scherado

Did you read the first sentence of my OP? I italicized the word "not" preceding " categorized as terrorism" for the mass-shooting at the elementary school by A.Lanza to highlight the very significant difference between one class of murder and another. If or when I start a thread on radical Islamic terrorism or if it is determined that Stephen Paddock converted to Islam as the detestable ISIS group has claimed--I don't believe their assertions-- I'm sure that the woman who is or was identified as a "person of interest" and who, as of my current understanding, was his "girlfriend", I'm sure that she knows what how to categorize her deceased lover's crime. Adam Lanza idolized the two mass-murders that you alluded to--in complete ignorance, apparently--when you broached the topic of the Columbine mass-shooting. I read that Lanza was obsessed with a documentary film about the Columbine massacre. From The Atlantic, Why Did the Islamic State Claim the Las Vegas Shooting? I repeat, those who are scouring the dead shooter's electronic devices found at his home, his internet presence, if any, and whatever writings, sometimes the "manifesto", those people now know, probably, what do not know. The silence is defeaning.

There are some who think that life origin of life on Earth, sprung from within Earth. Here is one (most recent) from Naked Earth (subtitle: The New Geophysics), by Shawna Vogel, pages 179-180: . . I'm agnostic with respect to this theory and all others. I have thought, prior to reading this book, that one possibility is that life pervades the Universe and it is quite "cheap."

Who? What's the reason you didn't quote the putative invalidation? Point to the "invalidation", please, if you can't quote it. Thanks.

I was in a Danbury, CT (USA) hospital the day Adam Lanza murdered all those people, kids, adults at Sandy Elementary School, CT December 2012. We were in lock-down. That was a mass-shooting that was, subsequently, not categorized as terrorism. All I know is that, if the man, Stephen Paddock, left a "manifesto", note or some such to be read in the hotel room or wherever, then the authorities know what we have not yet been told. I want to know his "reasons". I demand it, as we all should.

Do you claim that "they"--let's require only one--cosmologist, a cosmologist has given, shown, asserted, provided--any one of those--persuasive evidence that time exists in the absence of Matter? For that is precisely what I am denying is relevant never mind whether it is possible. If there's no matter, then there's no time; but isn't it preposterous to posit a scenario without matter? Yes it is. Yet, there are knuckleheads who will do just that.

I answered your question about which of the words in my sentence are referents--though you presumed erroneously there was one. Do you, yet, want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'" I have not been persuaded that it exists separate from, distinct from Matter in motion, which is "existence" in three words. Perhaps, you like that answer better than my longer answers. We all have laundry to do...those of us who don't have it done for us, that is. Please read above "bizarre".

The best I can assert without blushing is that time is some physical process. If you want to hang your hat on some other conception but not admit that you are speculating, theorizing, parroting someone's theory and so on--you get the picture--then that is your prerogative and choice. I'll stick with what I heard the "science guy" on the television said. We've got a warehouse of butter We've got oceans of wine We've got famine when we need it Got a designer crime We've got Mercedes We've got Porsche Ferrari and Rolls Royce We've got a choice... - Roger Waters, It's a Miracle, off of Amused To Death

I'm so glad you asked: da justa.

What do you mean? I have been very clear. What more should I add?; do you wish me to rephrase something?

Time is obviously linked to Matter no matter what cosmologists believe, until they give persuasive evidence or persuasive arguments. I will wait for either or both. Thank you.

I do believe that the above comports with my version: "Time is the handmaiden of Matter." In other words (mine) whatever it is we decide 'Time' to be, it is inextricably tied to Matter and there is no observational reason to posit inert Matter. I have been attempting to convey just these very things. I don't broach the subject of "space" as any Matter must occupy a position, possessing that area; "energy" is implied within Matter that is not inert.

I do believe that you understand that the only two candidates are "time" and "process". I use "candidate" as one might be flimsy. I ask you directly: Which of the two might be susceptible to the descriptor "flimsy?" I await your reply. Do you want to reconsider your question, "Is length a physical 'process?'"

Does this mean that we now have a value and destination and "end-point" and finality for that thing which we did not previously?--a.k.a. infinity I think I hurt myself typing that sentence. It doesn't matter whether you peddle a large infinity (reals) or a small infinity (integers, odds, evens), the proscription is the same, I can't pick "any" card as I can't get the one "at the end". The answer is the same today as yesterday and Forest Gump continues to mull his box of rocks, into perpetuity, apparently.

Thanks for that link!!! Bravo I liked this Enter referent analysis. The first few chapters of The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase, 1938, was a very valuable book for me.

He may have submitted his application today, we shall see: I made the point yesterday that he is making today, if you get my drift.

When I wrote yesterday, "My...choice is the one a[t] the top of the stack" I meant what you wrote today, "the last one" (your words) in your post today (about 4 hours ago) This means you are late to the game. Not so funny case. I will repeat: "choose any card" can't be part of the OP if I can't choose the one that represents the card we know doesn't exist out in infinity-land.

I take issue with that, for obvious reasons. More to the point, stating such a thing--no matter the improbable positive truth-value of it--would, should lead the reader to spend time elsewhere. Nevertheless, the question of exactly what explains the "or something else?" you asked in your OP is very good. It may be a psychological question. I don't believe that the answer to your question is to be found in any theory or biological evolution. I have more to add, but you've made it quite clear that you are not interested in my contributions.

Doesn't the "logic" you assert to have followed from mine prevent the availability of the first card? I have the answer to this question, but will wait for your answer, if that is possible. Further, your words, "there are more than two cards," most certainly implies that you you agree that I can not chose the two I specify. I think I'll pause here before I address what remains of your reply, for obvious reasons. I've copied that below for convenience. Incidentally, do you think my explanation of the mis-use of "statistics" in the thread's title is "not quite right?"

I think you understand as indicated in the red text. Now do you understand my objection? There are no end-points to numerical infinity; therefore, I can't "chose any card." There are two cards that I CAN'T chose. This is progress! Unless I'm the only one who understands numerical infinity.

Thanks. My answer is no to the question posed in the title of this thread.

I think that you read a bit too much into my response and too little from my inference. I'm referring to the underlined portion above. Not only did I take the numerous mathematics courses I may have mentioned in previous posts, I worked 10 years for an American corporation as a computer programmer from 1982 to 1992 and lost more than a little sleep over the problems to which I alluded in my previous post and for which I was payed to solve. More than that, I'll list the languages I learned in order of most used--many of which used much more than "liberal use of mathematics (your words): APL APL2 C+ C++ Pascal Prolog PLI Assembly Fortran Cobalt Visual Basic Shockwave Flash Please note that it was the inanity in your sentence that led me to make the response you didn't quite like. If you dispute anything, then please let me know.

No, no, three times no. Computer Science uses mathematics extensively and in depth Did I not tell you that calculus is required to evaluate and compare algorithms? I had to take 3 semesters calculus, 1 Differential equations, 1 Numerical Analysis and there may have been others, I should answer that for myself for these occasions. When the bleeping show comes to a crawl and people are picking their noses between lengthy response-times, and you don't want to or can't trash the whole thing because a ton of money has been spent on it, you call in the Computer Scientist to analyze the software. One of my most distinct memories of the one of the post-graduate compSci classes was the professor looking at us--this guy's now Dean of the whole show, congratulations to him--he snickered and said, "Now you know the reason you took the calculus classes", and he wrote the solution to our software problem on the black-board (he was using chalk) in terms of limits. I now knew the reason I took all those Calc classes.

Are you serious? I need help with that question, the second question. Let's do a cursory referent analysis on that: "Is length a physical 'process'"? Can anyone identify the referents in that sentence? Consider this a test: Identify the referents in the subject sentence. I await any reply.

The origin of: "Time is a physical process" This is paraphrased: I don't remember the precise words. I was passing a television (it was on, sometime between 1985-1993, best guess) and there was a show on about this subject. I don't know the title of the show; I don't know, today, who spoke; and I watched for a few minutes at most. I came away with the thought, "time is a physical process." After hearing that short bit, I thought of it occasionally over many years and upon each occasion--I'm avoiding using the word "time"--I became more convinced of the truth-value of the sentence. When I learned, eventually, the exact "workings" of the atomic clock, Cesium-133 oscillating at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, I thought, yes, another physical process. The guy was right. It was then that I began to question what I had not questioned: Time being the one to follow 3, making it 4th in the dimension-scheme promoted and accepted. It had the odor of contrivance. I'll pause here.

The difference between a Computer Scientist and an IT person, for example, is that the former can tell you which algorithm is better and best when presented with several versions. The Calculus is what makes that possible. I did return around 2000, to take post-graduate compSci classes, but abandoned the M.A. early. The most fascinating class I took was a semester on the Turing Machine and computability, the name of which I don't recall as I type, but have the text book saved in my basement and not within reach. The question that was posed on day one was, given an algorithm, is it computable?--this, I may not remember correctly. On the last day, the full, complete means to answer the question was revealed and my jaw hit the ground. The old woman who taught the class was very effective. I'll never forget that class.