Genady

Any such index will be soon obsolete if it doesn't take in consideration that civilization evolves. It cannot take the evolution in consideration because evolution is unpredictable. Ergo, any such index will become useless soon.

I don't see how "dry air and nose pickling shouldn't be the cause of nosebleeds" is suggested by "none of them said that they had nosebleeds". I can only see how the latter suggests that the nosebleed condition is not very common.

Compare with Can one bit of light bounce off another bit of light? | Science Questions with Surprising Answers (wtamu.edu):

Complex Learned Social Behavior Discovered in Bee’s Waggle Dance - Neuroscience News There are several analogies between bee's learning the dance and humans learning language, such as early exposure, quality, and local dialects.

You mean, human brain, I guess. No, I don't.

The OP is plagiarized. Ekpyrotic theory says the universe started with a Big Bounce | SYFY WIRE: Ekpyrotic cosmology resurfaces – Physics World: Etc.

The OP is copied almost verbatim from Fact! The Sun is producing only a third of the neutrinos expected Hold up your thumb. 100 billion neutrinos are passing through your thumbnail every second. 8.5 minutes ago they were in the heart of the Sun. Solar neutrinos are a by-product of sun - Intresting facts. - Quora

Here is more about an overall picture of the situation, and some ideas of what to do about it. The creeping threat of the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt | Oceans | The Guardian

Now, since it is in Physics, I can ask: What is physics of being ghostly?

Everything you have mentioned is not difficult to imagine. If anything, it is too easy to imagine. Also, it is not difficult to imagine hundreds of other, unmentioned possibilities. This is what makes it idle for me. Regarding an intelligence of some form with the ability to do so with us having no means of controlling their/its decision or the outcome, what difference does it make if its name is HAL 9000 or Putin?

50 years ago? 1973? IBM360 and others? Oh, you are so wrong! Yes, my answers above apply to these abilities in today's machines. But you don't need that much to kill us.

To me, to you, to any healthy human being I've ever met. Yes, I don't think that any machine of today is capable of acquiring such intelligence. They can very well imitate some aspects of it, though, and even can be better in them than the original. "Machines" of the future? I have no idea.

What's even more interesting to me that it is so not only with science studying reality -- whatever that is -- but rather it is the only modus operandi we use to deal with reality, throughout our lives.

If you mean a human-like intelligence, no. Because I know how computers work.

To ignorant people today, it is also magic and beyond understanding. To knowledgeable people 100 years ago, no.

He was a good professor. It was not a topic of that class, but I'd add that: Rational numbers, integers, or natural numbers are in no way more real than real or imaginary numbers.

In respect to scenarios considered in the OP, yes.

a3) One of my professors once said something to this effect (I don't remember exact words): Imaginary numbers are in no ways less real than real numbers.

This is art. There is much more to artist's expression than how the world looks or how brain recognizes patterns. Another example to enjoy: o'keeffe art - Bing images

When I was a teen and science fiction literature was in bloom, all these and other scenarios were considered. As to me, humans in 1000 years from now are as interesting as humans 100000 years ago. Very limited personal relation.

I don't understand it either, as shown by my example of zooming in to the "surface" to see a cloud of molecules leaving the water and evaporating into the air. There is no well-defined surface of a body of water. Now perhaps you are thinking of surface tension, but still, the analogy is strained. If you zoom in, you see molecules bouncing around. You can never point to any one collection of molecules and say, "That's the surface." Before you're done speaking, some of those molecules have evaporated into the air. I didn't mention molecules or atoms and I didn't mean to relate to a physical structure of water surface in any way. I could talk about a table surface or a mirror surface as well. The point was purely geometrical: to consider a relation between two-dimensional surface and three-dimensional layer. Thought it might be easier to visualize. But, if analogy doesn't work, ignore it.

That is a perfect analogy. Removing 1 from [0, 1] is just like moving the top layer of water as well as its surface. That is why this does not make sense to me geometrically. The numbers/objects are like the H2O molecules. Remove the top layer and there should be a next layer of molecules, but there isn't. I am sorry you don't understand my analogy.

No. In fact, the mass isn't a component in the Einstein field equation. There are densities of energy and momentum, and their various derivatives.

The wrong is that you switched from discussing the post to discussing the poster.

I think they will not be identical. I don't think reducing them to single numbers for comparison would make sense. In any way, the effects are not linear, so I don't think the effect of the mass can be separated from the effect of the motion.