Eise

Yes, and I think there is a reason for that (adding opinion n + 1): these questions are not answerable. To illustrate I take the famous 'the universe sees itself' picture from Wheeler, and add an extra arrow: Seeing (objects in) the universe is one thing, but seeing the relation between what we observe and our observations is impossible, because it in itself is not an observation. Another way to illustrate this is a critique on Kant's 'Critique of pure Reason': we never can reach the 'thing-in-itself' (Ding-an-sich). We see 'things' in space and time, and structure our knowledge about them according the categories of reason, one of them being causality, so the causality is not in the things themselves. But implicitly Kant takes the thing-in-itself as cause of appearances. But then he applies a concept that belongs to our way of applying the categories on the appearances on the relationship between and the 'things-in-themselves'. How can we know? The only thing we know is that we possibly do not see the things as they are, we only know how they appear to us. Isn't that the equivalent of what so many say here on these fora: that science does not explain reality as it is, but 'just' makes models about what we observe? So Michael's question to you is a good one: Now Kant would possibly have a problem here. For him, space and time are universal, not because they are the same everywhere in the universe (how could we know?), but because the mind 'impresses' the forms of space and time on the 'things-in-them-selves' and so gives rise to the appearances. But in the meantime we have relativity and QM. How curious I am what would happen if Kant would raise from his grave, and would write the third, completely revised edition of the 'Critique of pure Reason', in the light of relativity and QM.

AKAIK the place on the main sequence is mostly dependent on the original mass of the star. I mean, even our sun, as a second generation star mainly exists of hydrogen and (mostly self-produced) helium. When helium burning takes over, the sun becomes a red giant. And red giants appear above the main sequence. Then when helium burning is ended, I think there is no next element anymore for the sun, and the sun will shrink, and will throw of its outer parts as a planetary nebula, leaving its core, that shrinks to a white dwarf, below the main sequence. If somebody else knows, let him or her post that here, but I think the metallic trace elements play no important role in the evolution of stars. So your 'multi-phase' is in fact something like adulthood (main sequence), old age (red giant) and death (white dwarf) for a star. Nothing to do with metallicity.

AFAIK your intuition is right. Main sequence stars are in their steady hydrogen burning state. And doesn't the main sequence form a more or less 1-parameter curve? And the single parameter is mass. What you call 'wild variation in the types of stars' is due to stars that are not simply fusing hydrogen in their core: not yet, or not anymore. The 'funny patches' of stars in the HR-diagram arise because of the short time that stars live in some in-between phase. As an example the life-path of an sun-like star in the HR-diagram: I don't think so. I am not sure if the lives of stars (like the sun!) that are second-generation stars (i.e. mixed with debris from first-generation stars) also live the biggest part of their lives on the main sequence. The spectra of second-generation stars are of course different from first-generation ones, because their higher metallicity, but if these elements have a big impact on the life path of a star I don't know. I am not aware of e.g. a catalyst function of heavier elements in second-generation stars compared to the first generation.

I think every science has periods of reflection on their basic concepts. But the need for that should normally come from, in this case, the physicists themselves. If they get stuck in the progress of understanding of nature, if they are confronted with anomalies or inconsistencies in (or better between) their theories, or get stuck in trying to encompass more phenomena in one single theory, it is time to reflect on what they are doing, which includes reflecting on fundamental concepts they use, like time. Some might feel the urge earlier than others (justified or not). Compare with two different 'cultures' in physics concerning QM: there is the camp of 'shut up and calculate', and look at what technology was developed on that basis! On the other side there is the camp that asks fundamental questions, e.g. the Bell theorem and experiments that are based on it. For the shut-up-and-calculators such experiments seem to be at most interesting, but of no use. But look what happened afterwards: from there we have now quantum cryptography, maybe one day we will have useful quantum computers. So I would say: just give physicists time (pun intended). Don't understand me wrong. The question 'what is time' is surely interesting, but for the biggest part, in 'daily physics', the question is not relevant. But it is a philosophical question through and through. So I am inclined to say that the relationship is the other way round. If somebody wants to philosophise about time, one better first gets an understanding about what physicists have to say about time, just to avoid that one is discussing time loose from any operational definition of time that has proven to be extremely useful.

Why would you expect the (hypothetical!) graviton at some place? Photons are also not located anywhere; if a photon exists, it moves, necessarily with the speed of light. As the graviton, if it exists, is also massless, it also will travel at the speed of light. So it cannot be 'located' anywhere before it starts its journey. For gravitons and photons holds: 'to be is to move'.

Look, Ken123456, this is a science forum. At the moment you start to talk about one single God, and it happens to be yours, then you definitely left science. So I think you should ask yourself what your intention was. Also, the kind of hypothetical question you asked 'Could God use a scientist to help save the world from a devastating destruction but the scientist was not a believer in God?' how should we know? There simply is no science behind it. You have said many things in that thread, you simply cannot know scientifically. Where there is no science there is nothing to discuss. What you believe cannot be an object of scientific investigation.

Because physicist don't bother, as long a they have perfect operational definitions of time. The question 'What is time?' is, as already remarked, a philosophical question. Not a question about physics. I think even you have no problem to understand what the traffic sign '50 km/h' means. Really, physicists have no problem with their 'dx/dt', or whatever changes according to t. And there are already several threads about time, and I think most of them in the philosophy-forum, where it belongs.

I think you should have written: this puts me back to square zero. Why do you think the concept of time is a problem, given the reaction of Phi for All, or to add some relativistic examples: particles running in the LHC with near light speed, GPS in which they must account for time corrections for the speed of the satellites and for the difference in gravity between the satellites and the earth's surface? Given all the empirical proofs of special and general relativity, why should physicists go back to square zero? The only topic I see where physicists have no definite (i.e. no consensus) answer concerning time is the arrow of time. Not all physicists seem to accept the explanation of 'the direction of time is the direction of increasing entropy'. But that has no impact of the practical use of the concept of time in all our technologies.

Your posting has nothing to do with ethics, so why post it here? It is not philosophy, so why post it here? Despite the fact you are using physical concepts, you obviously do not understand them. So, as this has nothing to do with anything with the purpose of this forum, it has no place here at all. It is just wrong physics, mixed with nonsense theology.

One example of what I mean: Major Study Casts Doubt on COVID-19 Herd Immunity After Patient Antibodies Disappear From the article:

You asked a question. I was just a bit more bold... Just to expand a little: if one presents a philosophical idea, one should give at least a few arguments. But the OP contains none. And as you imply also with your question, just such a diagram, without any explanations, is useless. And to be honest, I do not expect anything from the OP. Therefore my call to move it into trash.

Meaningless interpretation of a diagram. Trash please...

This is what is worrying me. We know that about one third of all common colds are caused by some corona virus (I thought I read somewhere that there are 3 main Corona stems that can cause common cold). Assuming that people in Western (and Northern) countries get a cold a few times per year, a gross estimate tells me that people get the common cold at least once in 3 years of the same corona virus. So no long lasting immunity. So wouldn't that mean that a vaccine also is effective for at most 3 years (probably less)? Add to this another statistic: that the common cold is economically seen the illness that costs the most in terms of ill leaves, less productivity etc. Any pharmaceutical company could earn billions if it could find a vaccine against the common cold. But we have none. So no, I do not bet on finding an effective vaccine. When we find one, but it is only effective for say 2 months, then it is only useful for special risk groups (elderly, people with other conditions that might be dangerous with COVID-19, health workers).

When making such sticky posts, I think it is important to think about what their purpose is. From that purpose one can derive who the audience for these sticky post is, and with that at what abstraction level is used. For its purpose, I think it is to avoid that the same arguments must be repeated again and again, just because a member is new. Ideally a new member would be guided to it ('Before posting, read this'). But it would also serve its purpose when we can just link to the sticky post, when applicable. The audience will be most of the time some science fan or some science critic. Most of them will have their 'knowledge' from popular science books, sites, or articles in the press. So I think that is the level of speech we should use too. That means we should not be too abstract, drifting into too many technical details. So e.g. when we would decide to make an entry about 'Einstein was wrong', I would only remark, very globally, that relativity has much developed since Einstein, is empirically proven many many times, and forms the basis for many understood phenomena (colour of gold, existence of magnetism, muons getting at the earth's surface, etc) and for technologies (GPS, LHC); all maybe with useful links for who is interested in the details. And I would close the sticky thread to keep it clean. If somebody wants to discuss some topic from the sticky post, she can open a new thread for that. And when I would write such a 'sticky introduction' to philosophy, I'll need a native English proof reader... Isn't it, Studiot?

Just the schoolboy... Thanks. I try to remember that...

Why am I remembered of Hilbert, saying: (But added: "Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work, and not the mathematicians.")

That's the reason I put 'good' between brackets, together with a question mark... Well, at least we have that: 'well reasoned, well supported, logically consistent positions'. And while 'correct answers' is definitely not a workable concept in philosophy, there are a lot of answers that are definitely wrong. Partially, yes. Truth claims should be supported. Opinions without supportive arguments are definitely not philosophy. There is a strong parallel with science: philosophy is just missing the touchstone of experiments and observations. But logic and good and relevant arguments are just as important in philosophy as in science. So I do not want to tell people how to think: but I do want to tell how to think if they want to 'do philosophy'. You would not accept stupid arguments in a scientific discourse, do you? Scientific thinking must learned, and is essential when doing science. Same for philosophy.

Hi Alex, I think the USA could learn something from the North European countries. Your proposals are very much in line with what I know of the police in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and probably also the Scandinavian countries. Try 'the norden - police' on Youtube (24 Minutes; the part about Prison might be interesting too).

Not a bad idea at all. I was breeding on such a 'pin' for philosophy. I would like to see similar requirements to postings in other groups, so: opinions without (good?) arguments are not acceptable Questions, except completely nonsensical ("What is the colour of time?") are of course allowed Taking away some misunderstandings about what philosophy is (not wild speculations, not scientific speculations, but intelligibility problems) I can try to write such a 'pinned post'. Of course I also think about a pinned post about free will... I think I can express me pretty neutrally. (Living in Switzerland for nearly 30 years now )

For me at least it doesn't, at least with the algorithm you are proposing here. Evaluation of available actions should normally be based on their contents. 'Alphabetically sorted' is not much better than purely random: it would depend on the description ('Eat it!', or 'I should eat it'), and even on the language. Further, but this is a bit speculative, I don't think that any programmer will explicitly program 'free agents'. I feel more for the scenario you gave much earlier in this thread. You have a self-driving google car, and it perfectly does exactly what you say ('drive me to the nearest Walmart'.). But then one morning, after an upgrade, the AI of your car lets you know 'No, it is no use, Walmart is closed now'. Very advanced, but maybe you only wanted to make a picture of a Walmart for your local newspaper. But maybe you can declare an 'override'. Still, this can all be realised with pretty stupid algorithms. But today you got another upgrade (in a beta-testing program of course...), and your care says 'Sorry, I have no desire to do that'. You speak your override again, but the AI says 'Fuck off, I don't want to'. Then you call an AI consultant for 'Google Cars Inc', and after some examinations, he says 'Strange, we did not program it this way'. And then, talking to the consultant, you hear that the 'neural network module' has been increased by billions of nodes. And so you start to beg your car 'Please, I really want to go to the nearest Walmart, I need a picture of it'. 'Hmm', says the AI, 'what do I get in return?' And you propose to make a joy ride through the mountains, and your car says 'Deal! I like that!' Did you read 'Gödel, Escher, Bach' of Hofstadter? It is a very inspiring, but long read. But if you are really interested in these kind of topics, it is the book to read.

Yes and no. Yes, you are allowed to have any opinion - but this is the philosophy forum. This means one should give arguments for one's opinion. And of course you do. But there is one other thing: not every argument is as good as others. For good arguments, a few requirements apply: The arguments should be true The arguments should be relevant. Where your arguments are not too bad concerning the first point, they miss completely on the second. Let's 'draw an ascii diagram'. 1 2 Previous causes --> your preferences --> your action Your examples concern the relationship 1, between causes and your preferences. I on the other hand say that the question of free will or not can completely be answered by looking at relationship 2. If you can act according your preferences, then it was a free action. Simply said: if you can do what you want, you have free will. That has nothing to do with where your preferences came from. In order to refute my position, there are several options: Proof that determinism and free will (in my definition!) are contradictory Proof that my definition cannot bear the weight of our praxis of blaming, praising, earning salary, assigning responsibility, taking obligations, etc. So really, giving lots of example that show that we are determined does not help. I am already convinced that we, for all practical purposes, are determined. No, we are indeed not responsible for who we are. But we are responsible for what we do. If you act irresponsibly, I cannot trust you. So are you a responsible person or not? If you aren't, I would never make some deal with you, because every moment you could cop out, without any consequences, because you can refer to 'I cannot help it, I am determined'.

I think it makes no sense to say that the vedas were twisted or not. They have grown organically. There are so many reasons for a text to change, especially when it originally was an oral tradition. Without having the 'original' how would you see that the texts changed? There are methods to find out which of the present versions we have are probably the oldest, but of course we can have no idea what the first written down version of the vedas were. And then there are many reasons why texts change over time, just to name a few: errors when copying the texts corrections of (language) errors authors putting in their ideas into the texts, in good or ill faith I only know a little about the history of Christian texts, which are of course not so old as the vedas, and also here already the problem exists that we do not know exactly what the original texts were. But we know copyists made errors, corrected errors, put in sentences or even complete stories, often because these copyists had a theological agenda to promote their version of Christianity. From some texts we know that there must have been more original texts, but they did not survive. With the vedas this will be worse, because they were orally passed to others for a much longer time. In Christianity, especially the new testament, there are at most only about 100 years between the oral tradition and the first written down versions we have (often less: the gospels were written till about 100 years, the earliest one probably only 30 years, after Jesus' death). With the vedas it is several millennia before they were written down.

Your believe is quite right. Thanks for the summary. If it helps empleat to understand what I am saying, I do not know. We'll see.

All your arguments boil down to your idea that to be free one should be able to choose what you are. You did not even try to apply my definition, you are just protesting against it. There is only one way that we experience free will: by observing that if I want to do something, and then are able to do it. The rest is unsupported ideological BS. Say, you have murdered somebody, and now stand for the judge: would you plead not guilty, because you were determined? Why (not)? Would you claim to the judge that he is not justified to punish you, because you could not help doing it?

Promoting your own videos?