StringJunky

I don't think it's that hard, but I'm used to it. Quite simply, one person can't do a Mexican wave, or any other wave because it's a collective property. Does the Mexican Wave exist in the absence of an observer, is what gets me thinking.

Am I right in thinking there's nothing sinister about this, just a cock up in the containment protocols at Wuhan? Also, does it just appear to be a normal Chinese science project with some US funding that went wrong in releasing the virus? Is the wet market theory discredited now?

Another thing is that it has a limited life in fishing due to uv degradation. The speed at which a rod recovers from being bent slows down over time. In fishing parlance it's called 'recovery time'. It basically goes from springy to floppy over time.

Could the white underside be to retain heat, as it's more reflective?

I feelthat carbon fibre stays in conformation until there's an asymmetric load on the hull, like bumping into something. I thought carbon fibre had super tensility, but crush resistance was weak? Broke too many fishing rods myself. Failure is instant.

Not far off I think. Movement is the primary stimulus for detection though. Predators and prey have high contrast vision to improve acuity. Further reference: Predator perception and the interrelation between different forms of protective coloration - M Stevens In the corner of the eye: camouflaging motion in the peripheral visual field - Smart, Cuthill

Do you think it's a ten hour round trip, including Titanic search time? 10 hours there and back is the likely dive aim?

But you understand why it's not discoverable. I think it's early days for emergentism discovery.

Position and momentum is, in principle, discoverable? I interpret that as a discovery roadblock.

The descent takes 4-5 hours to Titanic. They imploded 1 hour 45 minutes from the start. What do any of you with knowledge think was the likely depth range?

I'm seeing it as a limit to what one can know. It's ironic, the scepticism, when physicists embrace the uncertainty preinciple. What use it is it Nothing. It just says: "You can't go there." Physical limits are endemic. Emergentism, may be one of those things. Having said that: Ludditism does occur.

I think you have a strong interest in biological phenomena, so you aren't disturbed by it. It is pretty normal for biological experts to invoke it, so there's that.

Your narcissism is palpable.

Wales · Area Total: 20,779 km (8,023 sq mi)

Apparently, it had 7 methods to surface. My friend said this morning that the Titanic wreck is spread over an area the size Wales. That's why it's so hard to locate them.

It's just that she was saying that weak emergence is evident, but strong emergence is not, in the science view. At the end of the day, if didn't doesn't mean anything to you, that's fine. Cheers.

It should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler - Einstein.

Here you are @wei guo https://info.arxiv.org/help/submit/index.html

Came across Sabine Hossenfelder's page on emergence. A physicist's view: The full transcript is at the link. https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/04/what-is-emergence-what-means-emergent.html @wtf

Right. Cheers. This is true, but human nature is ingenious. I was a drug addict, so am familiar with the scheming one goes through to procure stuff.

You get a hundred times more morphine molecules than fentanyl for the same analgesia.. The margin for error is that much less to lapse into CNS depression.. Ask Prince.

Talk sense.

Err, because it followed. I sensed a deficit in your understanding, which seems to be inflexibly mono-railed. i'm taking time out from this thread. See you later.

If the singularity were real, the whole universe is contained within it. There is no 'outside'. If you conceive of an 'outside', then what does that reside in? It's a "Turtles all the way down" infinite regression argument.

The closest one can get to the underlying reality is knowing all the scientific properties that describe a phenomenon, and it's usually expressed in some form of maths.