Genady

In some fields, it is one in twenty. E.g., biology.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which could be translated as Union of Collectivist Socialist Republics.

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, statism vs collectivism. Soviets stayed in existence and in the name of the country, powerless.

Perhaps, although I am not familiar with these terms exactly.

The original vision for the "society at large" was not a government but a hierarchical structure of "collectives" (called, Soviets).

Yes, it can be collective OR governmental. Not necessarily governmental. That used to be slogan for communism. The slogan for the socialism was, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution'.

Hmmm... What would be the "interactions" in mathematics?

Perhaps it is not a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT yet because of the 5σ. The golden standard there is 6σ, AFAIK.

Causality does not work backward in time as per SR. SM obeys SR. I think you're right. I don't see it as a model. It is used in making models.

On elementary particles level, when two particles interact, they both change. So, this event affects the future events of each. Isn't it the intersecting of the chains of causality?

The odd behavior of a subatomic particle may shake up physics (msn.com)

or by selecting a part of the post you are quoting and clicking on the floating "Quote selection" box.

Yes, I am at #7 now. Easy stuff so far. Yes, it is funny. It is even funnier if you watch it on .75 speed. I have to, because of a mild form of APD. Try it some time.

You quote the post or the part of it to which you respond, like I've just done here.

What @studiot said above, plus, in connection with a "primitive socialism" mentioned earlier, there exist a modern variety in the form of socialist kibutzes in Palestine / Israel.

In physics they are not, and in mathematics the questions of existence are very specific / technical. Taking these objects out of their original domain, i.e., the physics and the mathematics, and placing them for investigation in epistemology and ontology seems to me an artificial and fruitless exercise.

I think I understand where the confusion comes from. I am not talking about existence of physics and existence of mathematics. I am talking about their contents, i.e., about existence of objects with which physics and mathematics work.

Any question to which physics looks for an answer.

Because that addition, "which physically exists", is not part of the question. "Which physically happens" is.

No, I don't think so.

I don't know why to hide it, but just for consistency:

Are you asking, what is radius of a circle whose area is Pi? Or, is it a word play?

I doubt about the relevance of physics because, IMO, physics is not concerned with what exists, but rather with what happens. Mathematical existence is something completely different and unrelated to the physical universe.

This is not the definition in Marxism and thus, not the definition in USSR or Cuba.