Genady

Separation?

Oh, sorry, I've misunderstood your reply then. We are on the same page

Why do you expect it to be different? Everything else in Nature is like this, too. Look at biological evolution, for example. The principle is nice and simple, descend with modification and selection, but the result is messed and convoluted.

Yes, I think it is our only hope. The pictures which @Lorentz Jr refers to as ontological (deep, intuitive) are and will be human based, shaped by human experience. The rest of the picture can be painted mathematically. Moreover, the flexibility and adaptability of human mind will allow to bend our human intuition to accommodate the mathematical extensions to some degree.

Yes. There is some loss in the dark matter also because of gravitational radiation going away when its particles accelerate and decelerate, but that is many orders of magnitude smaller than the loss to collisions in the normal matter.

You are right. Changing of a shape from sphere to disk does not accelerate the rotation. The reduction in the diameter does. The original cloud of dust and gas is thousands of times larger than the galaxy.

These shapes and the rotation are a natural result of gravitational collapse of the cloud of dust and gas which had a higher density of matter than surrounding space. No. You can find an overview of these processes and related ideas here: Galaxy formation and evolution - Wikipedia

No inheritance of property or genes? Otherwise, it seems that opportunity is not equal from the start.

Is it?

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.