Conscious Energy

If evolution of time has a beginning, the system could not grow to infinity as it has limited Time to evolve. I think there is also an other limit on time (and so space) which is the current moment of Now. Or in other words the future yet not happened. If the system is Finite I think it is a Universally true so it is true for every physical entity in it meaning Enegy and Matter is not infinitely present in the system. 
 

If Space and Time would be infinite so should be Energy and Matter as well since There would be already infinite time for it to evolve if energy and matter formation would be also a causality. I.e a physical function explains its presence. If there is exactly the same amount of energy since the beginning there would be already infinite time passed to have infinite space between the finite amount of energy we suppose now is present in the system. I say there is absolutely now sign physically that there is infinity,

So I would say that the universe most likely Finite Now. Infinity is the Potential of Time to tick towards the Future.

42 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

are you sure you grabbed the same space? 

You asked for a cup of space which I can give you. It is some* space not the same space.
 

*a different empty (or filled) part of space.

Still, for sure, the cup will have space at any time and I can not give you one without them.

They are not equivalent.

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you bring me a cup of it?

Thinking a bit of it, any cup will come with some measurable space in the moment of the observation (time). Or in other words: one part of space will be in the cup, it is mathematically expressible and physically measurable information. Why can’t we count information with such properties as a physical entity? Which law says space(time) is not a physical entity?

Can you give me a cup without space and time?

5 hours ago, Barmaley said:

For instance if you use "cats" as a parent the do not have to list all the cats in the next level as children but divide them first into Large Cats, Medium Cats, Small cats and Cats without stripes to kind of evenly divide the children into groups.

The benefit of this approach is efficiency for a user to get to his subject quickly since if are you looking for a tiger you do not need to review a list of 300 types of cats but first select large cats and then look for tigers.

What about taxonomy?

You can not just start a new subjective organisation of species, because you think the others will not understand it as it is today. 

The current Taxonomy started ca 300 years ago by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 in the Systema Naturae.  

If you want to create the tree of knowledge it has to based upon reality, so you can not determine, that the Set can have just x subset, when it has y. 

For example, I have a veterinary software development project where we structure medical knowledge as well. If Internal medicine has 17 sub-subjects(subsets) I can not comprise them to 8.

Why would you want an unnatural limit on reality?

38 minutes ago, Barmaley said:

What does philosophy prescribe as the top level of knowledge division?

Science.

Religion is important since almost every human being believes in something. 

Religion on the other hand supposed to be: Logical Philosophy.

For me it looks like the rod would be chilled with liquid nitrogen (or something similar) and the boiling water turns to an ice rod which came up because of the increased pressure, the volume change causes during the  water < ice “development” 

On 7/22/2021 at 12:37 PM, studiot said:

So  strictly mathematically, the empty set has no boundaries.

That is what I doubt, since there is always a boundary:time now which gives space now (the empty set) and for me it seems strictly mathematically expressible (graphically, informatically). 

On 12/5/2020 at 6:58 PM, VenusPrincess said:

If you believed something was true, but also knew that others would be demoralized and angry at you for sharing that truth, should you stay quiet or lie about it instead?

Your believe is a subjective perspective of something which might not be true just for you. 
 

I recommend to speak your mind (say your truth) or say nothing.
 

I think lyings takes too much effort to maintain and pushes every participant of the conversation away from reality. 

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

And maybe you should actually read the articles you cite and stop acting like snotty little child when challenged... especially when those articles you're sharing DIRECTLY refute the very the claim you've been making. 

For convenience, here's the bit I found most relevant from your citation (emphasis mine):

You can read more for yourself here: https://kinseyinstitute.org/pdf/Infidelity in hetero couples.pdf

Thanks, you are right. I was lazy to read it and too sure about my right with a bit of arrogance. I am Sorry. 
 

At least now we know.

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Minimal info, indeed. An opinion piece from the Daily Mail. Was it too hard finding an article in the National Inquirer or the Onion to support your claim?

Didn’t dig that deep since the topic is not that interesting (already known by empirical evidence) but have fun:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21667234/
 

maybe you should give a list of publishers you accept to make it easy. 
 

Minimal info about the correlation between masturbation and cheating, they mention a study but no link. They show a lot of factors of cheating:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/relationship-expert-reveals-the-men-most-likely-to-cheat-on-their-partner/AUBMU6BGVZHC6X3I4S5F27S5DU/
 

The info about the correlation:

“Other research has found people who watch porn and masturbate are less likely to cheat than those who don't.”

A positive aspect of masturbation:

https://www.menshealth.com/uk/health/sexual-health/a37167845/men-should-ejaculate-at-least-21-times-a-month-to-slash-their-prostate-cancer-risk/
 

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Anecdotal?

 

If you haven’t been lucky enough to be married and faithful, You could ask the right questions from the right people, and you have Empirical evidence.
 

In case you have no one who you can honestly speak about this topic, it can be just anecdotal 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I should have been more direct. What evidence do you have that masturbation is helping to avoid cheating? It sounds like you are just making that claim because it seems right to you, not because it is necessarily true.

Practice makes the master.

Communication works for those who work at it. 
 

I will try to find some study if there have been any executed on this exact topic. Until that, I only can share my empirical evidences. 
 

Maybe if you know anyone who did not cheat, you could ask, did masturbation helped not to cheat.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So I guess masturbating doesn't cause people to avoid cheating after all. Thanks for clarifying.

In some cases, yes, masturbation is helping to avoid cheating. (The ppl who masturbates but DO NOT cheat.)

Yes, you are right that not every single human being will be able to avoid cheating by masturbation. 

In some cases you can have a thrombus in some of vessels (previous clot), while you have a current low platelet count (thrombocytopenia). 

A thrombus is coagulated platelets, which will not form in heparin induced thrombocytopenia.

On 6/2/2021 at 11:23 PM, MarkDv said:

immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia

Maybe you are thinking on IMHA (Immune Mediated Haemolytic Anaemia)?

In this case, the red blood cells attacked by the individuals own immune system.
 

There is another condition, DIC (Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation). In this case sepsis, surgery, trauma cause coagulation in smaller vessels all over the body, creating a lot of small thrombus, using up all factors of the coagulation cascade and so creating thrombocytopenia, what can be the reason for different types of bleedings.

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Interesting. I've known a number of people who cheated, but I didn't realize they also didn't masturbate.

 

Interesting. I know a number of ppl who masturbate but don’t cheat. 

I think almost every cheater will masturbate too. 100% from those whom I personally know they cheat.

Some benefit of masturbating is to avoid cheating and ease unsatisfied sexual needs, and so save a lot of unnecessary stress and lying, what otherwise would give a significantly negative impact to someones everyday family and work related performances.

This article pretty good sums the topic

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326518

On 6/14/2011 at 6:25 PM, John Salerno said:

 

I've read that dogs have sweat glands only on their tongues and the pads of their feet. 

 

Dogs doesn’t have sweat glands on their tongues just on their feet pads. 
 

That is why panting is the main form of loosing heat for them. 
 

They are also able to sense the minimally better physical circumstances in front of the fan, which helps to redistribute the exhaled moist and heat from around the dog and help a little the surface evaporation of the feet pads.

No. This is a discussion about: can you move a part of space(time) or not. 

Can you quote please the section, where from you got the conclusion, that somebody think, that nothing moves.

Everything is in progress, even space(time)…

I haven’t been specifically religious until I turned around 30. Coming with the heritage of Luther, today I am a strong believer of, that Nature is One entity and it is fundamentally lead by information. I can not grab this information exactly to understand, so there are some beliefs around it. I could call it fate, that Nature is Real. I call myself today a strong believer, which changed significantly in the past 13 years. Would be interesting to see scans of my brain from 15 years ago and today. Would be there different brain areas active during religious thoughts or the same area but more active?

I build my believe system by observing Nature, learn our best understanding of it and evaluate the whole by logic (I liked to think).
 

It would be interesting to see, that is there different brain activity, compared to an individual, gained strong fate, through learned religious dogma. 

49 minutes ago, studiot said:

1, Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

2, A ham sandwich is better than nothing.

3, Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

1: Not a thing (no-thing) is better than eternal happiness, so eternal happiness is the Best.

2: A ham sandwich is a thing, it is better than nothing, but it is not the best.

3: Therefore a ham sandwich is better than nothing, but it is not better(less), than the best eternal happiness 

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since the empty set has no boundary points you can't draw a Venn diagram for it.

Time is a boundary point. The moment you recognise the 0 set (space now). 

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Since the empty set also has no interior points you can't position your green square, "relative to other points in the set".

Why? How? What about this:

On 7/18/2021 at 2:04 PM, studiot said:

Mathematically the question of what is in your box is answered by theorem 1 which says that it must be the same nothing as there is only one empty set.

One empty set with a finite number of members.

I tried to visualise what I mean:

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

In other words you agree there is more than one 'nothing'.

100%.

There are a very large number of fundamentally empty dots of space out there. Still finite if it starred by Time.

I imagine it as a 4D matrix. Basic information. True from every point you observe in it, that it’s physically value is 0. Just information.
 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

This thread is about 'nothing'.

One Planck unit can't be 'nothing' since it can be measured in metres, albeit a very small number of them.

Yet that something(basic information) is physically nothing. 0. 
 

You can not hand a bucket of it to me.

That is why I think the nothing in the box, the empty part of space, does not move when the box moved.
 

When I move the box, the emptiness will move with it, but the new empty space is a different part of the universe than the space of the original position.

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Yet there is nothing between them.

If you look at the atoms of the closing electrodes, do they fuse or they still maintain some “quantum” level of space in between one another? 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

space is continuous or not.

I think Space is continuous because of Time (1D vector pointing strict to the future in every point of existing space)