Genady

Maybe if we understand better how it happened and how it works, we'll understand better our capabilities and limitations.

Yes, this is the difference. I think that our picture of the world is human picture of the world, and that it is inescapable.

Yes, translation into whatever our brain has evolved to process. Which is limited to the environment it evolved in.

No, what I am saying is there is no point to strive for a "greater good". That was what I said in the beginning of this thread, many eons ago: there is no global good, but many local goods. Striving for a "good" is good enough and anyway is all that can be done since the other "good" does not exist. does not exist, as well as and do not exist. All the "goods" are local, temporary, relative, and carry with them unpredictable effects.

I think even beyond the observation. I suspect that it is a way our perception organizes whatever comes from our senses.

Occam. It's the simplest answer to all "deep questions."

It's easy then. I got all the answers: Yes. Yes. Yes. We cannot. We cannot know. What other questions are there, i.e., "etc."?

This "therefore" is unjustified. If somebody asks me about dinosaurs, I read the answer in Wikipedia, therefore Wikipedia is dinosaurs.

Dim does not need to ask that, because if it is so, i.e., if no change is going to please all people all of the time, then a "greater good" does not exist. What exists is a "good" for some people who choose to call it a greater good.

And reincarnation is not a part of it.

If you don't know, doesn't matter, I'll say it differently. y=0.5x makes a line, not a parallelogram; you need variables that run independently over the parallelogram. A good substitution would separate integration variables rather than "get rid of". I don't know what "very long process" you're talking about. If you "get rid" of 2y-x by making it equal 0, as your substitution did, the whole function becomes simply =0. If you separate variables, you can treat the integrals one by one.

This was not a good substitution anyway, because it simply makes y=0.5x. You want two linearly independent variables. They better relate linearly with x, y. Then you can easily replace limits of integration. You have two linear terms in x, y. I guess they are a hint.

I don't think so. The galaxy rotates because of the collapse of an original cloud into the flattened disk and conservation of angular momentum. No such collapse occurs with DM halo. x with swansont

I'm afraid you are too late. About 150 years ago Engels postulated three laws, of which the first one is (Dialectical materialism - Wikipedia)

plus there is a friction to slow it and to make it stop at the lowest point. Where would the "inertia" and the "friction" come from?

However, if we model moving down the potential by a cooling body, nothing like that happens.

Yes, I see how clean democracy protects majority against a privileged elite. But I don't see how it protects an underprivileged minority. If it does not, then it's not "for all."

What is it? This what I've learned in school: socialist society equality - from each one according to their abilities, to each one according to their work communist society equality - from each one according to their abilities, to each one according to their needs How the abilities, work, and needs are measured have never been specified.

The first question perhaps is what of this look is on the world and what on the beholder.

I understand that it is not expected to be color charged hence it doesn't interact strongly. It is expected to interact in some "weak" way, but I don't know what it means. I don't know if anybody does. I'm looking forward to a better answer, too. Supposedly, the galactic halos don't end, and there is no specific intergalactic DM: (Missing dark matter located: Intergalactic space is filled with dark matter (phys.org))

AFAIK there are no studies of effects of lionfish on Bonaire reefs. All I have is personal observations, mine and other professional divers', over many years, before and after the "invasion." And of fishermen, too. The article you linked is obsolete. CIEE does not exist several years already. Most active volunteer hunters don't do it anymore. STINAPA does not push the efforts anymore. The situation underwater does not show any difference.

Like @studiot said, the letter does not matter. In this case, scientists and mathematicians call it "i" while engineers call the same number, "j".

It may not because there is no friction to hold it there.

Just as an example, even such an "obvious" thing has its caveats. Thanks to advancements in medicine, J. Stalin lived very-very long. There are/were millions of people for whom it was very bad. There were thousands more for whom it was just in time that the medicine failed when it did. I'm sure you can come up with lots of examples like this.

I don't think we need a specific reason to doubt our teachers, or anything. Skepticism is a default state. BTW, I didn't know about the negs, and none of them is mine. Although, I did (mis)understand that post as an insult.