swansont

Given that solar and wind are often cheaper than the FF alternatives, even if the inflection point hasn’t quite been reached, it’s trending in the right direction.

Indeed. My apologies to all for not noticing that they did not initiate the thread. The preaching has been split and placed in an appropriate receptacle

Except you don’t ask many questions. I just went back about 10 posts and there was one about color, one that was obviously rhetorical and one that you asked so that you could give the answer.

But I can say that, and others can, too. Soul? Who said anything about a soul? This is dodging the question. If there’s no difference, then there’s no justification for putting humans in a special category. This mischaracterizes my question; I did base anything on one property. I can point to differences between them. The temperature, owing to the processes producing internal heat, would be one. Composition would be another. (I don’t think that I’ve committed any ethical issues by doing so.) It’s one property, but various balls used in sports are spherical, too. Do you mistake them for celestial objects? To avoid more waffling on your part, the underlying point here is that your view is subjective, and science deals with things that are objective; they are true whether or not you believe them (e.g. gravity, and the rest of physics. Belief will not keep you from falling if you jump off a cliff) The problem is that you are presenting subjective views as if they are objectively true, and that’s why people are calling it out as preaching. Because that’s exactly what it is. Even in the religion subforum, we deal with objective facts. The content of what you believe is an objective fact; you’re here to attest to it. You can even cite what others believe if there’s evidence of those beliefs. But you cross the line when you imply that what you believe needs to be true for others.

Moderator NoteBut we’re not discussing that here. That is to be discussed in the thread you opened on that topic.

What about women? What biological properties distinguish us from apes and other animals?

Are we vegetables, then? Which category are we in?

Why do you need to save games if you can just procedurally generate all the content? Why are they the size that they are (I’ve seen people say hundreds of MB or even multiple GB) Why do they get bigger as you render more?

And it needs to be the same tree if they go back to that place, which is why people have brought up memory. One can’t just ignore things that are inconvenient to the argument. Seems to me this is a distinction without a difference. Saying it won’t work or has problems applies to both scenarios. You’ve said this but it seems to just be an excuse not to address objections

Ok, but the tip isn’t covering a greater distance in the same time. A transversal is a line crossing other lines, and there’s an interior and exterior angle, but I’m not sure how this all connects.

Moderator NotePosting your own views in someone else’s thread is hijacking and against the rules. You may post non-mainstream ideas in their own thread in Speculations as long as they conform to the rules

Moderator NoteAttachments are for support material only; anything you want to discuss must be posted. And word documents aren’t permitted at all, owing to security concerns.

Moderator NoteYou have a thread for this. That’s the only place it should be discussed. Advertising it in someone else’s thread is considered hijacking

I am asking that if you post arguments from anyone from other than yourself that there be a citation/link to it. If you can’t do that, don’t post it.

Well, to be fair, there’s no reason everyone has to be getting the same simulation in some versions, e.g. The Matrix. They could each have a unique universe, but that increases the demands on the system.

If they want to participate anonymously they are free to register accounts and do so. What you can do is present your arguments and cite any outside sources you use. Otherwise this is a violation of our rule on soapboxing (it does not promote open discussion, since we’re no able to engage with these people) and is arguably not compliant with our rule on posting in good faith.

I’m not arguing about computing power, but no. I don’t think a human brain, by itself, could do the math needed.

Moderator NoteLet me be clear: this is not a request that can continue to be ignored

Our brains process information. Why would a simulator evolve with nothing to process?

Code means nothing without the data. How does code do anything with no arguments in equations or matrices that are filled with zeroes? We’re arguing, it seems, because you don’t recognize this rather obvious point.

1.8 x 10^19 Less than a part in 10,000 of Avogadro’s number. For each particle in your simulation, how many bits do you need to encode the information about it? You have identity (some kind of label), mass, charge, position, velocity, angular momentum. To the extent you can, at least, owing to QM limitations. 18 quintillion might get you memory for the data for the particles in a small puff of hydrogen.

In an undetermined state, like spin, the odds of getting one result is 1/2. If I measure one particle and get a result and then measure another, it will be in a given spin state half the time But in entanglement, the odds of getting the result is 1 or 0, depending on the correlation you have in how you prepared the entanglement.

Shorter bat means smaller moment of inertia (proportional to ML^2) thus a greater angular acceleration for a given torque. The torque you exert on contact with the ball is reduced (r x F) since the r is reduced https://www.justbats.com/blog/post/why-choke-up-on-a-bat/

Which is blame-shifting, since the forecast was accurate. The alert efforts are what fell short.

The thing is, when you understand why mainstream theories work and are familiar with the evidence, you can tell when some proposals are not going to work. You mentioned the Planck density (is that an energy density?) at one point but I don’t see where you calculated what this is. It’s not going to be a large value because the planck volume is quite small - ~10^-105 m^3, so the planck energy density is around 10^-95 J/m^3 An IR photon with an energy around 10^-19 J with a 1 micron wavelength has an energy density of somewhere around 10^-37 J/m^3. Any visible photon is going to be even higher. Photons from any light source would be collapsing all over the place with that criterion.