exchemist

Yes this is true to an extent. But, to take the radioactive decay example, we can predict that a radioactive nucleus will decay, due to a cause - its instability - that we are aware of. We even know what prompts the decay of an individual nucleus (vacuum fluctuations). But we can never predict when an individual nucleus will decay, because these vacuum fluctuations are random. There is no cause for an individual fluctuation. They just happen.

You're "still waiting", for all of five whole minutes? I'm touched that you hang on my every word, but I'm afraid I do have to attend to some other things besides your posts. I won't keep you in suspense longer than I have to. Stay calm. Yes. Which question do want me to answer, then? I'm not doing both, because I have no intention of getting Gish Galloped.

He's talking about something else here, namely faster than light/backwards in time influences.

In QM, the probability of events is predicted, but the actual occurrence of the individual events themselves cannot be. That's not too hard to grasp, surely? In QM there are fundamental limits to how much can be known about systems.

It is what the theory predicts and observation is in line with that prediction. So we have evidence that it is uncaused. We don't have proof of course, because we are doing science and science does not deal in proof.

Well it is what quantum mechanics seems to tell us about the nature of the world. So it is the state-of-the-art model, at least. So, anyway, I'm glad to have got this clear: you are essentially putting forward the good old First Cause cosmological argument for God. The objections to that will be the usual ones.

Oh I don't mean that the disguise was necessarily intentional on your part, just that that is what it amounts to, whether you realise it or not. To claim that the universe must be "evidence of" something implies that something other than the universe must be somehow responsible for its presence - a cause for its existence, in fact. As you will know, if this is your line of country- as it seems to be - this assertion of a First Cause is an old chestnut. You have misunderstood me in imagining I don't think that "things have a cause". That is not at all what was saying. What I said - and if you have studied much science you will know this - is that there are uncaused events. So it is not true to claim that every event must have a cause, though quite obviously most do.

You made an assertion without evidence, namely that the the universe must be evidence "of" something other than itself. This seems to be a disguised way of stating the old canard about everything needing to have a cause. But why should this be true, when we have evidence that some events occur randomly?

But from what you say, it is not clear that sport fishing is any more acceptable. If the people you know who go sport fishing also squash insects, then that suggests that maybe the people find squashing insects objectionable would also disapprove of sport fishing. So perhaps it is quite ethically consistent, with more barbarous people doing both and more enlightened people doing neither. But that may not be the entire explanation. There is also an emotional element involved, when one actually witnesses the killing of a creature, as opposed to just hearing someone talk of an activity they have never witnessed in person and may know little about. People don't generally like witnessing killing. It is perhaps rather bad manners to inflict on someone the spectacle of killing a creature, whether doing so is necessary or entirely gratuitous.

Exponential does not just mean getting bigger and bigger. See the other posts that explain. To put it In words, rather than in maths, an exponential process is one in which the rate of growth or decline is proportional to the magnitude of whatever it is that is growing or declining. So for example, in radioactive decay the rate of decay is proportional to the amount of substance that has not yet decayed. So the rate of decline itself declines as more and more of the material decays. Or, in the unconstrained growth of a bacterial colony, the rate of growth is proportional to the number of bacteria present at any given moment, because each cell divides at a fixed rate so the more cells there are the faster it grows. This does not apply to gravitation. The force an object experiences grows as an inverse square of the distance from the attracting body. That is not an exponential.

So far as I am aware nobody says the process is exponential. But you suggested an inverse square law was followed. And it isn't. And matter is not attracted by black holes exponentially either. It is attracted according to Newton's inverse square law. It looks as if you may not understand what exponential means - which raises the possibility that you don't know what an inverse square law is either. These terms have a mathematical meaning.

I'm now not at all sure what you are arguing. I think we can all agree that if life arises somewhere else in the universe it is very unlikely that it will be identical to the form it takes on Earth. So that seems to be exactly in line with this analogy of yours, about the composition of gold from two locations not being identical. The same geological process took place in both, leading to a gold deposit in the rock, but the outcome was sightly different between the two. However, in your opening post, you said something quite different, namely that you did not think "biology", or abiogenesis, could occur more than once. Now that is saying that the process can't occur more than once, not that the outcome would be different. And that makes no sense. There is every reason to suppose that a natural process that has occurred once will do so again, given suitable circumstances. If you just want to say that if life occurred elsewhere you would probably not see cows, bees and human beings, but some other kinds of creatures, with different biochemistry, we can all agree on that, I think.

I'm sorry, I can't follow any of this. Hubble's Law reflects the observation that recessional velocity (as calculated from the cosmological red shift) is linear with distance. So it's not an inverse square relation.

Processes happen many times over in nature. The outcomes of those processes may not be exactly the same every time. For example, many millions of stars have formed, but no two stars are exactly alike. So, we might expect that life can arise many times over in the universe, but it is unlikely that the form it takes each time will be identical to that we see on Earth.

What "it" are you talking about? I repeat, but with emphasis added, no deviations from Newton's inverse square law of gravitation were detected. In other words, just to spell it out, no influence of dark energy - which the experimenters thought might cause a deviation from Newton's law of gravitation - was detected. As nothing apart from Newton's law behaviour was observed, no manifestation of dark energy was detected. So no information about dark energy can be obtained from this experiment, except in the sense I mentioned, viz. that if there are any deviations from Newton's law, they must be smaller than the detection limit of this experimental setup.

No, this passage does not say anything about dark energy obeying an inverse square law. What it says is that no deviations from Newton's inverse square law of gravitation were detected. So this experiment has not shed any light (haha) on dark energy, save, I suppose, in establishing some upper limit to the magnitude of any deviation from Newton's inverse square law that there may be.

People will often object to wanton killing of harmless creatures. Your examples of the unnecessary killing of spiders and bees, both of which are generally harmless to us and actually beneficial, suggests you lack this sensitivity. If I met you, I would find your behaviour callous and objectionable. Regarding sport fishing, I agree it seems unnecessarily cruel, though I note there are efforts to improve the survival rate of the released fish, by improved design of hooks etc. Perhaps it is just one of those things, like bullfighting, that is a relic of a more barbarous age and will die out as people become more aware of the need to respect the environment. How many of the people who object to you stamping on insects and spiders go sport fishing?

Does your theory make testable predictions? If it doesn't, it is not science.

Science is a body of knowledge about nature. And there is nothing in that body of knowledge about the origin or cause, if there were to be one, of the order in nature. If I were to speak of "scientists", instead of science, I would immediately be making it seem as if it might be a mere matter of fashion, or personal belief. So I meant what I said. I am not speaking of a "fashion" in "science philosophy". I'm telling you that an answer to such a question is absent from that body of knowledge. Secondly, I have explained why there is no explanation: there is no observation that can be made that has any bearing on the question. So it not a question that science can answer. You might as well ask what is the "cause" (if there was one) of the universe. That is not a question science can answer either, for the same reason.

No and yes, respectively. First, no we can't explain, because the order* in nature just is, as far as science is concerned. And then yes, we can explain why we can't explain, because science does not pretend to be able to answer every question it is possible to dream up. Science limits itself to theories (that is to say, models) of nature that can be tested by observation. That requirement imposes limits on what science can model. In fact the refusal of science to dream up answers to questions that can't be validated by observation is what gives it its reliability and explanatory power. This is in contrast to some other systems of thought, such as metaphysics, that indulge in unverifiable theories. * This order is sometimes called referred to as the "laws" of nature, though actually these "laws" are merely man-made descriptions of the order, as we perceive it.

No, we do not define liquids by the quantity that we have. You can characterise water, or petrol, say, perfectly well without any reference to the quantity you are talking about. The same is true for other things, e.g. sheep. The definition of sheep does not require any information about the number of them that someone may have. Quantity or volume information is generally not intrinsic to an entity.

One a point of detail it is untrue that something must have mass to interact with something else. Something can be a field for example, as with photons. But more fundamentally, you seem to assume one can identify one piece of nothing as distinct from another piece, such that one can speak of one portion of nothing "replacing" other nothing. But that's rather silly, isn't it?

Indeed, but worth a look, in view of the numbers reporting long Covid.

There do seem to be some indications it may help long Covid: https://3ca26cd7-266e-4609-b25f-6f3d1497c4cf.filesusr.com/ugd/8bd4fe_a338597f76bf4279a851a7a4cb0e0a74.pdf But indeed studies on long Covid have not had much time to report, as yet.

I agree with @chenbeierthat you need to learn at school. There is not a lot of point in just starting practical work if you don't really understand what you are doing. Having said that, it is fun to do simple things at home to supplement what you learn at school. Learning about acids and bases is a good starting point, with immediate application domestically. (Even little things like when you wash out a bowl that has had red fruit in it, the colour changes from red to purple, if you live in a hard water area, or how baking powder, or oven cleaner, works.). A bit of electrochemistry can also be fun. You can make a battery from copper and zinc rods and a lemon, or a potato. With a low voltage DC electricity supply, e.g. from a train set, you can electrolyse various solutions and see what you get. I would also recommend that you read up a bit about the types of chemical bonding before you start anything. You need to understand the difference between ionic and covalent bonding, and between molecules and giant structures, before you can get vary far. And you ought to have a good look at the Periodic Table and see where the various chemical elements that you come across appear and what sort of properties they have.