CarbonCopy

I cannot agree that generally philosophers are open minded. On average I find them just as set in their ways as any group of people. Indeed, the fact that there is a tradition of philosophy called 'western' which is a failure, and which can be safely characterised as mere 'footnotes to Plato', more or less proves narrow-mindedness. It is physicists who were able to open their minds to quantum mechanics. For the most part philosophers have yet to get out of the Newtonian box.

I agree with you. Nice point.

Nothing can ever prove existence of god. You can come up with as many miracles you want, they can all be/will be explained by science. God was just a placeholder for the ancients who couldn't make sense of the world.

I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that I want to do experimental side. For things like particle physics, is the only employment places in CERN, Fermilab, etc. Are there any private institutions ( not academic ) that do these fundamental research ? There is usually more employment in private sector.

Or, I was also thinking about nanomaterial research. Does that have a larger scope ?

Can you attach an image of the structure or something ? And in what context you have come across this.

I understand that machine language ( and assembly ) is the only language that the computer understands. But, how is a microprocessor able to read these codes ?

Come on it has to C++ the industry standard.

On another note, it is better to be well versed with many languages, check out this new weird language haxe. Just for fun ! It's nice.

Does our brains or conciseness limit us ?

If this is so, then how can we prove this ?

How does gene transfer work ?

I think tech would get there way before biology and nature could get us there. But, in the future we will be a really weird species ( i.e., if we didn't kill ourselves ).

What about more complex stuff ? I've heard that some other primates can somewhat imagine numbers, but do we use stuff like algebra, calculus, etc. Is it just some evolutionary byproduct of other adaptations ?

From what you have written, your primary use of a computer is to browse the web. In that case the best think to get is a tablet.

You should also just buy a normal not so expensive laptop for your word processing and video editing or if you already have a decent computer that should do.

Or you could wait and buy a Surface Pro tablet. Comes with Intel i5 processor and Full Windows 8. That means you can do what a normal pc can do on the tablet. But, the price is going to a tad bit high ( come one it's a microsoft product, what do you expect ).

I would recommend a normal tablet for you, if you spend most of your time on the net.

Which has better job opportunities?

I'm edging towards nuclear or particle since I want to do some fundamental research. But, I'm also considering Nanotech, because of the new developments going on there.

Sorry, I think I used the wrong words in my first post. So, you can use the scientific method, but, you can only test the probabilistic predictions. Is that what all the physicists do for testing quantum theories ?

Maybe we are being too narrow minded in our definition of life. There might be living things out there that we cannot even imagine of, that use some exotic type of biochemistry, maybe something other than carbon. They could use arsenic instead of phosphorus. There could be life forms floating in Jupiter living happily in the extreme conditions there.

On the other hand, life as WE know it could be quite rare, given the multitude of conditions required for earth like life.

Why has the human brain evolved to understand and do math. I see no evolutionary benefit of walking/tree climbing apes being able to do math ? Yet we are quite good at it. Why do we need things like numbers to hunt prey ? Biologically, it doesn't make sense ( to me at least )

Darwin would have been very happy with you

The Quantum world is inherently unpredictable. So, how do we conduct experiments at such a low scale and get reliable results. If the results are different for different observers, then doesn't the scientific method fail ? Then doesn't science fail as well ?

I'm not able to understand this. Any help is appreciated.

we should give moral education to children. Also, we should abolish all country boundary and we should all be under one big world government. that way there is nothing to fight about.

Well you were the one who claimed Indra, Agni, Soma etc and other gods are just mythological stories and that they do not exist, in the very beginning of our discussion. Isn't it? That was the cause of this confusion, have you changed your mind now? The concept of Vedic deities are as important as the concept of Brahman.

yes, these gods are used the invention of the vedic seers to convey morals to the common people and because they find it difficult to imagine something as abstract as brahman. But, of course they are not real. Don't tell me that you actually think that there is a person like Indra in the sky somewhere and he is fighting with Asuras, and when he has a problem he runs to Vishnu help. Those are just stories with deep inner meaning.

I honestly don't think Brahman has anything to do with science or with quantum mechanics or even with metaphysics. This is not science for we use different methods like intuitive reasoning and rely on psychological observation i.e by directly accessing the numinous or the noumenal and more importantly we are not studying the empirical world at all and hence this is mysticism or esotercism and this is not science.

We might not be able to observe things like brahman with our eyes using the scientific method because these things breakdown at such a low level. It could be, as you pointed out, that our very conciseness and the act of observing things hides braman away from us. Or maybe with better tech ( an LHC on steroids ) we might be able to observe the very fabric of spacetime which might lead us to brahman. Either way, I still think it can be expressed mathematically in a big and beautiful theory . Maybe the mathemical concept of brahan might be able to unify all forces for a theory of everything.

Like many others you have misunderstood the concept of Brahman, when I talk of Vedic deities I am not talking of sky gods, I am talking of inner gods, gods which exists with in you, all these gods are emanations of Brahman. Many academic scholars have failed to understand the all very important concept of Ishvara in Advaita Vedanta.

Even I am talking of inner gods, if I had not made myself clear enough.

No one is arguing for a God who is looking us from above, I am arguing for a personal God, the inner God which resides in you and the one who is stimulating your mind and Intellect to do noble deeds, this is what I'm arguing for.

Well even I'm saying that. It's just that your arguing in the wrong. The brahman can be proven by science, and it should not be confined to the just written texts and quotes.

If you do accept that there is only brahman and not many gods of hindu mythology, then what are you arguing about ? Please make your self clear ( your posts are becoming too long to read, sorry don't have that much time). What is your basic argument ?

Immortal,

May I tell you that the basic rule of Hinduism is that there is no god sitting above all of us and creating us and everything else, but, that there is one thing and one thing ONLY and that is brahman. That is what they call god. So, everything in this world is god, including you and I. If you would have known about Hinduism you would have realized that and found the brahman (god) in YOU and everything else. After all, that is the enlightenment ( moksha ).

I agree with the above post. I'm currently learning multivariable calculus from KhanAcademy. Also, you should subscribe some youtube channels as they give info. If you want to learn ug physics the best resource is Feynman lectures in physics or Fundamentals of physics by halliday,resnick and walker.

If you get stuck up anywhere, Wikipedia is always there to help !

What do people mean when they say that an electron has an INTRINSIC spin. Is it real ?

And how does this create a dipole moment ? I thought only moving charges create dipole moments not a stationary spinning electron ?

Well the sun emits light of all kinds of wavelengths. The most prominent one in the visible region is yellow I guess. Anyway,

You people do know that color is a fabrication of the brain right. It does not exist. Different wave lengths of light exist for sure, but that is not the color you see. The color you see is assigned by the mind. Just like you can color code a map with a computer showing different elevation as different colors. The human mind does this with reality.

your right.