Leaderboard

I doubt it very much. Hamas took over 'governance' of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority by force ( bombings and murders ) almost 20 years ago. There has been no semblance of governance, and certainly no elections, since. International aid, meant for the population ( and the children INow mentioned ) is stockpiled by Hamas to take care of their fighters when the IDF retaliates, and they have to scurry like rats to their underground tunnels and bunkers, conveniently located under hospitals and schools, where the Palestinian population ( and the children INow mentioned ) can be collateral of the IDF retaliation, and Hamas has another propaganda victory for fools and anti-Semites to protest/boycott Israel about.

Oh, man. If something is it. That is it. A logic that sometimes doesn't allow you to say this and that. That's the essence of Bell''s theorem without a doubt.

Non-commuting observables.

I'm just an old geezer with an inclination for the philosophically spicy aspects of science, but thank you. I disagree. The relativistic version is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation which is linear. It's the one that's used in the standard model, for example. Klein Gordon is also linear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein–Gordon_equation You can also play with it and introduce a non-linear self-interaction term. You also have sine-Gordon, which was extensively studied by Sidney Coleman, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine-Gordon_equation which has beautiful, beautiful solutions called "breathers"... There is a non-linear model of the Schrödinger non-relativistic equation which is cubic in the quantum amplitude: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_Schrödinger_equation Etc. The subject is extraordinarily rich and full of forks in the way. Non-linearisation of evolution has been tried. One example is this modified non-relativistic Schrödinger equation with a self-interacting term \( \psi \left| \psi \right|^{2} \). Another one is the NL Dirac equation, which is relativistic, but non-linear in evolution. Another more drastic attempt to refurbish the whole thing is non-linear quantum mechanics, in which the whole suite of postulates is re-defined in terms of non-linear functionals instead of linear operators. If anyone is interested and has an alternative life to study it, I think here's a "reports" kind of article (that I haven't read): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.05088.pdf And so on, and so on.

Only the radionucleides. In principle, hydrocarbon reserves can be restored from water and carbon dioxide via photosynthesis which is how they were created in the first place. Strategic metals can be recovered from wherever their used form was disposed of. Don't confuse 'financially viable exploitable deposits' with total disappearance. It's a myth perpetuated by those who demand maximum profit from minimum investment.

Not in the general case. Navier-Stokes for example are parabolic I think a key point to understand is that while Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Viscosity (and the underlying quantum laws that give rise to them) are both linear in themselves, when they are employed in combination (as in Navier-Stokes), the nett result is non-linear. In general, the more interactions you add (linear or otherwise) to the analysis, the more non-linear the end product. This is can be understood as the basis of complexity in the macroscopic world.

Something has to be done to break through the hate, and clearly Israel leaving Hamas in charge with their current agenda in place isn't going to do it, and no one else but Israel are both capable and willing to remove them from power. So two civilians in the way of a Hamas terrorist and they shoot to kill, 3 in the way they wait for a better shot. If they can't get a better one they eventually feel they have to take it. They've learned from a long history, including well before the Holocaust, that if they want to exist they have to rely on themselves. It's far from being right but what are they to do? What can anyone on either side wanting peaceful coexistence do? Explain that while pointing fingers. Not that fingers don't need pointed as well.

One needs pushing at times in order to extend the number of operations which can be performed without thinking Both Myself and Joigus (i believe) were under the impression that it was envelope "pushing" that was mis-understood; which I have to say surprised me, because you are so knowledgeable ; as for "develop", I have an idea of what is meant, but will let Joigus respond, if he wishes to do so! At times, my English is so-so, because I am happier in French.

It of course gets complicated as I am sure there are some in Hamas that are in it to help administrate some aspects of decent governance, don't approve of the worst terrorist acts, but fail to see any means of change for the better beyond what they might achieve through working with Hamas. ...and of course many in the population might support them to some degree. All more or less by design of the more powerful within Hamas. So we are seeing the results of a general hate for Israel, and a willingness to support some aspects of Hamas and submit to others where no alternative is currently available. You see Hamas hospital administrators that know damn well there are tunnels and possibly dens underneath them. Are they supporting and protecting Hamas terror? Or are they trying to run a hospital with what they can best manage to get from Hamas while not feeling they owe Israel the risk of speaking out?

Not sure if any group of people would "support" those who directly lords over them through a sort of "terror governance..." https://theconversation.com/gaza-war-how-representative-is-hamas-of-ordinary-palestinians-218080

As far as I can understand from the abstracts, they are scientific. However, they don't seem to have a relation to this thread's topic.

This made me chuckle. +1 for the entire post. I also hope it felt good to get that out.

I’d recognize that nipple anywhere!

AHA, but Tomorrow NEVER ever arrives!!! It’s always today!!! Bwah hahaha. Checkmate, science nerds. You just got pwned!🤓

Off the top of my head, I can think of two COUNTRIES smaller than Gaza that are very successful; San Marino and the Vatican. Thay have 'porous' borders, like Gaza used to have prior to 2005, but no one would call them 'open air prisons' Sometimes, when you lose a war that you started, you need to choose how to go forward; whether to seek 'revenge' on the victors, as Germany chose to do after Versailles, or rebuild and earn the respect of the world, as Japan ( and West Germany ) did after WW2. Maybe that choice should have been made by Palestinians and other Arabs who were occupied by Israel after 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006 when Hamas took over. Maybe someday they'll learn ... Incidentally, contrary to Mistermack's assertions, it is a known fact that Israel has had nuclear capabilities for some 30odd years, and they have never used them. Does anyone doubt that, if given similar capability, Hamas ( who ARE Palestinian ) would not use them against Israel ? Does anyone think they care how many of their own people they would incinerate ? Sure, some Israelis are expansionists and greedy, but some Palestinians ( Hamas ) are hell-bent on revenge, no matter what the cost. Some members, String Junky and TheVat, are making excuses for them, even going as far as blaming the US for defending a country that has been attacked by its neighbors 6 times in the last 60 years. I won't even consider Mistermack' s views; he/she simply hates Israelis/Jews, or anyone who thinks everyone in the region has a right to live in peace and not be subject to terror.

No. The Sun does not rise. That's a premature, childish version of ancient people who didn't understand how the world works. The Earth rotates, causing the illusion that "the Sun rises" and "the Sun sets", when in fact it emits light all the time, just to a different part of the Earth.. Hydrogen fuel burnout.. ..do people know about the future when they prepare supplies for the winter.. ? (In Africa, Central and South America, and the Islands, they don't do that.. year-round fresh fruits and vegetables).

I try to steer a course through life in such a way that I never get boxed into an undesirable situation from where there is no escape. One key principle that has helped me in this over the years is to resist any urge to commit myself to a dogmatic position unless it has the firmest of foundations. I might drift through most days with the spirit of Sartre in my blood yet spend other darker days going full on Freddie Ayer. There is value to be found in both so why commit to one tribalist belief and so deny myself the benefits and personal connections I can only find with the other camp? This is not the way to maximise my options for overcoming any future challenges to my comfort and well-being. So no. I will not choose between one obscure definition of free will and another. Neither will I even commit to the existence of any abstraction of free will since the concept is so nebulous it seems to have lost any shred of meaning that I could pin a flag on. That is not to say that I am reluctant to take decisive action when necessary, but nine times out of ten I shall wait until I believe it IS necessary (much to my wife's irritation!) and then act in the surety that I have done so in the light of all relevant considerations and to the best of my judgement. I trust that clarifies precisely where I stand on this issue (and many other diversity limiting false dichotomies as it happens). In the words of the Prisoner - "I am not a number!" So yes, I do find the Compatibilist position inconsistent. But only on certain days. Others not so much.

I do, indeed. There’s literally decades of research supporting this topic and the conclusions are consistent. That said, they’re OT, mistermack wont read them, won’t change his stance as a result of them, nor will he offer counter examples showing them wrong (choosing instead to rely on his common sense folk wisdom outdated opinion) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228187332_The_Effectiveness_of_Correctional_Rehabilitation_A_Review_of_Systematic_Reviews

Okay, which pile of dead bodies do you want to count first? The dead residents of the Gaza strip, men, women and children that were directly killed by Hamas members since they seized power? The Gaza residents who died from lack of resources because Hamas seized the resources for themselves? The residents who died from Israeli fire because Hamas forced them to stay put in the line of fire or be killed by Hamas immediately? The Israel residents who were killed by Hamas on October 7? The Israeli soldiers killed by Hamas? The Hamas fighters who were killed by IDF attacks? The Israelites killed by Hamas launched rockets over the last thirty years? Pick one and we can start counting.

Right. Which is what Hamas and those that backed them in their latest terror attack on Israel wanted. Maybe not the completeness of the violent retaliation, but certainly the re-igniting of the hatred toward Israel. I agree both sides have blood on their hands. I just don't see what other options either side has available given the hatred of Israel by all those that have suffered from it's creation and existence, historically and recently. Certainly Israel cannot trust terrorists with clearly stated objectives to eliminate their existence, yet there seems to be little they can do to eliminate the threat without using means that would perpetuate it. Both sides, for the most part, were born with the problem.

I'm not taking your word for any of that. The only thing you can be sure of, is that Gaza is a modern day concentration camp, 25 miles by six approximately, with about 2.5 million people confined in misery. Of course there will be Hamas, or similar. It is a certain creation of millions of people being kept lifetime prisoners in disgusting conditions. The state of Israel created Hamas. They need bogey men to justify their so-called "self-defence" to a gullible public. And it's worked. At least on you.

I am saying, broadly agree that evolution (obviously) did happen but to see so much diversity in Earth from processes like "natural selection" is a bit rich. The timescale everyone has in mind (in general) is from the Big Bang to now (over 13 billion years). I propose a longer timescale, going back. But also going forwards as well. How does this work in practice? Any items on a long timescale may or are likely to act in a continuing manner on the long timescale. To put things in perspective, Earth's evolution (life and the earth itself) would be just a portion of this long timescale. The trick is to provide some sort of empirical evidence of such a concept. How do we go from the first micro-organisms to the variety and diversity of the earth today. All plant species, trees, flowers, grasses etc. Then life species, fish, whales, reptiles, humans etc. ? Sorry I don't have time to read detailed science textbooks - but a quick enlightenment might help..... In a more "speculative" manner I propose "evolution" not just for this current world (Earth), but in Time. So beings evolved, other fundamental components of a human beings makeup. But this is just speculation and would be in the past. But a fascinating concept IF it is true.

It is not really a guess. The basic concept is that evolution has occurred on earth. That I agree. But I believe there has also been an evolution in Time. This forms a "backdrop" to life we see today. Unfortunately I don't have proof, and it is unlikely that will ever be possible. You are right, the whole thing is a puzzle. There are some pieces. But takes some patience to see the "big picture".

Does not affect space. If there is indeed another time vector, different to that of the inextricable continuum, the question is how would one access such a time vector? It is a difficult question to answer, but I hope to answer it one day. I agree, the universe as we know it evolved into the inextricable continuum. But the problem with this is that scientists are only able to design experiments using elements from the "inextricable continuum". ie. It would be hard to imagine, I agree a case where someone could access anything else. Does this make sense?

Further detail on evolution: My hypothesis looks at what has evolved horse / giraffe horse / elephant These animals are roughly similar (compared to say a bird). I envisage in evolution that there might have been a "base animal" one with 4 legs, a heart, lungs, neck etc But then this "base animal" evolved with a "helping hand" from Time, to be a horse. And with a "helping hand" the base animal evolved to be a giraffe. The contribution of earth is to provide an environment with which these "changing species" can evolve. i.e. even with a "helping hand" it would still take many years to see the diversity of animals we see today. To rely on genetic mutations, natural selection - just doesn't seem feasible. I have looked at a phylogenetic tree which seems to branch earth life into some grouping - vetebrata / chordata, arthropoda, mollusca. Just to give a view of diversity of life in this world: lizard / crocodile fish / whale / seal cat / lion / panther bird / eagle /hawk elephant / grizzly bear / polar bear / tiger / lion

Aside from evolution, but related to Time, does anyone have an opinion on where our world is heading? My guess is that we are heading towards an "Old World" unless we find something fantastic in the universe first.....

As a brand-spanking new convert to hard determinism (as of this thread), I feel awesome. I'm not responsible for a darned thing. I couldn't be. I have no qualms in joining the meat robot army because well, I have no choice.