Phi for All

Or 4, or 3. Maybe 2 is best. Welcome to US politics! Any system that doesn't address the spectrum of possibilities of human personalities AS a spectrum is faulty to start. As has been mentioned, the fewer the categories, the more people will be excluded, or forced into a label that's restrictive and possibly misapplied. It feels good to "classify" things we wish we understood better, and it's a process that's necessary to lay the groundwork for research, but forcing simplicity on your classifications can be a big mistake. That's almost never the way breakthroughs happen in science. It's the other way around; more particles and properties and elements are found, not fewer. We start with a simple, manageable amount of "explanation", and it grows as it's explained more thoroughly and becomes better understood.

! Moderator Note This is not science, much less science news. If you wish to support any of these non-mainstream ideas through discussion, please open a thread in Speculations, and provide a model for your "theory". Worst. Sockpuppet. Ever.

! Moderator Note Enthalpy, you don't get to soapbox your ideas here like a blog. You've ignored repeated requests for clarity, and that's not discussion, it's preaching. Your rigor is much better than a lot of folks but you have a tendency to shrug off tough questions and plow on past them. You know the rules, you've been around enough. This is unacceptable, thread closed.

This would seem to suggest that specific religions and procedures for pleasing this god are left up to the person praying. Since there are tens of thousands of Abrahamic religious sects, each with their own ways and rituals for this god, doing what feels "right" and "proper" could be a personal path or a more organized one. It seems to be up to you, though I'm sure many sects would disagree.

What about the criticisms that the B5 is limited in scope, isn't based on any underlying theory, and doesn't cover the population as comprehensively as it should (neglecting traits like thriftiness or a sense of humor or honesty)? There are already updated models that involve six factors, and I wonder if the B5 is going the way of the Triune Brain model.

Uh oh. How could you possibly know that? And what about the hard evidence we have that, at one point in its evolution, the universe was far too hot and dense to support anything we might call life, let alone intelligent life? Since you refuse to comment on posts that show otherwise, or clarify your definitions when asked repeatedly, it seems you've decided to stand on your soapbox and declare your words to be Truth. There you go again, insisting that a property of a thing is a thing itself. Nobody can borrow a cup of your intelligence, because it's not a physical thing that can be formed into an order or pattern.

This is the age of extremism, and more folks are coming out of the woodwork with intractable demands for our society. American Taliban, for sure. Terrorist religious tactics with heavy doses of toxic masculinity are rampant in right wing leadership. Is this like the new Texas gun laws, where 60% of Texans don't approve, but they're saddled with partisan whackos in office who're going to push this through to please Trump?

Examples were given where humans react without thought AND without having their brains removed. ALL the examples given from EVERYBODY assumed an intact brain. Only YOU have introduced the assumption that these reactions occur without a brain. To use one of my examples, how much thought do you think goes into closing your eyes when a sudden puff of air hits you in the face?

Standing still is a great example. The muscles in your feet react to imbalances perceived in the brain with conscious effort but no conscious thought. You act without thinking to maintain a balanced stance. You don't think about blinking before reacting to a puff of air in your eyes, or ducking your head more if you feel the top of the doorway against your hair.

First, find out where the engineers live, then find one that weighs 2 pounds (protip: look for the smallest house). Next, put some duct tape face up like flypaper outside their door. When the 2 pound engineer gets stuck, take his tiny hammer and fix your metallograph. Welcome!

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged.

That's not "basic logic", that's "this makes sense to me" reasoning, and it's often incorrect. Creation is a process and not a physical thing. You can develop a process, or identify it, but nothing physical is created until a specific process is implemented. And what do you mean by "capital C"? Is that some special kind of creation? Are you introducing your religion into this discussion?

I'm just afraid this is like modern skepticism, where people are constantly on the fence about an explanation because they haven't heard anything that satisfies them. That's not how a real skeptic works. Evidence is the key here. What makes this feeling different from what many yoga and meditation practitioners induce? They often visualize a golden ball of light that can seem warm and sort of "buzzy", and move that around their bodies. If you have an instructor telling you what to visualize, everyone in the room can experience the same thing. It's the power of suggestion, and we know the connection between mind and body is... phenomenal. This has been said many times in 6 pages, yet we still get people joining to tell us how freaked out they are, and complain that nobody will answer this simple question, and damnit we should take this somewhere else!

Let's not, since I feel like you want to move the goalposts now. Defining what you mean shouldn't be hard, and your simple statements use definitions I want to be clear on. Were my questions about snowflakes confusing? I'm trying to figure out why you want to define existence the way you do, yet I'm getting a bunch of pushback. I have seen no logic yet. Where was this posted? Do you mean something other than philosophical logic? Mathematical logic isn't really applicable here. Are you using the popular, non-scientific definition of logic that means "this makes sense to me"? I asked questions before and they were ignored. I showed how your reasoning was fallacious and my comment was ignored. This is not so much a personal "stumbling block" as it is a locked door you're holding the key to.

I'm still waiting for answers about definitions for "equal" and "like no other". And shall I assume you agree with me about your fallacious reasoning and assumptions wrt your eternal singularity?

This might be best. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing people come here for science-minded explanations, only to reject them as "those who have already mocked us". We've tried our best to respect that this is a real phenomenon while gently trying to remove the "supernatural" aspect from it (hello, science discussion forum). We've tried to show how everyone can do this to some degree, but it's clear this is something some people feel makes them potentially special, and they don't want to hear mundane reasoning. So post your link to a discussion offsite, which is normally against our rules. I'll close the thread and folks can guess about this all they want. Does that sound fair?

Transubstantiation leaves me with a similar feeling. There must be a correlation!

With all the conspiracy, misinformation, and unevidenced claims going around, we're trying to achieve "heard" immunity. If you "heard" it somewhere, check it out before you spread it out.

jayb has been suspended for a month for foul posting. Civility is required here.

I'm not sure how that can qualify as informative, something a definition is required to do. Perhaps the problem lies with your definition of "equal". A snowflake is one of a kind, but are its fellows "equal" to it? Each snowflake is unique, but can you also say they are "like no other"? This is an argument from incredulity. You simply can't believe, it makes no sense to you, therefore it isn't. We can't know if the universe is eternal, or infinite in size . It could be. Or it could be finite. It's also an assumption that matter was created from nothing, and one that has led you to these conclusions.

It's still a good idea to make sure we're all using the same definitions. It seems more like a non-description to me. A hand-waiving side-step that leaves me completely uninformed about it, other than it seems there's only one of them. I hope you can appreciate what we have to go through wrt posters and advertising. You're free to use scientific references to support your assertions, even place links, but please don't quote other forums when citing evidence. Use more trusted sources that support mainstream science, not YouTube videos and opinion sites. There's no need for us to read some other philosophy forum's posts when we have you here to discuss the topic with us. We want to hear your thoughts, as a member here. Are you referring to a technological singularity, or a mathematical singularity, or just any one-off phenomena that seems unique? Why does it describe all of existence perfectly for you?

Since this is a science discussion forum, perhaps you could start by giving us your definitions of "Absolute" and "Singularity", so everyone is on the same page.

My mistake then, I quoted you saying you had complete light fittings, not replacement bulbs. My comment was on fixtures where the LED lights are integrated into the fixture, rather than being an LED designed to replace an old filament or CFL bulb or tube.

The replacements can't be as efficient as your complete, integrated LED fixtures. They waste resources on emulating older configurations. An LED bulb isn't enjoying the spirit of solid-state electronics, imo.

The more accepted perspective is that time and the spatial dimensions offer us degrees of freedom rather than constraints.