geordief

Does that also answer Giorgio's question regarding the nucleus in this post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111984-does-the-spin-of-a-nucleus-have-kinetic-energy/?do=findComment&comment=1030511 The nucleus does spin classically?

Did you read the OP carefully? Imagine an observer at the centre of an extremely curved BH. How would he "do geometry"? Similar "impossible"questions are asked regarding "flatlanders" So why cannot we ask this kind of a question too?

My question was really ;If spacetime curvature is extremely curved (as in the region of something close to a mathematical singularity ) does a new type of geometry "hove into view" quite unlike Euclidean geometry but very simple in functionality? If this geometry was understood would it be possible to derive Euclidean geometry from it in the same way as the geometry of curved spacetime is (painfully ,it seems) derived from Euclidean geometry? Might this geometry be seen as a "special case" in a mirrior image way to the way that Euclidean geometry can be seen as a "special case" of "normal" curved geometry?

Why is the term "spin" used at all in QM if it causes confusion with classical terminology? Are there any other appellations of the phenomenon?

OT but timely https://sciencealert.com/graphene-paired-sheets-diamene-deformation-diamond-property

If we set an observer at the centre of a massive body** ,how will that observer create a geometry so as model potential events? Is this even a valid thought experiment? Suppose the observer (call him O ?) wants to draw a circle or the surface of a sphere from his stand point the relationship of pi to the radius will not be Euclidean ,will it and depending of the ratio of the mass concentration to (what?) that ratio will approach or depart from that Euclidean ratio. Can a complete geometry be created for O and will it be easy for him to understand or is Euclidean geometry the only easy geometry? Apologies in advance as per usual for any mistaken assumptions , foolish imaginings or poor expressivity (correct term?) **I am imagining an extremely massive body,perhaps as an example one where the size of the event horizon was relatively close to some manageable multiple of the wavelength of a convenient em wave.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-42411586/disney-s-president-donald-trump-robot-gets-mocked Is he human after all?

When your level of knowledge is as low as mine ,it is a bit easier

Ideally philosophy should be what we engage in once we have our ducks in a row. We can then try different arrangements of the ducks and see how that works. On the other hand it is also a philosophical question to acknowledge what you do not know (someone said that once) and it is also a human kindness for those with access to knowledge to give a helpful resume to those who do not have it ( a bit self serving I know)

.Thanks . I think I should pass for now as I should try to digest what I have been told so far and put the conceptions I already have ,such as they are in order

I don't want to put my rudimentary oar into another thread so this is hopefully a simple question. If an object is described simultaneously in more than one way and two such objects are created simultaneously, how can it be surprising when a measurement of one is also a de facto measurement of the other? I ask because I am under the impression that Einstein struggled with and fought against this idea and yet it seems ludicrously simple. What am I missing?(a lot ?) (entanglement is not even confined to quantum objects is it) I googled the following link by way of confirmation bias so I cannot vouch for it.... https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/

As a generality (and attempt at an approximation) does the notion of tempero- spatial separation get replaced by "closeness of states" in QM? Anything like that? Does "closeness of states " mean anything?

Mordred posted this simulation quite recently. Can I ask whether this melding of objects occurs whenever the separation between them becomes small enough? In particular ,would we find this behaviour in Black Holes? Finally, once this melding happens has there been created a no gravity zone (within). The object created can presumably re differentiate if the temperature rises. What are the forces that cause this re differentiation?

Well they all involve thought. I would say ,as per my "definition" that philosophy is the arena of contextualising/collating our mental sensations with the added ingredient of a kind of mental feedback that arises when we "chew the mental cud" as it were and feed the first impressions back into the mix of our continuing cogitations. No doubt this is a very half baked idea but if ,as I suggested artificial machines were able to pass the Turing test for philosophy then we might then need to understand why that would happen. To answer your question more directly Meditation involves calming the bodily and mental processes (that's the theory I think) and allowing a particular kind of thought process to enter the space vacated. Gaining self knowledge is the practical side of my definition of philosophy as it feeds on everyday experience and so nourishes this overall thought and emotional experience in a drip drip way(some experiences can have more immediate effect such as initiation ceremonies I guess) Mathematics would be rather different and I would say it is almost entirely based on the external (modeling and manipulating it) with little obvious benefit to the workings of the mind other than in that it is a discipline like many others .

thanks

On another forum I wondered whether philosophy might be defined as the skill of turning one's intellectual (and emotional ,presumably ?) attention inwards in addition to the coping mechanism we all develop and which feeds on and organising the consequences of external stimuli . My point** ,in the thread I started was that this facility could be programmed into an artificial machine and so would allow "robots" to become thinkers in the round.The "philosophy" they would build from scratch would be based on their own external sensory stimuli allied to an internal questioning of how they arrived at the responses they did (and possibly the authority to tamper with their own inner processes or micro programs) We might call the result an "artificial philospophy" .As with our own philosophy ,it would vary from one machine to another and develop over time. I am not advocating going down this road ,but if it is feasible then maybe it is also going to happen whatever we may or may not wish. **apart from the simple idea that philosophy could also be "artificial".

What is that? Is there an interface(or common ground) between philosophy and scientific research?

Sure. Without good cause I was wondering whether you leant towards the view that we actually change events in the physical world by "thinking about them" Some people (not myself) do seem to believe that in a half baked way . It is not a view amenable to scientific discussion in my view but is doubtless entertaining to those who are attracted to it.(can't give you anything like chapter and verse on the subject-surprised you are unfamiliar with it by the way;I think it is quite a common unscientific belief **) **no innuendo intended

No ,you have answered it fine. I was just unsure as to whether this was relevant to your question and the way you might have been framing it. I can now see it is not (I think my concern was off topic)

Does "observation" (for you) involve a change in the structure of the brain (or psyche?)of the experimenter or does it (as I would understand it) a hurdle in the experimental apparatus that the wave must pass?

Bigger fleas have little fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em And little fleas have lesser fleas And so on, ad infinitum Spike Milligan

That should help since multiquote seems to be automatic (up to a certain time delay I expect)

I also like it . It seems to help me with my self questioning "when is a slit a slit?" "(I am starting from scratch ,just trying to keep up with the posse at the closest distance possible )

Posts don't seem to have numbers . How can I say which one I am talking about without actually using the quote function?

Is that from AK's programme?(no I don't know what is missing) Btw I found Dalo's Single Slit Interface video ten or so posts back revelatory (and this thread comparatively easy to follow) Is that video totally uncontraversial (insofar as anything can be)?