Leaderboard

Here we finally have it! Proof of the existence of a creator? Best evidence yet!

Supporting evidence for the existence of a creator?

I don't know how they did it, but a common trick is Pepper's Ghost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost

There is a part of sci-fi that doesn't try and explain the physics it breaks, or only gives it a cursory mention.

Mostly playing poker...

Since this discussion is drawing the thread off topic I have started a new thread for the purpose of continuing it. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114895-the-nature-and-application-of-the-term-property-with-particular-reference-to-energy/?tab=comments#comment-1054447

Is this about string theory? Sounds more like the Many World's Interpretation of QM or one of the many multiverse hypotheses (just had a look and it seems that some of those do depend on string theory). But even if there are multiple universes, only things that are possible can happen so there is obviously no universe where Trump is president. That's just silly!

I hear you here - but my point is that 2 IDENTICALLY classed boxers that fight a close match will 'feel' very different afterward... not due to the number of punches thrown or energy conserved, but due to the real physical kick it gives you being a looser or a winner.... this physical kick comes from the adrenaline from winning or the cortisol from loosing. A classic example: Look at Sally Gunnel winning the Olympic gold medal and breaking the world record for the 400M hurdles in 1992 vs Farmer-Patrick I think, the previous WR holder from the US. Falmer-Patrick was WR holder and current champ... she was top of her game. The 2 finished with barely half a second between them... they are both very capable athletes. For athletes such as these running this WR time (they both broke the former WR) would be exhausting.... but they have trained their lives for it. Both should be exhausted, but both should still be able to walk off the track. Falmer-Patrick dropped like a sack, as though she'd been shot and had to be stretchered off the second she crossed the line.... Gunnell literally SPRINTS round the track, faster than most normal people could run it after training to do so, holding the British flag over her heard all the way. Not a sign of fatigue on her. The difference between our brain rewarding our win with adrenaline or a loss with cortisol.

But the mechanism isn't known... it could well be related to the 'positive vibes' people feel when cheered on, praised, are thinking positively, have been told they will perform better if they do some superstitious thing or get well from a disease. Something chemical must happen deep within us that is triggered by our psychological status... even if we have been tricked or tricked ourselves with positive thinking... ..... maybe, I don't think anything conclusive has been confirmed scientifically either way. The adrenalin increase is real and scientific.... the opposite true for the player getting put down (increases on cortisone? Cortisol?). Classic examples of a sports person's psychological state influencing their bodies can often be seen after boxing matches and running races. The losers, flooded with cortisol, can barely stand and often collapse in fatigue whilst the winners, who have been through the same exhausting procedure, suddenly get a new burst of strength from the adrenaline surge they receive. This adrenaline from winning can give the boxer strength to shrug off his tiredness and bruises enough to dance around the ring athletically and jump up on the ropes and carries a look of freshness and strength, an athlete runs a lap of honour..... whilst the loosing boxer is carried off in a stretcher and the second place runner can barely stand and needs help walking off the track.

I guess he was aiming for Trash and missed (probably miscalculated gravity)

In which case you’re talking about trust and belief, but conflating then w faith. Edit: x-posted w moonman who said the same thing If you’re asking me whether I think faith in humanity is required to achieve a cohesive society, I’m a pretty firm no on that.

IOW, "If you agree with the definition of belief I've purposely widened to the point of meaninglessness, then everything is taken on faith". It's clear you have a caricature perspective of the mysteries of quantum physics, one which popular science articles often hype to make their articles more attractive. The real science is based on evidence gathered using methodologies specifically designed to minimize human bias and guesswork. This is obviously not belief based on faith in something we can't know, nor is it belief born of wishful thinking. It's belief based on trustworthy evidence and reasoning. We trust in this science mostly because we can show how this is the way the observable universe behaves.

Faith is perhaps the worst single reason to accept something as valid or true. Faith not only ignores evidence, but too often demands that one stand in direct opposition to it. Those who demand faith are almost without fail dictatorial and insecure, and for such a thing to be demanded by a supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god, it should raise obvious alarm bells even within the mind of a toddler. These people and institutions promoting faith rely on blind acceptance to fill the chasmic void left by their universally untenable, unsupportable, and unwittingly inept positions and claims. Let’s change context momentarily to help you better grasp my point. If I told you to have faith in the invisible pink dragon beneath my chair as I type this, or that the farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, you would rightly dismiss my request as silly and unworthy of serious discussion. Yet you and others sharing in your particular brand of woo ask all of the rest of us to have “faith” in your personal flavor of shared mass delusion. You ask us to accept on faith alone claims of outrageous and extravagant proportions, as if that’s somehow supposed to be enough? I think not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in support of them. Faith hardly rises to that threshold. Quite the opposite, really. Faith, or more specifically those demanding it of otherwise kind, capable, quality people in our society preys on the weak. It demands obedience be prioritized over rationality, reason, critical thinking, and even common sense. Faith is perhaps the worst single reason to accept something as valid or true, and I suspect somewhere deep inside of you that you know I’m right about this and even agree with me.

I avoided this thead until now but have just read through it. Lord Antares, You have worked hard to keep your thread on topic and made some good points and explanations of your position, despite the noise level so +1 for all that. However you have made one mathematical mistake wtf tried to draw your attention to. You are trying to use prior probabilities to predict certainty. That is impossible (+inconsistent with mathematical statistics). You ask how long... before something will (certainty) happen. Prior probability can only ever offer an estimate, which is couched in terms of a cumulative of overall probability. You have then two approaches. If you allow the mokey-writer to start and slice the output into 130000 characters (I think that was the right number) of episodes and call each one a trial or experiment, 1) You can try to calculate the overall probability of success which should gradually increase as the number of trials increases. But it will never reach 1. 2) You can try to calculate the overall probability of failure which should gradually decrease but never reach zero, as the number of trials increases. . Rubbish, you get information every time you select a random number. (Kolmogorov).

True. My overall point was that there are numerous reasons why people miss work and that it isn't a fact that women will miss more work throughout a full career than will a man. My anecdote aside there is truth to that point. People miss work following car accidents, illnesses, deaths in the family, and etc, etc, etc. A career is often littered interruptions. The OP references education. In my opinion a good career, one a person invests in education for, is nearly always one that offers stability in addition to good pay. A career where one would fear being fired or demoted due to paternity isn't a good one and probably isn't one people (male or female) invest in education for.

Imagine a single ripple (centred on where the pebble went in) being self-sustaining. So that disturbance in the field is a "thing" (electron or whatever). It doesn't continually require energy to keep it going because it is not a ripple in water (water has mass and requires energy to make it go up and down). That wavelike disturbance can now move around and it represents the position of the electron. Actually, the square of the amplitude of the ripple represents the probability of finding the electron at that location (if I have extended your metaphor appropriately) so the electron is most likely to be in the middle but could be elsewhere. There is a really, really tiny probability that it will be detected on the other side of the galaxy. You can then do calculations by analysing the paths of these ripples. If you add together every single possible path the ripple could take, you will find that some of the waves will constructively interfere and some will destructively interfere and the most probable path ends up being the one that corresponds to a "classical" description of the path of the electron (or photon, or whatever). This is how quantum theory, with all its probability based things, can describe the behaviour of photons and reproduce the results of classical optics. (See the Feynman lectures on QED if you haven't already.)

"Is there life after death?" one may as well ask.

Lord Antares, Well there is a reason there could not be infinite tries. We die somewhere before we get to infinity. If the monkey is just a metaphor for randomness and the point is that we emerged from a random universe by accident, then the outside limit for how long it would take a monkey to type Hamlet would be 13.8 billion years. If the odds are against the monkey typing Hamlet in 13.8 billion years, which earlier posts indicate is the case, then the odds against there being monkeys, typewriters, and us by accident are not very good at all, and something in addition to randomness must have been in play over the last 13.8 billion years to get such certainty as it is that you will read this post and type an understandable response. Regards, TAR

Because monkeys, or any other organisms with brains, are a bad metaphor for randomness seeing how they aren't random. If you're going to use a metaphor, use a good one.

Lord Antares, Understood, but mathematically the monkey would take longer than the projected life of the universe to type out Hamlet, so the only recourse math has is to propose other universes or more monkeys. So the literal mathematical answer to the question of how long it would take a monkey to type out Hamlet, is there is not enough time available to get the job done. So the correct answer is, the monkey will not type out Hamlet. There is no possible way he can do it. There are a million ways he will not even type out the first sentence, and all these other ways are much more possible than him or her getting it right. And there is also the problem of who is checking and recording the output, and what rules they are going by in the grading. If the monkey jams the typewriter on the last stroke and hits the right key but it doesn't type, or the ribbon is out of ink and the impression is made but it is not readable by the naked eye, does it count? So literally you need a human judge to say it is Hamlet, so you cannot take a human's judgement out of the equation. Hence you cannot achieve the goal in an imaginary fashion that does not take the realities of objective reality into account. One of the problems with infinity is that no matter how big you make it, I can make it one more bigger, every time. This works in our brains, as we have the ability to put ourselves in other peoples shoes, shift grain size, count and so on. The real world has to fit together and make sense, work and operate, even without our equations that describe how it does it. Regards, TAR It is a similar question to "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin." Whenever you mix imaginary stuff, with real stuff, the mathematical answer will vary according the variables allowed by imagination. Back when I was first playing with a Commodore 64, I ran into the problem of trying to write a program that would have a random output. Even the built in random number generator worked off a program that utilized the regular clock pulses of the crystal, so randomness was just simulated, and had beneath it a pattern that could repeat or become evident in artifacts, analogous to the moire patterns put out inadvertently by digital copiers. Chaos theory and Mandelbrot fractals show us that the world is not random at all, but operates usually in patterns that repeat themselves and show up, up and down the line, like overtones and undertones in music. The string vibrates at a certain frequency but that is not the only frequency it vibrates at. It vibrates in halves and thirds and fifths and so on.

Thread, Raider5678 said this. Hamlet has approximately 130,000 letters in it. Not counting spaces. The average typing speed is 200 characters per minute. So if the money typed it perfectly, it would take about 650,000 minutes. Or 10,833.3 hours. Or 451.4 days. Or 64.5 weeks. Then went on to calculate the time it would take to randomly arrive at the correct order of the characters. The time was silly large, so to have the question at all, would be to prove a point about randomness or infinity, so I went there. If it was just a hypothetical mathematical question, then Raider should not have divided 130,000 by 200 and gotten 650,000. Are we making a literal mathematical calculation or are we talking hypothetically about infinity and randomness? If we are talking basic math lets start with being able to type 130,000 letters, at 200 characters a minute in 650 minutes, which is 10.833 hours which is about a workday with lunch and 3 hours overtime. Regards, TAR

Sorry but information cannot come out of randomness. Claude Shannon’ established that in his entropy theorem. The monkey can type his fingers away. No Hamlet will come out.

I would suggest that homogeneity being observed by us at sufficiently large scales is entirely dependent upon the limitation of our own vantage point. Scales are only 'larger' or 'smaller' relative to the observer. My assertion that the universe has a shape (and is therefore finite) is based upon the existence of surfaces, which could logically not exist in a shapeless universe. Look at all the un-occupied space that surrounds all of these surfaces. My assertion that the universe has the overall shape of an 'ever-changing structured asymmetry' is based upon the fact that this is what is being experienced at all times.

1st, I mostly agree with you both on some of your major points. 2nd, I am not a believer in any God. I think you mistake my definition of belief, or faith. The O.P was was "What is Faith?" and why do you have it. My point is that I do think it has evolutionary significance, and all of us do have Faith in one form or another, more often misplaced and not always in a positive supposition. Do you disagree that Faith in Humanity, for example, is needed for for a cohesive society?

verrrry strange neither mention you mail nor want to see on youtube and saying it is very complicated process something wrong with you as you already mention in your first quote it is complicated process means you already have read example then you replied and in trolling quote you trying to say it is complicated complicated and complicated what is this ............dear Strang my suggestion is to you always appreciate others work .............do not try to down others. ok first time i am seeing this formula i am not aware of it i was just working on X-Y AXIS and got that results you know everything is related with each others if it is not we can not prove and proofs things ,ok . maths is the only subject where we use x y for example x+y=24 xy=12 ok ....take care can you prove this formula N^2 = (N-1)(4) + (N-2)(N-2).

You're on. (Unlike you) I see (vertical) gravity as a push. (But that's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.) (I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal. It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pull. I interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atoms are electromagnetically attracted together. But has it ever occurred to you why you can NOT shield against gravity vertically? Perhaps because that might only be the acceleration of matter moving upwards. Thus any other reasoning is missing (as nonsense). (E.g. because there is nothing there to shield against.?) Hubble provided us with an interesting perspective: The universe appears to be expanding. & if so why do NOT matter waves in that (weak) vacuum also expand? (E.g. osmosis: moving from higher concentration to lower). Maybe you can convince me why vertical gravity should NOT be a push? Btw Asmov's Fantastic Voyage, of shrinking things for a period would be possible if we could (find a way to) restrict matter's expansion.

Do you ever experience 'changelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience 'structurelessness'? I speculate that you don't. Do you ever experience absolute symmetry? I speculate that you don't. Does anyone with properly working senses ever experience any of these three? I speculate that they don't.