnut-coloured fringe. Google tells me that this is typical of a Lunar Corona. However, what was even more striking was a rainbow halo (indigo to red outer) surrounding the corona maybe another 3 moon diameters wide which was quite intensely coloured for several minutes before it began to fade. It's a long time since I had regular views of a northern sky so forgive me if this is commonplace, but can a luna corona and halo occur simultaneously?

One of my favourite childhood memories is that of pea and ham soup based on a 4lb ham shank slow-cooked in 1lb of marrowfat peas. I found a recipe at https://foodnetwork.co.uk/recipes/lancashire-pea-and-ham-soup which is very much how my mother and grandmothers used to make it. Having said that, I roast a cheap ham shank we'd picked up at Tesco's a couple of weeks ago. The resulting ham and mustard sandwiches were gorgeous!

That's a better proposition. I did seem to execute that side step in my subsequent post. Is the gulf between Dennett & Kane so vast? For me, the immediate macroscopic environment contains more than enough entropy and non-linearity to stimulate ideas of as many alternate courses of action simultaneously in the mind as any compatibilist could wish for, which seems to place me somewhat in the Dennett camp. But strangely, for much the same reasons, I have more sympathy for Kane's self-forming actions than Dennett does. Yes. If ultimate personal responsibility didn't exist, then I think it might be necessary to at least pretend that it did. Might have to dwell on that for a month or two.

Thanks for that. Are they worth minding? I'd got sort of comfortable with TI.

Except no one worth minding doubts the existence of photons. Though in passing, last time I asked @Mordred advised me that it was an invalid frame of reference. There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach'ya bout the raisin of the wrist. Or so I heard. I thought Spinoza's line was that since his god was the only causeless being, his was the only truly free will. Did I get him confused with someone else? Very long time since I read into this stuff. The point is that we seem to lack undisputable evidence of conscious choice that is not wholly contingent on prior events. The major benefit of understanding free will and therefore one answer to your OP, would be definitive evidence of its existence.

Western philosophy has failed to produce concensus on either the definition of, or even the existence of free will since at least the time of Aristotle. Therefore the premise is false. Because we need some prior concensus on a working definition of free will before we say anything meaningful about it. Where did I say the search for understanding is futile? Far from it. Your deduction is false (arguably lazy and insultingly dismissive) Quite the opposite. In an increasingly godless world It appears that the role of an all-powerful, omniscient being is being usurped by materialist determinism. Scientific determinism succeeds theological predeterminism and whether or not they are flip sides of the same coin, the assault on the existence/reality of free will appears identical. Says who? Spinoza says no. wtf?

Could also try https://www.google.com/search?q=clipping+circuit

Since 2010, this has been anything but true in the UK

The effectiveness of carbon sequestion via weathering of basalt etc. is ultimately limited by actual reaction rates. One only has to consider the rather slow disappearance of such basalt structures as eg the Giant's Causeway (and essentially the entire surface lithosphere of Northern Ireland), Fingal's Cave, Iceland to understand that these carbonation reactions are not lightning fast. Even in finely divided form, a visit to a basaltic black sand beach is scarcely seething with chemical activity. But that does not make it a factor to be ignored. It cannot be a solution to all our problems but it can help. EDIT: I see @studiot has just made the very same point (simulpost) I found quite a useful summary of its global relevance at https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2138/am-2019-6884/html?lang=en. I've wondered for a while whether weathering of the calcium silicate content of concrete had a similar effect, and found an interesting Caltech article at https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/weathering-cement-important-overlooked-sink-carbon-dioxide-53134 ... which I found quite interesting.

Does that observation increase our understanding of what free will actually is? Personally, I would reject @Eise's Quantum Decision Maker as an agent of free will not on the grounds that it (potentially) confounds determinism, but that it is indistinguishable from taking actions based on false premises. The popular understanding of the concept would be along the lines of choosing to get out of bed when you felt like it, not when someone else told you to. Do we have any more sophisticated definition to work with? If not, then such a decision is arguably just a balance of pleasure/pain responses and no more an example of free will than a peckish amoeba wandering off in search of its next meal. Easy prey for the determinist camp. I'm tempted toward an atheist position on both free will and determinism, though remain open to harder definitions of free will and less evangelical revelations of determinism. If free will does not exist, then the validity of the OP is moot. Kind of like asking what unicorns prefer for breakfast.

This is a form the Young-Laplace equation as I understand it. Your earlier version with 1/(h/2) instead of 1/r was incorrect for the diagramme given. But note that the usual form is dP= -T(1/r + 1/R). It only becomes the form quoted above AFTER you have performed algebraic manipulation of the signs. I suggest you apply more focus to distinguishing between the standard forms of equations and expressions lifted from part-completed calculations.

Merely a futile attempt to establish some mutual understanding of what you mean by 'free will'. I invested some time in it, but lesson learnt.