Genady

This new paper suggests an interesting way of clarifying, unifying, and generalizing notions of entropy from Clausius, Boltzmann, and Shannon, using a new concept of Information Reference Frame with a corresponding "observer", analogous to reference frames, with Bobs and Alices in other areas of science: [2103.16913] Information form of the second law of thermodynamics (arxiv.org)

Successfully solving a problem that does not exist to start with. The solution is beautifully clear: "the mathematical reflection of the dialectical law of affirmation-negation for qualitatively opposite binary judgments about the nature of any object or process." "the "imaginary" unit i is a symbol for a qualitatively polar opposite essence (property, number, parameter) obeying to the polar opposite (“negative”) algebra of signs relative to the conventional (“positive”) algebra." In conclusion, "we believe that the word "imaginary" as not reflecting reality will eventually be removed from mathematics and physics, harmonizing the mathematical structures with the laws of the Universe, and thus expanding the horizons of knowledge."

This works both ways.

This is very curious, because most people I know, overwhelmingly love their lives.

Something to do with Facebook?

The distinction in this case is, that I don't claim it anymore. I'd say, I am more than atheist.

It is not a belief. It is my understanding what it means to be an atheist. I don't think there is a clear-cut definition of it. Just like there is no clear-cut definition of religion. If I am wrong and by an accepted definition atheism is narrower than I thought, then I would like to know what is a correct word to define my attitude. I don't care about words and don't want to redefine anything. P.S. ... unlike the aforementioned Catholic ...

IMO, atheism is not restricted to not believing in a god, but also includes not believing in god-like humans... bla-bla. It includes not believing in a supernatural.

Is karma a natural phenomenon?

Sure. Another limitation is that if an original cloud is too large, it would break and make several smaller stars rather than one large star.

Yes, but I'm talking here only about believing in something, not about practicing something. P.S. It is my opinion, not a belief.

IMO, atheists also don't believe in god-like humans, "teachings", holy books, sacred texts, etc.

They are mutually exclusive to me.

Also, their chemical composition or metallicity.

No.

It ^^ is interesting but I don't think it fits a definition of ambiguity. There are many words that sound the same in different languages, but have different meanings in them. With a little work, one can make short sentences out of these words. Or, a joke. One of popular jokes among Russian speaking immigrants in Israel was to write back to there Russian friends a sentence which in English means, We live in a hole and swim in a pit. It works because Russian word for 'hole' (дыра) is the same as Hebrew word for apartment (דירה), and Russian word for 'pit' (яма) is the same as Hebrew word for sea (ים). We get new effect by mixing languages.

That was short lived: Explosions rock Kyiv again as Russians rain fire on Ukraine | AP News

To be able to live for millions of years while interacting with environment, you'd have to evolve. It wouldn't be a Darwinian evolution, but rather evolution in a generic sense of changing in time. Simply because the environment changes in time.

Of course, I'm not the first asking this question. Here is a 10 years old article, The advantage of ambiguity in language -- ScienceDaily. The opinion of these MIT linguists is that a context disambiguates well enough, so that a language can reuse some parts: "once we understand that context disambiguates, then ambiguity is not a problem -- it's something you can take advantage of, because you can reuse easy [words] in different contexts over and over again."

The so called centrifugal force acts like a gravitational force, or a horizontal component added to the Earth gravitational force. The rest goes according to Archimedes.

Their picture is that movements in the core cause changes in both the gravitational field and the geomagnetic field. The changes in geomagnetic field affect the cosmic rays behavior very fast. The changes in gravitational field affect the movements in the crust, but this takes time, thus the two weeks delay.

In this study the authors found a significant correlation: global strong seismic activity followed about two weeks after detection of variations in cosmic rays. Causal connection is not clear, but the authors suggest either effects of massive movements of the liquid iron in the Earth core, or some effects of the Sun. They have noticed some additional correlations and periodicity, but these need more data. [2204.12310] Observation of large scale precursor correlations between cosmic rays and earthquakes (arxiv.org)

Perhaps you could measure this by displacement in a liquid that doesn't dissolve them.

It is interesting that finds like this still happen, in a long and densely populated place, in an agricultural field rather than under some old construction... Plus, I drove through Khan Younis 40 years ago... Palestinian farmer finds 4,500-year-old statue of a goddess while working his land - CNN Style

AFAIK ambiguities exist in all human languages. I wonder, is it a bug or a feature? Or, maybe, a side effect?