Leaderboard

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/04/19/daniel-dennett-philosopher-atheist-darwinist/ Daniel Dennett, the American philosopher, who has died aged 82, was, with Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of Darwinism and one of the most virulent controversialists on the academic circuit. Dennett argued that everything has to be understood in terms of natural processes, and that terms such as “intelligence”, “free will”, “consciousness” “justice”, the “soul” or the “self” describe phenomena which can be explained in terms of physical processes and not the exercise of some disembodied or metaphysical power. How such processes operate he regarded as an empirical question, to be answered by looking at neuroanatomy – the engineering involved in brains. Darwinism, to Dennett, was the grand unifying principle that explains how the simplest of organisms developed into human beings who can theorise about the sorts of creatures we are. In Consciousness Explained (1991), he argued that the term “consciousness” merely describes “dispositions to behave” and the idea of the “self” was nothing more than a “narrative centre of gravity”. In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995) he went further than any other philosopher or biologist in arguing that the whole of nature, including all individual human and social behaviour, is underpinned by a Darwinian “algorithm” – a single arithmetical, computational procedure. Borrowing Richard Dawkins’s notion of “memes” (“bytes” of transferable cultural ideas encompassing anything from a belief in God to an individual’s fashion tastes), Dennett argued that the Darwinian algorithm also explained, for example, the musical genius of JS Bach, whose brain “was exquisitely designed as a programme for composing music”. Dennett’s philosophy undercut any idea of teleology or “purposive” creation....

Projection. And the best defense is a good offense.

Egg, the egg came first. Every time I hear this problem it never specifies chicken egg, it just says egg. Which leads to a very simple solution; do chickens predate dinosaurs? No. Did dinosaurs come from eggs? Yes. Therefore the egg not only came first but came countless times before the chicken. Hopefully my answer eggceeds eggspectations.

Accelerated objects can be described perfectly well in special relativity. But accelerated frames of reference are outside the scope of standard special relativity. That's because accelerated frames of reference involve some of the mathematics of general relativity (though not the mathematics of spacetime curvature). Standard special relativity limits itself to the Minkowskian metric. The Minkowskian metric is invariant to Lorentz transformations, and inertial trajectories in spacetime transform to inertial trajectories under Lorentz transformations. Thus, all inertial trajectories in Minkowskian spacetime are on equal footing in that they all observe the same spacetime metric. The invariance of the Minkowskian metric to Lorentz transformations implies that it is not possible to measure one's velocity relative to Minkowskian spacetime, and that only velocities relative to other objects can be measured, which is made possible because symmetry to Lorentz transformations is broken. In the case of an accelerated frame of reference, the transformation from an inertial frame of reference to the accelerated frame of reference is not a Lorentz transformation, it is a transformation under which the Minkowskian metric is not invariant. That is, the metric of an accelerated frame of reference is not a Minkowskian metric. Thus, an observer in an accelerated frame of reference can distinguish between being in an accelerated frame of reference and being in an inertial frame of reference. Even though velocity is only relative, acceleration is absolute because one can measure one's current velocity relative to one's past velocity. Thus, absolute acceleration does not imply absolute velocity.

This is sad news. He was one of the great philosophers of our time. He belongs to one of the most science oriented philosophers and one of the most honest thinkers I have known during my philosophy study. He didn't spare anybody with too naive ideas, be it materialistic or dualistic, but he always was kind, never attacking people personally, but critical reflecting on their ideas. He was able to show that it is possible to have a theory of consciousness, without leaving a physicalist ontological stance. Many people thought that his book 'Consciousness Explained', should have been titled 'Consciousness Explained Away', but I certainly do not agree with that. Consciousness exists, but it can be explained. Same for free will. He could explain how a personal and societal relevant concept of free will can go perfectly together with determinism, where others keep sticking to either 'magical free will', or denying free will altogether. In his broader ideas, he was an atheist and humanist. I do not know much about his personal life, but at least I know he also knew how to enjoy the pleasant sides of life. Enjoyer of (red?) wine, making his own cidre, harvesting the apples himself. I remember I once saw a video, where he was sitting on his tractor. I think he lived a very fulfilled life. We should all be glad that he lived his life as he did. I will miss the many new ideas he could still have found, even in his higher age. A loss for the philosophical world and many other people who are, and might still be, inspired by his thinking.

This is why I prefer talking with folk here. It's easier to respect people who are more intelligent than me. It's probably my fault for getting facebook again but a prospective employer wanted to see a fb account before committing to hiring me. Which I'm now gonna just assume is an employment red flag.

I don’t think that matters. But let’s say it has been brought up from infinity (a concept physicists seem to like), held in place on the table and then released. Work is done against friction as the nail moves towards the magnet. What provides the energy?

Some audiences would give it a standing ovulation.

If a nail is attracted towards a permanent magnet, doing work against friction, where does the energy come from?

Your demonstrated understanding of relativity is insufficient for you to properly assess this. People who understand it better have tried to correct you. Case in point: Since relativity is based on the speed of light being invariant, “changes speed relative to light” makes no sense. Any inertial observer will measure their speed relative to light to be c, because light always moves at c. (though it’s light moving at c; the observer can say they are at rest, and light does not represent an inertial frame)

Especially if you do so with some fava beans and a nice chianti Tell me, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming? /ot

Right. But, to be clear, there is energy in the magnetic fields, which can be made to do mechanical work, for instance in my example of the nail being drawn towards a permanent magnet, against the force of friction with a table top. My attempt at analysing the operating cycle of this reciprocating machine was to show how energy is alternately drawn from and returned to the fields generated by the pair of opposed magnets, so the net effect, over one operating cycle, is as you say, no net work done by the magnets and a mere transfer of input mechanical work to output mechanical work.

There is the aspect of proportionality, however. If someone punched you and you eat their liver in response, it may raise eyebrows.

Really? Please provide references to peer-reviewed experiments that unambiguously (ie not just in your “interpretation”) detect the ether. What is it made of? What are its equations of motion? You really need to stop repeating things that have already been shown to be wrong. You’re not doing yourself any favours. What exactly do you want explained? One of the frames measures acceleration (using a local accelerometer), and the frames are related by the transformations given in my link, instead of Lorentz transformations. This concerns the rotation of rigid objects at relativistic speeds - it’s been known for a long time that this involves a metric that isn’t Minkowski, so that’s hardly a “problem with SR”, but falls outside its scope. No. These integrals concern total accumulated proper time; this is an invariant quantity that’s not relative to anything. I deliberately did not use relative quantities, but invariant line integrals. What the equations say is that (in this sign convention) it is always the inertial clock that accumulates the most proper time between a given pair of events in spacetime. IOW, any clock that doesn’t trace out a geodesic between these events will record less proper time in comparison - and we know of course that there’s only one such geodesic for any given pair of events in Minkowski spacetime. Therefore, there’s no paradox, and nothing needs resolving. It’s simply that, if you choose two different paths, you can’t in general expect them to be of equal lengths. The dilation between clocks is an integral measure - it concerns a comparison between total geometric lengths of world lines, so one must take into account the entire journey. Thus in general you can’t reduce this to a single instant. The most we can say is that the accumulated times begin to diverge the instant the travelling clock ceases to be at rest relative to the Earth-bound clock. Also, he never gets “younger” - he just ages less. So again - SR very much does resolve this, contrary to your claim. PS. I remind you again to bear in mind what the twin scenario is fundamentally about - it’s a comparison between total accumulated proper times on two clocks that connect the same two events along different paths. And this is precisely what I mathematically described, not more and not less.

Most people recognize the difference between an unprovoked action, and a re-action to it. If you walk up to me and punch me in the face, no one will fault me for breaking your arm in response. ( not implying you would; you seem a nice enough person 🙂 ) It's brutal, but it's reality; if you don't want the consequences, don't do any harm to others.

This is what I come up with: {\not}\tiny\,\normalsize\partial [math]{\not}\tiny\,\normalsize\partial[/math] This didn't render exactly as it did in Online LaTeX Equation Editor. Try this: {\not}\small\,\normalsize\partial [math]{\not}\small\,\normalsize\partial[/math] Try this: {\not}\,\partial [math]{\not}\,\partial[/math] Testing: X \tiny X \normalsize X [math]X \tiny X \normalsize X[/math] How about this: \displaystyle{\not}\tiny\,\normalsize\partial [math]\displaystyle{\not}\tiny\,\normalsize\partial[/math] Or this: \not \partial [math]\not \partial[/math] This: \not{\partial} [math]\not{\partial}[/math]

A few things should be added to lay the foundation for further discussions. First gonochorism (the term to describe a sexual system where there are male and female members) does not always have to be linked to sexual dimorphism (the term to describe differences in appearance between male and females of a species). Sexual dimorphism is often a consequence of the respective reproductive strategies. Among hermaphroditic species, one can actually also distinguish between various forms. The one OP is thinking about is considered simultaneous hermaphroditism, i.e. all individuals producing sperm and eggs, but there are also species who are sequential hermaphrodites. I.e. producing egg or sperm at different points in their life. Studies trying to figure out fitness benefits have been investigating closely related species in which all three strategies are found, e.g. in certain worms. Here, it was found that the different species had different reproductive characteristics, that likely have benefits under different conditions. Generally, they found a trade-off between fecundity (how much they reproduce) and survival. Simultaneous hermaphrodites had the highest survival rate, but least fecundity (and smallest eggs, indicative of lower maternal investment), whereas the opposite was found for sequential hermaphrodites. The gonochoristic species was somewhere in-between. Taking that all together (survival rate, reproduction over total life cycle etc.) it seemed that the dichoristic species had overall the highest fitness. They had higher fecundity in the early stages of life cycle. They outperform simultaneous hermaphrodites, which have lower fecundity. While sequential hermaphrodites are more fecund, they are delayed until their female phase, and during the whole life cycle they are not able to compensate the early advantage. Essentially they are able to reach sexual maturity faster, likely as they only need to produce one form of gametes. The disadvantage of that gonochoristic species pay is that they produce males, that cost the same as females (as eggs) but do not directly contribute to future generations (the limiting factors are the eggs). Hermaphroditism is speculated to be a primary advantage when population densities are low and it is difficult to find a mate. There are also evolutionary developmental consideration. Transition from hermaphrodite to gonochoristic species is comparatively easy, as it could be reasonably executed by suppressing the development of one sexual function. Conversely, there are more steps involved in transition from gonochorism to hermaphroditism. I.e. once gonochorism outcompetes hermaphroditism in the evolutionary history of species, it is very unlikely that they hermaphroditism will develop, even if it became more advantageous.

“we” Do you represent Microsoft? Can you provide a link? edit: nvm, I did your work for you https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/11/01/microsofts-2023-diversity-and-inclusion-report-a-decade-of-transparency-commitment-and-progress/ “Inside the U.S., all racial and ethnic minority groups who are rewards-eligible combined earn $1.007 total pay for every $1.000 earned by U.S. rewards-eligible white employees with the same job title and level and considering tenure.” There’s a bit to unpack here. rewards-eligible presumably means performance-based awards, meaning that ethnic minorities could have just earned a smidgin more in bonuses by doing more and/or better work. Their base pay could even be less, and bonuses just more than make up the difference. No smoking gun of discrimination there. “same job title and level and considering tenure” does not preclude the possibility that more white workers have been promoted, leaving the mediocre performers behind, while the better-performing minorities are passed over. It doesn’t mean this is the case - it means we don’t have enough data to evaluate the situation. But see the above comment about bonuses. Manufactured outrage.

Because it implicitly refers to chicken eggs rather than, for example, insect eggs. Otherwise, it's a silly question. We might consider that there's some combination of DNA that marks the difference between "chicken" and "pre chicken". That presumably arose as a combination of genes from the parents of the "first chicken" (possibly assisted by some mutation). And that DNA was in place, in the fertilised cells inside its mother before a yolk and shell formed round it and it became an egg. So the chicken came first.

Eggs existed before chickens did no matter how you frame it. Why is this even a question

Einstein's relativity is based on the idea that it is always the observed object that moves relative to the ether and not the observer. If we prove that it is the observer who is moving relative to the ether we invalidate Einstein. Lorentz says that the observed and the observer can both move relative to the ether The relativistic Doppler effect contains time dilation so if the Doppler effect comes from the one accelerating, time dilation can only come from him too. You cannot resolve the paradox with Einstein's SR, if you believe you do it it is because you are using Lorentz theory, as the mathematics is the same you cannot decide with them. To decide, we must study what happens during an acceleration, and we then see that Einstein's SR is experimentally invalidated. Einstein's SR does not know how to deal with accelerations. You can't solve the paradox with GR, this was invalidated by the scientific community a long time ago, anyway there is no gravitational field during an acceleration. By the way, I'm not talking about GR but about LET You cannot solve the paradox with SR, but only with LET.

I didn't assume anything. This is the Doppler effect solution of the paradox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#What_it_looks_like:_the_relativistic_Doppler_shift The traveling twin notices an acceleration of the Doppler effect as soon as he turns around, the sedentary twin only towards the end of the trip. This asymmetry cannot be explained by Einstein's SR. Where does the Doppler effect come from if it does not come from the one accelerating? It is the speed of light that is changing relative to the one accelerating.

The Doppler effect is an effect due to waves, so what changes is the speed relative to the waves. Lorentz transformations are classical wave mechanics equations, they cannot exist without a propagation medium. Acceleration causes variation in the Doppler effect and therefore variation in the speed of the waves relative to the accelerating one. The study of acceleration shows that the symmetry is observational but not physical. Only at the end of the trip, until the Doppler effect is transmitted at the speed of light, because it is not light which changes speed in relation to the waves. What do you mean by “en route” What works is the mathematical law, not Einstein's interpretation. Here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Relativity_of_simultaneity you can see that there is a "simultaneity jump" Its in Lorentz theory you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks, in Einstein's theory what’s happening with the clocks is considered physical reality, it's the only way to explain the constancy of the speed of light, or else this constancy itself is not physical reality and then it's no more Einstein interpretation but Lorentz. If time is not physical, neither is Minkowski space-time and Lorentz is right.

You are confusing time dilation and simultaneity. The change in simultaneity is the origin of length contraction and is a perspective effect. Time dilation is an absolute effect and comes from the decrease in the average speed of light relative to an objet in motion.

How do you know that the speed of light is invariant? This is a eisteinian postulat, not a physical reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light So this convention has nothing to do with experimentally verifiable predictions. I have demonstrated that this convention leads to a physical contradiction. This has been proven, for example, walking droplets in oil baths obey Lorentz transformations while moving. Lorentz transformations are proof that matter consists of moving standing waves of ether. C is invariant, but the speed of light relative to moving objects is not. In the absence of gravitation the speed of light is invariant with respect to ether or space The Doppler effect comes from relative speed and is generated during the acceleration period. If you don't accelerate you can't move. So you say yourself that the space twin change is velocity and produces a Doppler effect, so if it is the one moving it is not the Earth that is moving and there is no physical symmetry. Matter waves, gravitaional waves, any ether waves. What you say there is Einstein's interpretation. In this interpretation the lengths contract because the simultaneity physically changes. If simultaneity does not change physically there is no possible length contraction of. But an object which accelerates has no influence on outer space, it therefore cannot change the simultaneity of outer space, it can only change its own simultaneity, that is to say it physically transforms itself because the speed of light changes relative to him and he has to adapt. So the outer space has not changed in simultaneity so there is a simultaneity of the outer space and it is a privileged frame of reference. No, so there is no spacetime in the Minkowski sense. But there is quaternionic spacetime where time is the scalar dimension of space as Hamilton thought when creating quaternions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra_of_physical_space Einstein's interpretation is based on a literal interpretation of the equations and on the physical existence of Minkowski space-time or block universe. But time is not a vector dimension.

If time dilation was a relative effect, it would not be absolute and the twin would not return younger. If the speed of light does not change relative to a moving object, how does a light clock work? It is the measurement of the speed of light that does not vary, not the speed itself. Meters and measuring standards are transformed in such a way that they always measure the same round-trip speed.

In a light clock the speed of light is invariant with respect to space but certainly not with respect to the light clock. You are confusing the invariance of the speed of light with respect to space or ether which is Lorentz's postulate and the invariance of the speed of light with respect to all inertial frames which is Einstein's.

You cannot prove that it remains invariant, on the other hand I proved in my first message that it cannot remain invariant. When an object accelerates it necessarily changes speed relative to light, which invalidates Einstein.

Japan was actually in the process of brokering a conditional surrender mediated by the Russians, the Russian entry into the war in the Pacific was a much more crucial factor in the japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The A-Bombs just provided a less shameful reason to surrender by pointing to an enemy super weapon capable of levelling any of their cities, than being afraid of another front of conventional warfare with Russia. Except it is known that it didn't, because he was already trying to convince his ministers to end the war as early as June of 1945. The bombs weren't dropped until August. He was going to capitulate, bomb or no bomb. A lot of people think that Japan Rejected the Potsdam Declaration, they did not. What they did was a little more nuanced. They publicly addressed their answer (to their own people) with Mokusatsu, which the press mistranslated into English as rejected, when it actually meant, in that context, to kill with silent contempt. Basically they ignored the demand for an unconditional surrender from the Allies because the preservation of the Emperors position wasn't immediately on the table, even though it was something the allies were discussing behind closed doors. There was also a disconnect between the Japanese Ambassador Sato, who was the ambassador to the Soviet union, and leadership back in Japan. Japans military leadership had it in their heads that if they caused more massive allied casualties during the expected allied land invasion of Japan, they'd be able to keep some of the land they conquered in a peace agreement, wanting something closer to a stalemate than a surrender. Sato believed his superiors had honestly lost their grip on reality there, as some of the land they wanted to keep, had already been liberated by allied forces. As I said above, Mokusatsu means to kill with silent contempt. As in kill the ultimatum by ignoring it, meaning no formal answer, Suzukis announcement was directed at the people of Japan and the Americans heard about it due to mistranslation in the press. It doesn't mean rejected. Kyozetsu or Kyohi suru means rejection or refuse. If it helps, imagine you asked to borrow a hammer, if I directly say no to you, that is Kyozetsu. If I sneer, turn around and walk away, that is Mokusatsu. What Suzuki was effectively saying, was that the Potsdam conference and what they were demanding of Japan, wasn't even worth the dignity of a direct response. If the bombs had not been dropped, I seriously doubt the war would have lasted much more than a few months. Especially once the decision fell to the Emperor. Why are you surprised when she was Japanese and resident of Hiroshima? Might as well ask British people why they found the blitz offensive. Morality in my opinion is all about point of view because we all have a different perspective on the context of our existence. Yes the japanese were absolutely brutal to those they conquered, civilian or combatant. A lot of it was absolutely evil and morally repugnant. Especially civilian casualties. However, there is an argument to be made in not sinking to someone elses level. 19 billion civilians, or a couple of hundred civilians, I don't think it's the numbers that are the morally significant factors but the fact that they were civilians. The majority of those civilians had little to no control over what their militaries and governments decided to do, especially in Japan which was not by any stretch of the imagination a functional democracy at the time. It was more like Tsarist imperialism if anything. As far as I'm concerned, most extreme military actions that are taken, are symptomatic of diplomatic failures, not the only options remaining. This was definitely true of the A-Bombs. Yes we can't change the past but that doesn't mean we have to like it either. Honestly I'm surprised that you're surprised. Really for all we know her great grandparents or some other recent ancestor was killed in those blasts. Oh good, someone that actually is aware of this. +1 Have you also noticed that most of the historical sources that credit the bombings ending the war come from the USA?

Not calculated without math, explained only. Einstein's SR predicts that the Earth ages abruptly at the moment the traveler turns back, but this does not happen when we study what happens. During the outward journey, the traveler receives Doppler signals that are supposed to show that the Earth is aging less, and then on the return journey he still receives Doppler signals that are supposed to show that the Earth is aging less. These signals do not contain the abrupt aging of the Earth at the time of the turn-around. So there is no abrupt aging of the earth. This simply means that these signals are falsely interpreted as a lesser aging of the Earth by the traveler, i.e. that his estimates are made with false measuring standards, as Lorentz's theory says, and that in reality, the traveler ages less during the entire journey.

Symmetry is included in the equations, but this symmetry is not real; the equations do not get to the bottom of things. Lorentz reveals the hidden truth while Einstein is content to note the symmetry. The ether model explains the apparent symmetry by a real asymmetry, while Einstein claims that the symmetry is physical and therefore that the traveling twin ages less than the Earth during the outward journey. ------------------------------------------ Einstein claims the symmetry is reality :