questionposter

Even in quantum mechanics where electrons are constantly fluctuating into random locations, their location averages out to a single most probable distance away from the nucleus.

The point is not if we can get away with it, that's the separate topic, the point is what we should do if we could.

Perhaps not in that scpeific post, but prior to that, how could I acknowledge that the meaning is relative with out first objectively comprehending that there are multiple views? There is no "universal" point of life because there will always be different perspectives, so you can't say the point of life is any single thing because it will be different to something else, not much different than the relativity of time.

Well it's what quantum means anyway, and then we substitute "particle" for "fermoin" because there are non-fermion pieces of matter with their own rules. That's because a photon isn't a single wave function, it's two: it's an electric oscillation perpendicular to an electro-magnetic oscillation http://www.astronomy...om/light/s3.htm Besides, whether you want to believe it or not, multiple views and aspects of quantum mechanics can account for experimental results in things such as the double slit experiment, and this includes Schrodinger and Dirac mechanics. So far every aspect of QM has some place where it fails, and this includes what you claim to be contemporary operators.

I can see how you can compile evidence for it, but the energy you put into isolating a quark just makes another quark, which combined you wouldn't be able to distinguish between, there should logically be no known way to observe a single point as being a specific quark.

It is in fact suspected that dark matter (if it exists) does not interact with the electro-magnetic force, thus it does not clump together as easily and doesn't emit light, but like I said, it doesn't really clump together, so there aren't really large masses of dark matter to account for orbital eccentricities, the amount of dark matter would try to evenly distribute in a system. I still don't know specifically why that would make it into a halo rather than just floating around the galaxy in average densities proportion to the strength of the black hole's gravitational pull, like normal matter, since gravity isn't the EM force and dark matter still interacts with gravity.

Ok, once again, if you can't isolate a quark, how can you distinguish 3 point-like bodies?

You are Schrodinger's Cat (not "hat") and is therefore in a box in a house but also outside of both those things due to it's superposition.

I challenge anyone who thinks religious people are broken to be completely logical in every action and consciously make every decision for even 24 hours.

Wow, I'm really surprised this is only now being talked about considering atheists have existed for as long as religion has existed. Of course it's more stable to follow some of people like Jesus's and Siddhartha's teaching, society wouldn't even form without people being decent to each other.

I thought I already explained this: religion does not impair mental ability, there is absolutely no scientific research to support that it does (ironically). Being very religious is more about an emotional connection than anything, and plenty of people have emotions.

Isn't the bible's stories supposedly evidence for god because some of what's in there is suppose to be what god said/did?

No, the real moral is actually about being boss.

You learned that I'm objective and don't think there's any mystical force obligating anyone to do any specific thing which is why attempts to universally define the point of life fail in different perspectives? Well, it doesn't take a lot to know that about me. Have you ever seen Parks and Recreation? There's this character on there called "Ron", he's basically a living form of this philosophical property. Although it's probably more related to competitiveness, every time someone says you "should" or "have" to do something, he does the opposite just to show them he doesn't have to do those things.

But why should you be obligated to that? There's nothing obligating you to that, people don't actually have to learn.

I guess if to you if it really means that, you can create that illusion and think that's true. Any attempt to universally define the point of life is an illusion anyway, which is why I like Siddhartha, because he acknowledged that life doesn't have a specific point, but still said "well at least we can get rid of all the unnecessary suffering".

Well logically we should instead focus on eliminating malaria, because even if we eliminate mosquitoes, malaria could still have adaptations that allow it to survive in the water or in other animals. In fact, because mosquitoes have already bitten other animals, malaria is present in them and they can spread it with bodily fluid contact and thus killing off mosquitoes would not eliminate malaria. Anyway, we shouldn't we wipe we the human race then? Ethically and objectively, why should mosquitoes deserve to be wiped out but not humans? Or for that matter, why not wipe out every animal and every aggressive plant?

I can't point you to anything specific because I don't remember the name, and it's not exactly what your describing but I think with enough research you could find it. Essentially, you have these "survival" genes in your body, and those genes "activate" when your daily intake of calories goes under a certain limit, and it ups your immune system, slow your metabolism and some other good things, and this is used to explain why monks live longer, since they often go on long fasts. I think scientists recommended it to increase your likelihood of living longer. But with regards specifically to the tribe, how big is the tribe? Because with humans being as constructive as they are, random mutations can easily survive and spread within a localized population. There's even people with blue skin in a valley in the eastern US.

I've kind of been thinking about it like that too, but at the same time, as robots can or I guess possibly eventually can show, you don't need "life" to have consciousness, which leaves it sort of open ended.

It's really weird, I was literally just thinking the other day that this topic would be posted on this section of this site soon. But, I also came up with an answer, which is -undefined-, just like 1/0 As far as I've seen my physics books, the universe doesn't really seem to address the "point" or "meaning" of life, so it's just up to life itself to decide that, and of course there are multiple views to this.

That's not really how it works. To prove your model is the solution to the universe and not anything else, you have to actually prove it. How do you explain how electrons don't just "fall" into the nucleus?

I guess I should clarify that I mean no "negative" consequences. Save millions of lives? Well maybe after all this time mosquitoes have been responsible for killing millions of lives (although that's just the bacteria they have in them, which aren't only found in mosquitoes), but even if that were the case, couldn't we save the lives of even more living things by wiping out the human race? Does that mean we should wipe out the human race?

I don't think you really understand what the word "particle" means. Particle is just used to describe anything in very small realm. In a strict sense, the actual definition of "quantum particle" is something like "a fermion with a radiant energy equal to Planck's constant times the associated radiation". However, there are different variations of quantum mechanics for which this principal will hold true. Some of those variations are Schrodinger's wave equations and things built off of that like Dirac's equations, and then there's more simplified operators like with what Heisenberg made. But, because all the multiple variations of quantum mechanics generally get the same results, which includes Schrodinger's quantum wave mechanics, an electron or any sub-atomic mass is better described as "something that has both point-like and wave-like properties". Because in the end, matter isn't actually a classical "particle" or a "wave", matter is its own thing. In order to say matter doesn't have wave-like properties though, you need to come up with a theory for why the double-slit experiment results happen and have the equations for it achieve the same results that will somehow disprove wave mechanics. QTF as far as I know does not directly address this. http://en.wikipedia....um_field_theory Electrons and protons and other fermoins have similar probability properties to photons, and photons are described as waves or wave-like particles or "ripples in a field" (http://en.wikipedia....um_field_theory). In the same sense, an electron can merely be a ripple in a matter-field rather than an electro-magnetic field. It actually even emphasizes that things can "look like" particles.

Well I'm sorry to say that's not what quantum mechanics and experimental evidence suggests.

If you look at an electron it has a low mass but occupies a larger area. If you look at a proton it has a large mass and occupies a small area. If you look at a neutrino it has a low mass and occupies a large area. BUT, if you look at a black hole it has a high mass bu occupies a large area.