studiot

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.

I am fond of saying that shadows are non physical, but they are very real. Well flying rugs etc is in the same class as pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden, in my opinion. But I can offer a mathematical proof that the 'indian rope trick' is a possible metastable state of certain compund pendulums.

I did note in my post about Monty Hall that the exact wording of the question makes a significant difference to the answer. My example makes this easier to see because we are not present to witness what the game show host says.

Source https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/house-size-by-country

Yet again I dont know why my submit did not take. I wrote this hours ago. Getting back on to the topic of AI development, Are you aware that all so called AIs are programs implemented on present day computers or arrays of computers. Despite constructional or configurational differences all present day computers are still Turing - Church machines. That is their defining program can be implemented (in enough time) on the simplest possible turing machine. And that the output of such a machine is entirely predictable. Should we call an entirely predictable machine, that can allegedly think for itself, in any way intelligent / Or just a better, more advanced program ?

If only electrons could capture neutrinos as those posted pages show, we wouldn't need the neutrino detectors we currently employ. I notice that these pages mention several times that the electron as a cube is a model. I can't find anywhere they say the electron is a cube. However I also can't find anywhere where they distinguish between free electrons and bound electrons or expound the Pauli principle.

Let's throw in a few facts and figures shall we ? The population density is around 98 persons per square mile. That of Germany is around 625 persons per square mile. Eise comes from an area of even more densely populated. This has two results. 1) Germany has far less scope for the spread out american housing estates we see in the movies. 2) Germany is also pushed for food production space. The first time I visited our friends in North West Germany I was struck by their typical house construction, which always included a huge basement. My friends explained that since we had flattened the industrial heartland of Germany in the war everything was new (unlike France or England). And the new building regulations required a bomb shelter basement for all new houses.

One important thing to take away from this discussion that I have yet to mention is the enormous difference between interpolation and extrapolation. Interpolation is a fancy word for 'bracketing' the hypothesis between known phenomena or values. Normally it is only us mathematicians that look for 'pathogenic counter examples'. Nature, by and large is pretty amenable to interpolation. Of course you have to make the barakets wide enough to cover many eventualities. Hypotheses such as the big bang, Everett's universal quantum function, and many many others especially in cosmology are not only extrapolations but very very large extrapolations. Extrapolation is by its own characterisitc open ended. And the further you get from the known the more wildly out your hypothesis can easily be.

I think I understand the sentiment about the ocean and I agree. Brunel was a far better ship designer than Kaiser, because he had that innate 'feeling' or empathy for his subject, but also for the scientific method. However modern science (it is not confined to the West) has found out more about the ocean than all the religions of the world put together. As for AI building, consciousness and intelligence are different abilities and both exist on a scale, neither are just on or off. Yes I agree with exchemist that if all the universe was just one large consciousness then there would be nothing for it to experience.

So long as you read it critically. Remember the old saying. If an expert is someone who knows a lot about a little Then a true expert is someone who knows everything about nothing. Sums up my suspicion of 'everything theories'. 😀

In this day and age professional people are required to carry out a certain amount of documented 'continued professional development' or CPD each year to maintain their professional status. This may be achieved by inhouse courses/training by their own employer, by visiting conferences or external training or by attending even9ing lectures from learned societies. I used to take advantage of foreign holidays to visit installations (like dams, canals or bridges) of interest. It is suprising what the local custodian will show you around if you ask. There are many ways you can be creative about this.

If you have access to the BBC, this is a very good learning resource https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/subjects/z7nygk7

https://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor https://editor.codecogs.com/

Is it still in Cyrillic ?

OK so to move forward waves, or more properly wave motion. Which brings up the subject of motion, something you will have met in Newton's Laws (of motion - he discovered many othe Laws) . Motion is a process. There are several forms of motion. Rectilinear motion (motion in a straight line) , curvylinear motion (motion in a curve) , wave motion ( we will come to that) And we usually describe processes by equations so it is a good idea to become familiar with equations. The equations that describe motion connect space and time. The simplest such equation is distance = speed x time or distance = velocity x time. Do you understand the concept of 'rate of change' ? Processes are about change of something Again the more you tell us about what you already know the better the answer will be. Since waves are also a process they obey an equation connecting space and time. Knowledge of these basic process equations of motion lead to knowledge about properties such as energy, momentum, power, mass transfer and others.