swansont

Which are you wanting to discuss? The teleological question, or complexity? You can't bootstrap one off the other, since neither one represents mainstream science.

Radiative or radioactive decay are probabilistic, and yet not tied to the HUP; there is nothing about them that involves commutation properties of conjugate variables. How so?

! Moderator Note Threads merged (even though the question is easily found using a search engine)

It was already announced. This was easily found using a search engine https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2021/summary/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2021-nobel-prize-in-physiology-or-medicine-awarded-for-discoveries-in-sensing-temperature-and-touch1/

What part of the paper? Is it the part where he says that "no compelling evidence exists that evolution itself is progressive or directed (as in “movement toward a goal or destination”)" or the two other times he says something quite similar? How does one define complexity, and how is it measured? The author suggests that this is not currently well-defined, as they offer a definition of their own.

Something that came up in the cryptocurrency thread reminded me of this bit of trivia: In the days of the old west, people used the US dollar and the Spanish 8 Reale coin (they were "pieces of 8") interchangeably because they were basically the same size and made of silver, and that worked because the value was based on the amount of precious metal. They used to chop up the coins when lower denominations weren't readily available. In deference to the Spanish (presumably), it was into 8 bits (1 Reale each) so 25 cents was two bits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_dollar (This makes clear that the Spanish dollar was used by a lot of folks, much like the US dollar is used outside the US today)

I think it's a bit (or is it byte?) like people using US currency outside the US

So your response to a request for clarification and a bit of humor is to attack the humor. Partly because nobody had reported the thread as being a problem, but I've taken care of that. The next step is to see if the OP actually engages in worthwhile discussion or continues to be coy. It's not miraculous, strictly speaking, and you are suggesting we know nothing definitive about biology, which is a rather outrageous claim.

Citation needed Don't anthropomorphize nature. She hates that.

In my experience, undergrad intro physics classes require knowledge up through derivatives and integrals. You might see differential equations in derivations of the equations that you use, but you would not be asked to solve them, as such. You might use infinite series, parametric equations and/or polar coordinates, depending on what's covered. Diff Eq's was something learned for later, more in-depth courses in the topics covered in the intro course.

Not only that, but there was the rise of "vampire" circuits in some devices, especially TVs - some part of it was always powered, to shorten the "turn-on" time. So even if the rated power went down, it may still use more energy because it's always drawing power.

Observation, to be sure, but I don't see where consciousness enters into it.

I think you mean absorption. Light doesn't adsorb to anything. And we really can't say this for sure, because we don't have the equations that say what happens. It seems to be what the solution is converging to in the limit of v approaching c, but those equations apply to massive particles.

We don’t have the physics to describe what it would be like. It’s not a valid reference frame.

Is that like AltaVista or Ask Jeeves?

Sounds like a job for…a search engine!

If it's elastic it will rise to its initial height, unless there is rotation imparted to it. It's the inelastic collision that requires more information and analysis.

A 16-ton weight has been dropped on the perpetrator

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=types+of+login+security+tokens

Sure.

That doesn’t really address genetics, and some of their variables aren’t independent. Saying how many times some group has won some marathon, and also some other marathon really isn’t new information; the runners are probably largely the same group, and in some cases might be the same people year after year. Dominant athletes are going to dominate, but are outliers and not necessarily representative. That skews the statistics. (It’s like saying Big 10 quarterbacks have won 8 of the last 20 super bowls without mentioning that Tom Brady has 7 of them. It says more about the individual and less about the conference.) It also only mentions societal and cultural influences in passing. Some countries do well in certain sports because a higher fraction of the population participate and they start young, plus other factors, probably.

To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, scientists can be so preoccupied with whether or not they can, they don’t stop to think if they should. It’s why certain independent permissions (ethics) are needed for some experiments. Science gave us nuclear weapons but science isn’t what tells us not to use them.

! Moderator Note You were working on establishing the premise of this little exercise, which you haven’t done. As I suggested earlier, you would/could be making the same mistake all over again. Regardless, you haven’t made any connection between the article and h changing other than wishful thinking, and that’s woefully insufficient

! Moderator Note We have requirements in speculations, demanding a certain level of rigor. We also require discussions stay on topic, and this thread was about G, not h If you have more than conjecture(i.e. more than what you have presented here), open up a new thread

Conscious Energy has been banned as a sockpuppet of FreeWill