studiot

Thank you so much for this information. I had no idea the life scientists had advanced so far, mathematically, but it makes perfect sense. Mathematicians have been busy expanding the notions of measurements and distance so I am glad to see that bearing fruit in the form of real applications. +1

Newton was a unitarian. which held his progress back in the Cambridge heirarchy (though not in Physics or Maths) as he could not take Holy Orders.

I don't understand why this thread has wandered around so far off topic, whilst introducing many huge topics, each of which should be in a separate thread of its own Further I didn't get much traction when I offerd detailed insights into the original topic. Nevertheless since the OP has now raised the topic of 'what is life' , here are a few thoughts. So, amongst others, Life appears to have some or all of the following characteristics. Ability to absorb 'food' material (including energy) and also to excrete 'waste' material. Ability of cause replication of itself. Ability to grow. Ability to move in some way, in whole or in part. Ability to respond to stimulus. There are others but this will do. It can be said that the dendritic growth of crystal structures exhibits all of these, plus some of the ones I haven't mentioned. Does this make these crystals alive ?

Especially as some of us might wish to dispute some of the statements in your opening post.

Do you ? I hope so. Here is a more detailed explanation of why the bonds are this way. It is to do with the geometry of the different configurations. Note the double bond has a planar structure whilst the triple bond has a linear structure. So there is only room for the lobes of the Pz orbital to stick out top and bottom in the double bond hence only the z Pie orbital (two separated lobes ) is formed. In the triple bond the Pz orbital sticks out top and bottom and the Py orbital sticks out side to side forming the other Pie bond. So that is what I mean when I say theya re equivalent. The article gives specific values for the effects on bond strength. Clicking on one of the pictures will give a bigger version for ease of reading. This response is more like I would expect to see in a discussion. So do you understand why different configurations with different hybridisations are allowable ?

In all honesty there's too much chaff here for anyone who wants a serious discussion to bother. So only those that like verbal fencing or moderators (who have to bother) will step in. I'm pretty sure you will have come across the scientific notion of a model here. Unfortunately too many people throw the word 'theory' about whne they mean model. And the point of a model is that it mirrors only part of that which is being modelled.

I don't see the need for multiple threads on this subject. One is more than sufficient.

Interestingly I was today reading an article about an AI generated film star, which completely fooled the media, with fake film material and all sorts. I was also listening a spokesperson for the UK Office of The Information Commisioner, who has just issued substantial fines to companies who make a nuisance of themselves by using AI fake humans to make advertising telephone calls. I normally ignore these, but I recognised one of the examples which I had though was a lady enquiring about fibre-glass insulation in my loft, but was really a computer generated simulated human.

We used to have a lawyer here who was a damn sight better at Physics than this. But then I think he studied the subject a bit longer and more deeply. I'm sorry to tell you that the used the wrong AI to summarise the laws of thermodynamics for you. Further it should have told you to define your symbols, before you use them in mathematics.

It would be good if some of your countrymen would step in here and tell you that it doesn't hurt to respond to those who have genuinely put themselves out to help you.

The only thing I would quibble with is this. I would add the words "some politcians......................... some are just inept". Small point, I assume you mean adept not adapt. +1

Haven't you got enough threads on this subject ? or have you abandoned the others ?

Well I suppose it depends upon what you mean by different. The double bond comprises one sigma bond formed from sp2 hybrid orbitals and one pie bond formed from the remaining p orbital. The triple bond comprises one sigma bond formed from sp hybrid orbitals and two pie bonds formed from the remaining p orbitals.

Never trust a Philosopher. 😄

Why is it that the unsung part of Science is so hard to get recognised ? Our consciousness and autonmous processing (and that of lesser animals) does so much more than just provide an observer or receiver of our sensory input. Science is just the same, but no one ever like to mention it. I can't think why since the great discoveries would never happen without the bits in between.

Yes I've seen that as well. Also I've seen posts that I watched being posted, listed as posted 5 hours ago. Also I find the All Activity doesn't keep up with posters - It can take several minutes and sometimes clicking round the site for them to be added to the list.

But this is not the question. The question is should you change your choice ? The answer is yes because there is only one door that Monty can open if your were initially correct, but there are two doors that Monty could open if you were not. So you are twice as likely to be right with the door he did not open as sticking to the door you originally chose. The reasoning follows KJW's method in the spoiler.

Perhaps you don't understand what a boundary is ?

I don't see the problem. I admit I said death because it sounds more dramatic than the longer cessation. So when any consciousness ceases it encounters the issue of the boundary. Neither the boundary nor whatever is beyoond are part of the ceasing consciousness. And there must be something beyond the boundary, even if it is only nothing as in outer space. That is the nature of a boundary the separation of more than one thing.

You asked And I offered death, since as far as we know all living things die so those with consciousness must acknowledge the existence of death as being something that exists outside consciousness.

What about death ?

Like this ? Alas Alas poor Willy His voice we'll hear no more For what he took for H2O Was H2SO4 Still on the subject of abstract v concrete, real v imaginary etc When we write [math]\int_a^b {f(x)dx} [/math] The statement is, one of yet another of these pairs - indeterminate / determinate Yet we happily then write [math]\left[ {F(x)} \right]_a^b[/math] [math]F(b) - F(a)[/math] ; where F(x) is the primitive of f(x) If we are told that a is 0 and b is 1 we write [math]\int_0^1 {f(x)dx} [/math] and if we are further told [math]f(x) = x[/math] Then we can finally write [math]F(b) - F(a) = 1 - 0 = 1[/math] So at what point, if any, does this become real ?

I also like this saying, though one might counterclaim they are physical in several significant ways. Shadows block light and have a lower temperature than their surroundings. This changes the way air moves. This changes moisture levels and micro humidity. That creates an attraction effect pulling air toward it from more illuminated non-shadowed areas. There’s a temperature gradient radiating from cool to warm from center of the shadow outward. The undulation of that heat creates disturbances in the local atmosphere and intensifies the dancing blur along the boundary between light and dark. Actually I disagree here. The surface of a real material object (for instance the path on which you are standing and you yourself shivering) certainly reacts to being in shadow in this fashion. However I am not aware that the shadow itself has a temperature.

There is something of a problem to this as I consider there to be a missing available word. One way to attempt definition is to ask if the object of interest can affect something that is uncontroversially real. But the problem with this is that for instance, someone like Harry Potter does indeed affect millions of people. So is he real or not ? He is certainly fictional, but do words on a page or a real actor constitute a material or real representation ?

That is if you accept the hypothesis of 'primordial nucleosynthesis' , which I do not. Both energy and mass are properties of something as exchemict says. When that something undergoes some process the equation you mentioned keeps an accounting of the sum of these properties. But it would be better if you used it in its differential form ΔE = Δmc2 As befits a process. Otherwise you are suggesting that there are 'absolute' vlaues to mass and energy, both of which are frame dependent.