StringJunky

That's the way I look it: the existence of emergence is self-evident but an analytical explanation for complex phenomena, like those of a brain, is, as yet, beyond reach.

I did the survey. I think really, the women that are doing physics as their day job are the best people to get out there and talk to girls and encourage them to pursue that subject. Also, perhaps there could be some core themes in courses that are more likely to pique a girl's interest. I say 'girl', not 'woman' because it's probably pubescents (12+), at the latest, that a concerted policy wants aiming at, when career aspirations are still in flux, or only just dawning in child's mind, and education becomes a serious activity..

It's getting tiresome and depressing seeing you spamming this site with your endless, inane navel-gazing and whingeing.

We will probably walk backwards into it without seeing it happening. The nature of emergence is such that we can't predict the result beforehand and may miss it at the time it happens.

Members here don't penalise ignorance but do willfull obstinance in the face of evidence and bad or uncivil attitude. You don't have to be formally educated to have chats here about science here but if you come up with ideas or hypotheses expect them to be challenged and have citations ready to support them. If you genuinely just want to soak up information, nobody should have any reason to pick on you. welcome to the forum.

It's a breath of fresh air to see someone trying keep it within the realms of science, especially something as fuzzy and elusive in definition and mechanics as this subject.

Succinct.

Here's a few burners for ideas. You can get triple ones as well. You only need to heat the weeds up to kill them... no need to burn them to a frazzle. If you do this when the weeds are just popping out the ground after going over it once and removing the big weeds with a fork there's no need to dig subsequently after that. Just start a scorched Earth policy. https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=weed+burner&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=185256221647&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8554128262608933104&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046596&hvtargid=kwd-171440836&ref=pd_sl_5xxgkwgiv7_e https://www.google.co.uk/#q=propane+burner+torch+triple&tbm=shop&spd=16263989596563634274 For big areas, a triple: http://gasproducts.co.uk/bullfinch-135p-extended-torch-kit.html?gclid=CMaAh8mNudMCFQ4R0wodJi0EZA

You are probably breaking up the rhizomes into ever smaller pieces each time you weed and each piece can become a plant. They need removing surgically when the soil is well moist. You could use a burner if you want to be lazy and scorch them dead. But yeah, weeds=infinity When you think you can win. Use your timer to measure your best training time and put that against the desired competitive time. If you equal it or beat it, that's enough.

I wondered how long it would take before someone vandalised the conversation with metaphysical woo.

It depends whether you consider the cellulase is produced by a ruminant or the commensal bacteria within them because you can say "Yes, ruminants can break down cellulose" but, in reality, it's the bacteria. Strictly speaking, mammals can't break it down.

What does the suffix -ase tell you?

There's plenty of scientists that believe in a deity but they don't let it interfere with their work.

This is correct because you can always put the deity just before what we know and, ultimately, say "Well, they wrote the algorithm that told everything how to behave."

I think these are squid fossils:

There's no need to get personal. A simple presentation of the alternative fact should suffice.

Yes, it didn't matter for my question which model was used but Strange is correct if it was just a GR question.

Yes. Thanks to everyone for all the responses, I'm a bit clearer now on this.

Thank you.

You've probably picked up a script somewhere. Try this: Open the Google Chrome Settings page, at the top right > Settings. Scroll to the bottom and click Show advanced settings. Under Privacy, click Content settings.... Scroll down to Notifications. Select Do not allow any site to show desktop notifications. or run adwcleaner: https://toolslib.net/downloads/viewdownload/1-adwcleaner/ (download button top right)

When I used the word fields, I was using it to represent everything besides space, including matter , since it is also made up of fields. i could have been more explicit about that. As you say: matter is excitations in a field. In conclusion then: we have to say time is always present even in a toy universe with nothing in it but it behaves the same everywhere since their is nothing to change the rate that it ticks in any given spatial co-ordinate?

That's two votes for yes, although it would be easier if the opposite were true.

Absolutely. What is a discussion without an opposing view? It is dialogue between opposites that brings change; no side is completely right and no side is completely wrong.

Yes. I've read somewhere that without objects there is no space.

I see what you mean but isn't that because there is a time-dependent observer present to measure the difference? The observer is a collection of fields themselves, aren't they? I know there's not an an easy answer to this and my basic knowledge is limited but I can try.