joigus

\[ \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v²/c²}} \] \[ \gamma\times0=0 \] Last comment by @Markus Hanke & @swansont spot on, I think. You cannot take electron density in proper frame for electrons while proton density in "rest" frame.

@ALine, can you propose an experiment that would conclude, without a shadow of a doubt, that bees must be conscious and not otherwise? A well-defined, widely-enough agreed-upon Chinese-room argument? Furthermore, what is the "otherwise"? Is there such a thing as being semi-conscious? Conscious but not so much? Dual, or n-valued consciousness? Consciousness without an identity? Perhaps "ambiguous" --in some sense to be defined-- consciousness? Wholistic --in some sense to be defined-- consciousness? IOW --and here's the tricky point--, what is the non-conscious against which we can test the conscious? The possibilities could be endless, especially once we realise our notion of consciousness probably comes from being human and experiencing it in our own human way. That's probably why @iNow was asking you for a definition. People of science normally ask for a definition first. Then, an experiment.

The whole here would be the salient aspects of life. In this case, consciousness. The parts would be quantum fields. No. You're trying to explain a salient aspect of a narrower reality (humans and how they perceive the world) by making it an attribute of the most fundamental things we know (quantum fields). By the same token you could venture to say quantum fields might have recollections, free will, bad temper, and so on. It doesn't seem a very promising line of reasoning. If it happened to be, you would be asked to substanciate it very carefully You lost me here. What does all this story about nursing and rape, and the smell of babies, have to do with quantum fields?.

Isn't this just another case of an unfortunate inversion of the whole and the parts? In more modern terms, trying to explain the components in terms of the emergent? An elephant doesn't explain biology. Biology is purported to explain the elephant. That's how it looks from my ongoing process of learning anyway. Don't glorify consciousness. Most important things that keep you alive happen while you're anawares. Maybe thanks to you being anawares. I thank my stars for my hippocampus. I don't have to think again every time I ride a bicycle, or tie my shoelaces. 'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished, I've been told --having a ninety-something percent of biological processes running the business of me, without me knowing. Rookie mistake...

I remember this one. I understand some lawyers find it quite funny. And I with them.

I disagree. It would be a Lorena Bobbitt.

Sounds to me like software could be interacting badly with hardware. Is the latter "old"? I've recently had problems with boot-sector related stuff because of using old BIOS-based computer instead of UEFI-based one. Had to redo mount points and tell ubuntu to set up the partition system as EFI partition table instead of GPT. Had to tinker a bit. Generally speaking, you have to tinker far more with Linux systems than with Windows. But in my experience solutions can always be either worked out or found out. At least you can. With Windows, you are not allowed to tinker much, are you? With Windows, again in my experience, some problems never get solved. My first experience with Linux was Red Hat, and I was left pretty much as @studiot has described. The dependency tree of new installs got messier and messier. But after I went over to a Debian-based Linux flavour I never looked back.

I hereby propose Gulf of Chicxulub. In memory of the most significant event that took place thereabouts. We primates owe a great deal to cosmic happenstance. Much more than to presidents --either lippy or sleepy.

Where?

Apparently the New Year is incompatible with local realism.

The good (mathematical) theory is one. Deviations from it make the theory to collapse. The computational algorithms can be many. Deviations from it just give a different approach. That speaks volumes in the direction I was trying to argue.

Well, of course they are MORE math. But that math is highly subordinate to the actual theory from which they derive. You cannot think of a simulation ab initio, with no formalism to derive it from.

What simulations do is take a mathematical model and approximate it by a cluster of discrete data. That's what it is. The maths come first. Then you go to the lab. Or... the lab surprises you. Then you go to the math. It's from the blackboard to the lab, and back. Simulations being an in-between when direct calculations in the theory become too difficult. Like QCD, or many-body problem in GR. That's the way I understand it, anyway. And most people here seem to agree.

It could be a bot handled by a dog, or it could be a Tob handled by a god. 说出这样的话是多么愚蠢啊！

Aaaahh. Yes I'm sorry. So, it's either, Got that wrong. Sorry.

Ok. I finally really understood!! Somehow the proof I'm providing seems ugly to me. I'm sure there must be a simpler, more beautiful one. Let me re-state the answer with some formal embellishments. I'm sorry that I'm such a stickler for formalism: I hope I didn't make any silly mistake with the LaTeX. The possibility that p=2 is a silly one, because the theorem must be valid for all n. One can use many ideas to rule that one out.

More than just interesting. I think the point, is a fair one. The learning curve of new theories is generally steeper than the one corresponding to old theories. In the case of physics, foundational or not, students generally have to master sophisticated calculational tools in order to tackle the simplest problems of the most modern theories.

Agreed. There's some prevailing wind acting there. Social status is obviously a factor too. I don't expect the next Einstein to emerge from among the homeless either. What's peculiar is that people working in the IAS, or PIRSA, etc, working under a common umbrella, with all the facilitation that money can buy to fertilise each other's minds (never mind gender or race) seem to have been unable to parallel the high standards of creativity that lone individuals reached in past decades. Noether was one of these geniuses too, she was a woman, and didn't have it easy either. One would think that putting together an Einstein and a Noether, and throwing in a Fermi, all teleconferencing each other at the touch of a button, would have achieved much more much more quickly. It reminds me of the splitting of mayonnaise: If you put too much oil too soon, it fails to emulsify.

That was your first mistake. ChatGPT, as far as I can see, can only mimic human thinking based on previous patterns of human thinking that it's been fed. No wonder it led you to parallel dimensions, which is not a new idea, was tried for more than gravitation, and AFAIK belongs in the junkyard of discarded ideas. Thought-generating patterns must be fed something external. That something is experiment.

After all, an actuary for an insurance company is bound to have a more promising future (from an economic POV) than someone that spends time thinking about the collapse of the wave function. People who think about such things are usually in well-funded institutions, and it would conceivably be difficult to step out of line and initiate a whole new way of thinking. Well, yes I assume. It's not like you're gonna make this big discovery just when the Inquisition officials are pounding on your door. Otherwise you might end up like Archimedes in Syracuse. I'm sure the feel of urgency gets to you much earlier than the actual soldiers pounding on your door! Evariste Galois is another good example of what I'm saying. I'm well aware of the possibility of a cognitive bias. There are counterexamples, as @studiot pointed out.

The story of my life when it comes to women. No, you're right, of course. It could be the victim of a cognitive bias. I'm aware of that. That's why I was appealing to a good sounding board.

Oh, I'm not very good at number theory. I would have to review some related stuff, like the Euclidean algorithm, divisibility criteria, etc, and see if some of the central ideas illuminate me. But let me try to trim the statement a little bit. Is it: Find a polynomial f(n) with 0<deg(f)<infinity, such that f(n) is prime for all n in the integers? Of course, it'd be the integers. Sorry for mentioning the rationals. Something doesn't seem right, unless you set a bound for n.

Yeah, something like that. It's the sense of urgency that troubled times potentially give the right kind of people. I'm not suggesting that a third world war is necessary, of course. Yes, that's true. This is compatible with what I say, rather than contradictory. Of your other argument I'm not so convinced, as it may well be that you need another indipendent condition to fuel the causal drive. Example: Maybe those human groups did not have the proper cultural seeds planted. Let's say at that particular time they were planting other cultural seeds.