Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MSC

  1. I did, but I'm probably just not understanding it, even after my second read through just now it's still a little head crunchy. The MOND thing being non relativistic sounds confusing to me and I'll probably need to follow up on those relativistic ones. I guess what I'm asking now is, Why don't they follow the rules?
  2. Been there, done that. Impossible to know from our perspective of our existential context. Maybe the religious people can flip the script and try and claim lifes purpose is to create god, not be created by god. There are actually images of this being compared along side neuronal ones and it is interesting and thought provoking. Btw, would you mind if I DM you a suggestion on how to purport yourself on here so that you have more impact? Just optional pointers.
  3. You've heard the expression; one mans trash is another mans treasure? Well, one persons utopia is anothers dystopia. I suppose the closest to objective utopia definition would be; can science produce a world that is physiologically and psychologically beneficial in all ways to life while not being maladaptive to anyone despite amy subjective objections to the world science creates? iNow would you like to answer to this definition or tell me what is wrong with it? It's probably what you'd describe as a Pragmatic definition of ethical utopia.
  4. Seconded, even though I'd love to tackle it.
  5. Really enjoyed this! Thank you for sharing. Isn't the scale of mass and Schwarzschild radius relative though? Let say you put me into an indestructible space craft and shrink me down to the size of a microbe and throw me into the accretion disk of a black hole. How would I perceive my orbit around that black hole and is it a terminal velocity that will one day see me gobbled up? What if I'm orbiting some other massive object in the same orbit of the black hole as me?
  6. If my hypothesis were correct, wouldn't that account for the anomalies in terms of closer proximity to SMBHs at the center of galaxies vs collosal BHs in the voids outside of them? Let me ask another way; assuming a black hole from the early universe was able to keep being supplied with more mass, how big could it hypothetically be now? I thought black hole evaporation takes an extraordinarily long time and outlasts the lifespans of stars and galaxies? Is it even possible for any but the tiniest and most isolated to have evaporated yet? Considering how everything used to be much closer together the further back in time you go. There is also a more anecdotal and emotional reason I ask. Everytime I look at the Bootes void or some other void I get the strangest feeling my eyes are being tricked, my hair stands on end and I get a shiver running down my spine. Doesn't the Schwarzschild radius of a BH increase as it gobbles up more mass?
  7. Could dark matter be accounted for in colossal black holes hidden in the voids between galaxy clusters along the cosmic web? What exactly is in those void areas? What are the theories?
  8. I never said they were the same thing? I was simply highlighting your point that science and philosophy are not the same thing, and expanding and clarifying to others that you didn't mean this meant there was no overlap, similarities and interdisciplinary approaches. Analytical philosophy for example can be fairly scientific in it's approach and there are areas of philosophy where experiments can be devised to strengthen arguments with scientific data. I personally see the relationship between Science and Philosophy as symbiotic, mutually beneficial. The reason why relates to OPs thread. Could we be wrong about everything? Perhaps but I think not, I think we are probably right about some things, there are hurdles to us knowing what we know with complete certainty but I believe there are things to be objectively right about whether we know it or not. Due to the positive feedback loop between science and philosophy. Good philosophy is stagnant without good premises with which to philosophise about. Good science is stagnant without novel and counterintuitive interpretations of the good logical premises it provides to excite the imagination of scientist and philosopher alike. By some interpretations of what it means to be either, A scientist is a specialist natural philosopher. Some philosophers can be thought of as a type of metascientist that in some ways can function like a contructive critic or opposition to science. The thing is, a lot of philosophers would disagree with that and it's one of the reasons I don't particularly get along well with most of the rest. In terms of student development, I always preferred the concept-centric approach of science vs the person-centric approach of philosophy. I grew up wanting to be a physicist but stumbled onto philosophy after being rejected from a STEM course years ago based on a biology teachers opinion that I wouldn't be capable of obtaining a PhD. This matters to the topic at hand in the following way; Yes, we might be wrong about some things, but there is every reason to have faith that we will figure that out together and be all the better for it. Due to tje diversity of problem solving methods being applied to existence through science and philosophy. Sure, they are different sports. That doesn't mean we can't root for the others team.
  9. A ridiculously big amount of mass and matter. 10^30... Know ye of such a large amount of matter, presently unaccounted for in observations save for gravitational and lensing effects on other matter? What would the scale of the accretion disk of such a monster be like?
  10. How do you help someone who seems to take every "funny" look and every word as a personal insult? How do you help someone who behaves as if all of reality was designed to hurt them personally and is always completely disgusted by it? How do you help someone who shouts at you for no reason but then comes down on you for "tone of voice" afterward? How do you help someone like that if they are your spouse and parent to your children? How do you help someone who seems hell bent on self-sabotage and refuses to take their medication through endless excuses and who can only listen to anything constructive by making you admit to some fault that is actually an adaptively beneficial characteristic just so they can save face and listen to something that might actually make them feel better about themselves and others? How do you help someone who, if this is not done, throws eggshells over the ground by saying "I'm just evil" "I'm just shit" "You should just go and be with someone else already". How do you help someone who seems to sometimes show improvement but just comes collapsing down the moment a stranger grazes their person with their eyes? How do you help someone who thinks they have powers of discernment of peoples intents and character based on practically barely any interaction with them and how do you deal with the splitting afterword? Are they shit? Are they awesome? Make up your mind? How do you help someone who really doesn't see how talking to anyone directly about any perceived problem will help and will actively stop you from trying to deal with things in an adult manner without assuming the other party did it to personally mess with you on the rare occasions it is actually something most reasonable people would bring up? How do you help someone who won't even let you speak to their therapist to share some of your concerns over behaviour that is tearing the person you love down everyday?
  11. Been having some wild speculative thoughts, but I want to cross examine them with guidance on this question. Depending on the answer, my thoughts may or may not be valid. If there is some kind of known and verified limit on this then my speculation means nothing. So how large can a black hole potentially get? What I'm imagining is a Colossus of a black hole, with a strong enough gravitational pull that all matter everywhere is destined to fall into it. Can such a thing exist? Correction: Overcome Expansion? May have messed up the terminology a bit.
  12. Oh! I never thought of it that way! For some inexplicable reason, I feel like perhaps you are the true leader science needs at this time. Teach us your ways please!
  13. MSC

    Political Humor

    I thought they were just letting the waste go out the top front part this whole time? Does he even need a colostomy bag?
  14. Yep. It's getting to the point where calling them the GOP seems wrong. LNP, Lame New Party
  15. They would probably be called RINO by todays MAGA Republicans. 😕 Would you have preference toward doing away with the supreme court or having any ruling made by the supreme court followed by a public referendum on the verdict?
  16. Because you'd be doubting all sense data about the external world including your thoughts, feelings, sensory data of your body. You'd doubt your own consciousness. If scientific facts don't matter or aren't worth caring about, then you're a type of Skeptic. However, it's a precarious situation to be in and a bit of a logic trap. Proving that the Cartesian Skeptics account of reality is true is only one side of it, proving you're a legitimate Cartesian Skeptic is the other side and is next to impossible.
  17. Then you're a Cartesian Skeptic I guess. Good luck with that.
  18. True, but in philosophy, especially if you're an empiricist, you have to pay attention to scientific facts. Philosophy and physics disagreements, justified disagreement, usually occur between fact and fact interpretation. Even then it's only really reviews of logic and semantics than any other branch of philosophy. A famous example; Interpretations of the theoretical Nothingness prior to inflation.
  19. How effective has this been? I agree. Does this mean the only legal mandate is to balance the courts? Can the number of justices be legally reduced to create an even split? This would give justices more incentive to work together and compromise to find more collaborative interpretation more as a judicial entity as opposed to individual or partisan identity? Does this apply to legislative acts that impact the structure of the judiciary? Could a majority of justices block the addition of a new justice office? Deferring to you on this because you clearly know more than I do and I quite mean that. What sort of senate majority would a government need to alter the judiciary branch? US specifically.
  20. Fair enough. I can probably ask for both answer types on one thread anyway. The Physicist answer and the Philosopher answer. The philosophy of science answer... Seems like a silly question now considering the forum 😄 Thanks for your time
  21. Interesting, I always thought it was suggesting a causal thread that ties into past and future events, and that all events or some events have multiple causes. I imagine a future where I tap you on the head. I tap you on the head. The creator of the piano imagines a piano. The creator sketches and plans to build a piano. The creator makes the piano. Are you familiar with the Character Bran from GOT? I think this relates to the concept of Non-Linear time.
  22. I agree. Term limits, peoples nominees. As things stand, it's not really the judges fault. Offer a man absolute power and it may corrupt him absolutely. The issue isn't the judges, it's what the constitution allows judges to do. That's why amendments, if it's broke, fix it. Another good example relates to free speech and social media. We can't reasonably expect the writers of the constitution to account for something like that, however they did leave language in there drawing attention to the idea of new technologies and advancements requiring constitutional laws to be amended. I forget where that is but I'll dig it up within a few days probably. True, this is about constitutional law too. The only variance in speed limit interpretation really is "did that sign back there say 40 or 30?". I'd still be pretty pissed though if a cop just followed me and fined me everytime I went 0.01mph over or under the speed limit of a given road. I suppose that's the danger of logic as a fallible human tool. Depending on the law, the original framing, the history of how the law has been challenged in court, dictionary changes, the present times and personal/group biases. All of these are fuel for a greater range of interpretation in the legal modality of a written law. Will a judge one day rule in favour of people being able to stockpile nuclear arms because "Right to bear arms" by interpreting the lack of definition of limits on what sort of arms, to mean all arms possibly imaginable?
  23. So it's an issue of law enforcement interpretation then?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.