geordief

Seriously,or did you just mislay the sarcasm emoji?

The thing I find confusing is that on the one hand it must be clear that Israel has such a back history of truly despicable behaviour against the Jews down the years culminating in the most odious collective stain on our common civilisation that it is incredible to imagine that it can be forced out of its one last refuge. On the other hand its behaviour has more or less united (if they dare speak it) all the countries in the world against them. It seems like the irresistible object meeting the immovable force. Noone has any idea how this car crash develops I hope Netanjahu gets his comeuppance but it would be more than naive to suppose that his removal (and being held to account) will move anything forward. It feels like this drama has its own life force and is pulling us all along with it. Against that Israel has only been in existence for 75 years -a blink in the eye of nothing at at and so there is all the time in the world for things to evolve (at their own pace)

Maybe put on Stray Cat Blues on the car stereo as well

Motion itself is something that would occupy the attention of a cat. Does it see like a big dangerous animal? . This original statement? Perhaps you are right.

Doesn't that change the structure of the brain of the observer?

Which is which? The space time expansion is the one where the clock does co-move with the cosmological fluid? But if we are talking only if space expanding this is not so? First time I have heard mention of "cosmological fluid"...

Since the Big Bang I understand that the distances between galaxies and ,generally regions not bound together gravitationally have been increasing in an accelerating way. I have seen this process described as either space expanding or space-time expanding. Which is the more correct way of describing it? To my mind it should be the former. I see space time as a mathematical model (and don't see how a model can expand) I see space as the distances between objects and can understand how these measurements can be continuously increasing. On the other hand I think I can also see that the space time intervals between the galaxies might also be increasing.....

Coming back to you earlier post (hopefully with a better understanding) So the particle is in a superposition of eigenstates and you measure its momentum.... Are you saying that none of the superimposed eigenstates are changed by the measurement, or that jst the momentum eigenstate is unchanged or that all the other eigenstates (not including the momentum) are unchanged?

How do we know that a particle is in a momentum eigenstate and not in a superposition of states?

What might it be if it was not in a momentum eigenstate? Any one of the other eigenstates it could be in? Can it be in more than one eigenstate at a time ?

So a particle whose momentum is measured does not undergo a change in momentum as a consequence of the measurement? Or is it rather that a particle whose momentum is measured does not undergo a change in position as a consequence of the measurement.? I feel it should be the latter as the position is unknown both before and after the measurement. And ,if that is right ,the same would apply to a measurement of the position of the particle.That should not change its momentum ,for the same reasons.

Would that apply to the position/momentum of a quantum object? (I hope "quantum object "is a meaningful description of something)

Could I ask you for an example?

You say "usually". Does that mean or imply that some measurements do not change the state of a system?

Are there other features of QM that could be described as essential in the way that it differs from Classical Physics?

Clearly some support if not enough to govern democratically. Ally that to fear of coercion and ostracization then they have for now all the "support" they need. These are the other polls I alluded to https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-11-22/ty-article/.premium/three-quarters-of-palestinians-support-hamas-attack-on-october-7-says-new-poll-why/0000018b-f841-d473-affb-f9e9eeef0000?v=1702035272031&lts=1702035306279 I expect many here will already be aware of them

Maybe I am biased /pessimistic but I kind of assume that Hamas has support in the Arab population generally and that that would be reflected in Gaza. Did you see the polls I mentioned above where the PA's support has dropped off a cliff(around 10% compared to a healthy >50% for Hamas)? I think the poll was in the West Bank and possibly Gaza too. I know that Hamas has no democratic mandate but that doesn't mean it can't still be popular. I mean the enemy of my enemy has to be my friend.And Israel I guess is most people's enemy(which is Hamas' ongoing objective of course) Edit:of course I hope that you are right to "doubt it very much"

Sure ,I had in mind a couple of opinion polls that were released a while back that showed a high level of support for Hamas (and very little for PLO) Under normal circumstances I would expect those preferences to be passed down the generations. Of course I cannot know and I don't know what were the age cohorts in the 2 opinion polls either. But I said 50% as an example to show ,as we all probably agree that there was ,and probably still is support in the general population for Hamas above and beyond the actual membership I would much rather there was not but I expect that there is. I also expect ,that when this military operation is concluded that there will remain a high level of support for Hamas even though its expression may be prohibited by law. I have no idea what will happen after Hamas has been defeated militarily I wonder if even the PLO will want to get involved in Gaza.

Just in that (if they are composed of,in the main the indigenous population )they represent that population to the extent that they are a part of it. So ,if 2%(?) of the population are Hamas fighters then they represent the population to a very small extent. But if we suppose that some 50 % of the population approve of Hamas then that body (and Hamas itself) could well be said to be representative to a greater degree. That is what I had in mind when I used the term "representative" I meant it in a way that there were various different strands of representation throughout the population and not that Hamas had any legitimacy(it may have had at the time of the last elections but that legitimacy has imo run its course Even so I understand that (,whether or not they are free to express it without consequence ) it seems that Hamas has a lot more support in the general population than I am happy with. I would be very ,very happy if that was not the case but I fear it may be so.

I have been wondering for a while....are the Hamas fighters all local Palestinians or are they largely foreign fighters? I had always assumed the latter but it is now looking more like they are genuinely representative (and repressive) of the local population (although I assume there must be some foreign fighters amongst them)

Yes that's right.My mistake(hadn't worked out what IRL stood for to be honest -over here that is the acronym for Ireland)

If that action occurs when all the choices have been resolved ,where is the time and space for that to happen? I don't think it does. I think it is the onrushing choices beyond them (in the immediate future) that "force our hand" They physically make the "decision" of choice taking for us and we sit "god like" amidst our mental processes looking down or sideways and approving in retrospect.

Would the frequent observation that children and us all, perhaps) need boundaries to develop be an illustration or consequence of that underlying condition? Again the observation that we need to be open minded but not to the extent that our brains fall out?

It makes sense but I don't think that that would be an engrained attitude amongst people -at least amongst people who appreciate that to see the whole picture you have to see both sides. I suspect that that is what we all learn early on but we choose (oops a choice word to use in a free will thread )to forget it when it becomes inconvenient. Actually ,come to think of it ,the question of (trying to) see things from the other's point of view is probably a far more important question than wondering whether free will exists or determinism rules and ,in this thread's question is there any practical or social consequence to the potential resolving of the issue.

I don't follow. I put the "and vice versa" in to fill things out and because it was obviously necessary. But I don't see what double standard is in there. Can you try and explain "my" idea to me?(I freely admit to being easily confused -especially by anything to do with relativity) (I might have an idea of the double standard you have in mind -is it the one where we criticise others for behaviours that we find ourselves able to justify in ourselves - common or garden hypocrisy?)