joigus

I think it's more likely to be derived from some kind of Roman-antics. I wouldn't put too much creedence on such connections. Very likely ex-post-facto plays with words. But this is just an opinion.

Yeah, that's more Utnapishtimian?

Since when do you need Petri dishes to carry microorganisms around? Utnapishtim's contemporaries strike me as good candidates for plausible carriers of those. IMO, you're flogging a dead horse two and a half meters from it.

No. It's a death sentence for your theory. Particles also emit single photons when placed in an ion trap and made to twist under magnetic fields. Particles decay. Particle showers appear in high-energy collisions. Etc. No interference there.

Detailed calculations: Nuclei's rest frame: \[ ρ = n p - n e ⁻ V = 0 \] Electrons' rest frame: \[ \rho=\frac{n_{p}-n_{e⁻}}{V}=0 \] Protons' rest frame: \[ \rho’=\frac{n_{p}-n_{e⁻}}{V’}=0 \] Where \( V’=\gamma^{-1}V \) Charge and number are special-relativity invariants. It's only volume that varies with an inverse gamma factor. So, as @swansont said, Same applies to the number of protons. I hope that helped.

Apparently you.

Out of his depth, he is. It's as if a realtor had taken charge of the world... Hang on a minute... Has a realtor taken charge of the world? May be so. Maybe Frost was wrong and the world will end neither in ice nor in fire, but in a ton of bricks falling over our heads.

\[ \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v²/c²}} \] \[ \gamma\times0=0 \] Last comment by @Markus Hanke & @swansont spot on, I think. You cannot take electron density in proper frame for electrons while proton density in "rest" frame.

@ALine, can you propose an experiment that would conclude, without a shadow of a doubt, that bees must be conscious and not otherwise? A well-defined, widely-enough agreed-upon Chinese-room argument? Furthermore, what is the "otherwise"? Is there such a thing as being semi-conscious? Conscious but not so much? Dual, or n-valued consciousness? Consciousness without an identity? Perhaps "ambiguous" --in some sense to be defined-- consciousness? Wholistic --in some sense to be defined-- consciousness? IOW --and here's the tricky point--, what is the non-conscious against which we can test the conscious? The possibilities could be endless, especially once we realise our notion of consciousness probably comes from being human and experiencing it in our own human way. That's probably why @iNow was asking you for a definition. People of science normally ask for a definition first. Then, an experiment.

The whole here would be the salient aspects of life. In this case, consciousness. The parts would be quantum fields. No. You're trying to explain a salient aspect of a narrower reality (humans and how they perceive the world) by making it an attribute of the most fundamental things we know (quantum fields). By the same token you could venture to say quantum fields might have recollections, free will, bad temper, and so on. It doesn't seem a very promising line of reasoning. If it happened to be, you would be asked to substanciate it very carefully You lost me here. What does all this story about nursing and rape, and the smell of babies, have to do with quantum fields?.

Isn't this just another case of an unfortunate inversion of the whole and the parts? In more modern terms, trying to explain the components in terms of the emergent? An elephant doesn't explain biology. Biology is purported to explain the elephant. That's how it looks from my ongoing process of learning anyway. Don't glorify consciousness. Most important things that keep you alive happen while you're anawares. Maybe thanks to you being anawares. I thank my stars for my hippocampus. I don't have to think again every time I ride a bicycle, or tie my shoelaces. 'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished, I've been told --having a ninety-something percent of biological processes running the business of me, without me knowing. Rookie mistake...

I remember this one. I understand some lawyers find it quite funny. And I with them.

I disagree. It would be a Lorena Bobbitt.

Sounds to me like software could be interacting badly with hardware. Is the latter "old"? I've recently had problems with boot-sector related stuff because of using old BIOS-based computer instead of UEFI-based one. Had to redo mount points and tell ubuntu to set up the partition system as EFI partition table instead of GPT. Had to tinker a bit. Generally speaking, you have to tinker far more with Linux systems than with Windows. But in my experience solutions can always be either worked out or found out. At least you can. With Windows, you are not allowed to tinker much, are you? With Windows, again in my experience, some problems never get solved. My first experience with Linux was Red Hat, and I was left pretty much as @studiot has described. The dependency tree of new installs got messier and messier. But after I went over to a Debian-based Linux flavour I never looked back.

I hereby propose Gulf of Chicxulub. In memory of the most significant event that took place thereabouts. We primates owe a great deal to cosmic happenstance. Much more than to presidents --either lippy or sleepy.

Where?

Apparently the New Year is incompatible with local realism.

The good (mathematical) theory is one. Deviations from it make the theory to collapse. The computational algorithms can be many. Deviations from it just give a different approach. That speaks volumes in the direction I was trying to argue.

Well, of course they are MORE math. But that math is highly subordinate to the actual theory from which they derive. You cannot think of a simulation ab initio, with no formalism to derive it from.

What simulations do is take a mathematical model and approximate it by a cluster of discrete data. That's what it is. The maths come first. Then you go to the lab. Or... the lab surprises you. Then you go to the math. It's from the blackboard to the lab, and back. Simulations being an in-between when direct calculations in the theory become too difficult. Like QCD, or many-body problem in GR. That's the way I understand it, anyway. And most people here seem to agree.

It could be a bot handled by a dog, or it could be a Tob handled by a god. 说出这样的话是多么愚蠢啊！

Aaaahh. Yes I'm sorry. So, it's either, Got that wrong. Sorry.