Sirjon

Perfect. Now you made a good example of the word 'infinity'... Well if you read it back my original statement, ... I just SHARE my thought' regarding the concept of Infinity as something not so scientific but more on its philosophical aspect. Butif you insist that I need to support my 'opinion or idea, then I no longer know what is the dividing line between Science and Philosophy . To add to this: A 'perfect computer[' will able to give the exact value of phi!

Haven't you not observing it? One example is the circumference of a circle. We can 'perfectly' draw a circle by knowing the radius and yet, we can only get the estimate value of circumference because the phi is a non-terminating, non-ending series of numbers toward infinity. So, by way of saying infinity, we can do it vice versa, a perfect circle but undetermined exact value of the circumference or imperfect 'thing' toward perfection thru perceiving infinite elements to make it perfect. Well if you want to say, "I jut made it up", YES it is, through analyzing how I conceive and observe things? Now, let me return back to you, regarding your own 'opinion' , based on the what you learned, Do you think, HOW MANY, EXACTLY, OR ROUGHLY, THE NUMBERS OF ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS do we need to create a perfect computer?

Infinity, in layman's term is philosophically mean... toward perfection.... A perfect telescope - that can see the object in an infinite distance A perfect computer - that can process infinite information per given lapse of time A perfect chip (IC) - that can house infinite numbers of electronic components in a very tiny chip A perfect clock - that can do infinite cycles to speed up processing (in a computer) No offense... I hope people here will not ask me what is your proof or evidence, I just use my common sense and this is simply my humble way of 'expressing my thought' and share it, with your permission, if I may.

I hope we all are humans here... not merely looks like a human but acting more like a chimpanzee, more civilized in attacking people, based on argument...(sorry Folks, I felt offended with this statement). Alright Folks, I think we have a winner. Thank you Sensei, of all the replies that I got here, only this is the most relevant answer I got. Any way, thank you to those who participated in enlightening me. Have a good day. .

.Do you have any evidence for this? Well, not really as evidence in terms of 'scientific basis'. But I wonder what is in every human's brain that we're more advance on how we think, compared to all other species in this planet? How we tremendously progressed to a point that we able to manipulate the laws of nature through technology that what we keeping to achieve is a perfect world that fits to our need? I can say, as an analogy to a computer, a human brain is a hardware where a special program been installed on it to be able to make the environment to adapt to what he want it instead of other species' brains which have programs that obey the law of nature and by simply restricted on the Biological Life's Cycle. Are we, after all, could be, accidentally been created, a kind of anomaly during the early stage of the planet's history? Should this be transferred to Speculations rather than Philosophy section?

It There's nothing to prove, in fact I just wondering, asking question why it seems to be that to all the many kinds of species in this planet, how come we seem to be very different from them. Consider it, as, for simplicity, as speculation.

I'm sorry, not 'how' but rather, WHAT can you say...

But how can you say about why we 'need' to built a city out of tall buildings if lions and the bees remains in caves and bee hives? Is there something distinctive about human beings?

That's interesting. I know that beaver, is a good example. So, what you're saying, that by chance, even if humans not exist, it will somehow or someday, extinction will happen? How about the Biological Equilibrium, such as plants grow and certain animals eat plants and other animals eat animals and they die and their remains decomposed and become plants and the cycle goes on and on.

I'm just wondering, what this planet would look like if there's no human living on it. As I imagine it - there will be no pollution, no over population and no more endangered animals and among other things. I believe that humans are not part of nature, in a sense that although biologically, our body comply with the laws of nature, we try to fit nature to our needs. If we believe in what we learned from school, that human originally came from a primate like a monkey or ape, how come for many centuries now, we not even heard of any changes regarding offspring of monkey or ape in a city zoo to adapt its environment and evolved? I think, human originally came from some kind of an entity (the alien in non-physical form) and to survive, by their own kind of technology, implant their existence to a certain ape or monkey and evolved as what we are now. Let me simply say, humans never learned to adapt with his environment - in contrary, we keep making the environment adapt to us. So, probably, we are indeed, the aliens on this planet. What can you say about this?

If we disregard if the object either bolt or nut. correct, the answer is 12, to be specific, 12 objects all in all But to have 4 nuts and 8 bolts, assuming both nuts and bolts are matched, only 4 are usable, then you have to return back to the store and present the store man that the 4 bolts have missing nuts, you need 4 more nuts. so all in all there will be 16 objects Same thing, if there are 8 nuts and 4 bolts, you simply have to go back to the store man and say, that you have 4 nuts and need 4 more bolts. So all in all, again there are 16 objects. The thing is, you need 8 pairs of bolts and nuts to make them useful. Now, if both 6 bolts and 6 nuts were bought together, at the same time, then only 6 pairs of bolts and nuts can be useful. Using the above statements, therefore, we have more than three outcomes of possibilities. But as far as I know, in Algebra x cannot be y, unless x = y. Therefore, 6x+6y will still be 6x+6y and we write it that way (not 12 x and y), and can no longer simplify it. Same as 4x+8y can never be 8x+4y, unless of course, x=y so we can say 4x+8y = 8x+4y and even say 4x+8x = 8y+4y Again, 6+6 = 12; 8+4 = 12; 4+8 = 12 are all correct, as a general statement but on the other hand, if you specify the number of oranges, nuts or bolts individually, then it will be a different story. Somehow, 6 nuts + 6 bolts , 4 nuts + 8 bolts and 8 nuts + 4 nuts are 12 OBJECTS , to be a valid statement.

A guy took his lunch in a restaurant. After the lunch, he realized he lost his wallet. So he thought of something to get out of that silly situation. He told the waiter that he lost his wallet but he challenged the waiter that, it would be a free lunch if he able to bite his right eye. The waiter told himself that its only a few bucks to pay the guy's lunch, so he accepted the challenge. He was surprised then that the guy has an artificial eye - the guy took out the eyeball and bit it. As the waiter went on to clean the table, the guy told him, "if you want I can also bite my left eye, if you pay for the food for a take out". To make sure, the waiter asked if the guy could see the color of the table, the curtains and everything. At the time that he was sure that the left eye is not an artificial - he took the challenge. The guy took out the false teeth from his mouth, a pair of complete false teeth and bit his left eye. Moral lesson: Never trust people of how they look!

I respect your opinion. Okay, let me put it this way -your argument that if you imagine, "the Easter Bunny having sex with a purple unicorn while riding a surf board on a star in the eagle nebula as your unborn child films all of this as a yet to be developed sperm" would not be possible is obviously, philosophically hypothetical. Every study in science need to be backed up by proofs. While scientists are thinking the 'whys' and the 'hows' of a certain thing, an inventor take advantage of the 'use' of that 'why' and 'how'. That is the good thing about technology - it makes one's imagination a reality. Now, if we base the concept of Imagination as to be, 'not possible' due to some restriction, then you are correct. Useful "imagination' could be possible if we do the effort to find ways to do and make it real. I don't know how you 'define' imagination and i don't know if anyone will imagine something that he believe to be invalid or will have no better use for mankind. So, if by saying things you imagine is possible as technological achievement, why not? But imagining something out of the 'principles' of nature or science can be considered to be 'false', is of course, is how we conceive it, based on something that we generally accepted. Still, there were instances that one's imagination disclaimed other people's belief , such example, the way Copernicus challenged Ptolemy's understanding of heavenly bodies. So if by the way I see 'imagination' as to my own understanding it, then I conclude, "Yes, if I can imagine it, it is possible"

I agree, only after one gone out of the previous sexual experiences. As you get older and you learned love is not all sex, it will end it up that way. I agree.

Why not? Buy time and it will be... the only question, are we still alive at that time? Heard of the story about how computer been developed? Now compare your smart phone to a room-size computers of the early years? Nothing is impossible, as long as it exists in our minds. The only question is, how to do it. We considered Charles Babbage to be the father of Computers. The only hindrance during his time is the limitation of gears and cams. Now that we have ICs and our technology enable to conquer time and space ( processing data in microseconds and chips in nanometer sizes), nothing is impossible, the only thing that it is not possible at this time is that it is not yet exist in 'real world'.

Love to an opposite sex or with the same sex, (other than your relative, of course), is the expression of one's biological need and it will end up into that, SEX! - no matter how 'clean' one's intention.

Sorry to intervene... some comments analyze the proposed statement, "If I can imagine, it is possible" as based on the type of argument (reducio ad absurdum, etc). Others based it on Science... far out? (Sorry for the term) Let's direct to the point - If I can imagine, it is possible". My answer - YES, of course In earlier civilization, man dreamed of 'flying'. The idea started from his 'imagination'. It took man centuries to realize that it is POSSIBLE! We have spaceships, jets, gliders and all them EXISTS! So what you imagined before, is today's reality. Imagination, is one way or one man's thinking mechanism to study things of how possible to achieve his 'objective'. A wheel could not be started if man never imagine on how to pull a big of stone out from a mountain and curved it into a statue. So yes, IF I CAN IMAGINE, IT IS POSSIBLE. It only takes time, to make it happen!

God is the creator of everything. Now if God created everything, then there will be steps on how God created a thing - then the question of 'if there are laws of nature', then the answer is - "There are". Why? We learned in Biology how nature balance our ecosystem. http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/nwepecosystems.hmtl Then we will go back to the question, "Is the laws of nature, God"? There are two things of argument. If God created nature, then it is God but if God is part of nature, then God must also comply with the laws of nature. am I right? The second one, if we based it to 'division of labors' of gods (Mythology), each god has power to control of the nature within his/her 'watch'. So nature, after all is not God. If good and evil are clashing because of two major parties competing with each other (The god of good and the god of evil or in Christian world, one god but created man to have the freedom to do good or evil), then their battlefield is 'nature'. One party trying to preserve nature and the other, to destroy it. If God created the Universe, then the laws of nature is God. But we cannot also deny the possibility that there could also be a higher god other than the god we know, if this god only rules this part of cosmos. So, the laws of nature, in this case is not God. For me, the more relevant thing to be concerned of, is, if the laws of nature, God, why it seems 'man' tend to destroy it, just to fit the environment for our needs? Industrialization cause pollution and other damage to planet Earth and yet, we developed them by studying the the laws of nature and apply it to fit our needs. So, are we, also gods? I conclude then, as to the above analysis, the laws of nature is not God, at all.

Is there any choice? Being dead forever is like being useless forever and yet living in misery forever is like wanting to end up your life, for a good rest. To add to this, just to share my thought about this discussion - Death is only a stage of the end of one's existence - living or non-living thing. It could be temporary, as others believe that this is just a beginning of a renewal. But who could prove it? I suppose everybody will agree that a dead man cannot stand a witness to point who murdered him, unless you believe in ghost. Now, if you remain dead forever... hmmm... that's a one million dollar question... I stick to my guess - since if you're already dead , you will never know what's happening to you, to your surrounding and what other think of you or their reaction that you're already dead. For me, the important thing is how people remember you when you're still alive. I feel bad if I remain dead forever. I am a believer of "Reincarnation" - reason why if all the people believe that we will reborn again in this planet, why not save this planet, so when we're back to being babies again, we will still enjoy life as it was.

Noted.

Alright, this will be my my final ‘say’. It is true that without Math, scientists will not be able to describe the ‘physics’ of how things work, both in nature and in the universe. Math is a tool to guide Science. However, I find it well suited for the Mathematicians, in the first place, to develop or to discover, a higher math that will change our view of the world we live in. Euclidean Geometry is good for a static, flat world. Non-Euclidean geometry that involves curved spaces for a static, space-time world as described by Einstein, is another form of geometry. I am wondering now, how the geometry will look like, if circles get bigger and bigger and points move in a spiral path, in an expanding, flat world, which how our universe is being described by science, now-a-days? Or how complicated, it would be, in a 3D expanding world? My curiosity is even led me to think that if Endy0816 said (On 3/3/2019 at 2:34 pm),“ You only feel the force when you accelerate, changing velocities. If you reach and then remain at 120 mph or even 100,000,00 mph you won’t feel it”, then if the earth able to increase its speed through acceleration, buy time to adjust on that speed and accelerated again and adjusted repeatedly, then a massive object like an earth could possibly, reach the speed of light, on a certain given length of time. Somehow, it will contradict Einstein’s view that no ‘massive object could reach the speed of light', am I right? Same as if F= ma, as force is somewhat related to motion (due to the ‘a’ refer to acceleration) how come we define g as a force accelerating at 9.8 meters per second square if we find a stone standing still in a sand? We learned the speeds of the Earth’s rotation and revolution, Sun’s direction and speed its traveling based on how we ‘relate’ things to a certain reference and the momentum that keep the things on earth glued together on the surface of the earth, still conform to that type of math we’re applying. My math is not that advanced nor my science knowledge is so limited but as I run my imagination, there are still a lot of questions going on. Yes, maybe there are still pieces of puzzle that we not yet discovering and to what it strongly leading me, as a personal opinion, “Scientists should give up the idea that gravity is a force like a magnet attracting everything on its surface” or else, matters, space and time will remain 'illusions'.

... or could be, that the earth's gravitational attraction, will be too strong it will even collapse a building down?

That's the very point I wish to present to you. If we keep on saying everything works that way because 'that it is how it works', everything remains 'illusion', what if we're been misled by these false 'starting points'? Math is obviously, will save the day. The thing is, when it comes to understanding nature or the universe, it is not that simple math or I may say, there could be another approach, unconventional, that might, someday, unfolds and answer all these mysteries or if allow me to use the word, will match up the 'discrepancies' on how we observe things here on earth and the cosmos. So perhaps, all factors that will contribute to the high speed of earth's rotation causing an inertial effect, while curving on it's orbit at 67,000 mph as well as the sun moving also in curve fashion at 514,000 mph has little effect compared to the force of gravity that keep us stay on the surface of the earth, will show how 'powerful' the attraction needed, if we view it in another perspective. So, a slight stop of the earth's rotation will throw us all away in space, if we based it on the Newton's Law of Motion, am I correct?

The First Law of Motion states, "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force." This simply means that things cannot start, stop, or change direction all by themselves. It takes some force acting on them from the outside to cause such a change. This property of massive bodies to resist changes in their state of motion is sometimes called inertia. https://www.livescience.com/46558-laws-of-motion.html Agree, only at the extend that a car, for example speed up in straight track and remain at 120 mph. What if the car tried to go in curve direction as following a circular track? We will keep on feeling the force before our body was able to adjust. We see massive objects moving in circular track in space , so how can it not add up (or has minimal effect), to the 'actual' force needed to keep us glued on the surface of the earth?

Yes, that's correct. The very reason that there should be a higher Math that we need to discover (maybe, the right word is to develop), to explain this. If you just imagine, how much attraction you need to keep a 'stone' stay put' on the surface of the ground, if we talk about all the tremendous speeds we discovered, relative to our position in space?In that case, the 'g' as due to earth's mass would then be, just another thing. I don't know if you're grasping what I am intending to present here. If you, by the previous knowledge that we have, says that g is just due to the earth's mass, there's nothing to argue about. But how can we explain that at 120 mph, we feel we're being thrown back against our car's seat, in contrast to, if the earth is rotating at 1,600 mph, along with the speed of 67,000 mph as it travels along its orbit around the sun, while the sun 514,000 mph moving around the our galactic center and so forth - I think the 32 feet per sec square would not be then, the correct value, to expect. I thought, I supposed not expect 'math analysis' in this section ... am I? I'm saying things, philosophically... or do philosophy needs to have a Ph.D in Math or Science, now-a-days?