John Cuthber

There's already a thread discussing free will http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82234-the-debate-of-free-will/ If it had been "solved" or "clarified" by philosophy (or otherwise) there wouldn't have been a thread about it in the same way that there isn't a thread about "what is 2+2?".

One problem would be that the cellulase would be a protein, and you would digest it.

Surely the real mistake in that passage is that, like treasure, the "Kingdom of Heaven" is something you could steal. Is it not more like wisdom (or a disease) that, when you give it to another, you still have it? Of course all that depends on there being such a Kingdom, but since it's in the Bible, they will have assumed it did.

Would you consider, as an example, a Space Invaders type game as being to complex to write without conditional branching?

Can you stop talking about efficiency and speed please? It has nothing to do with the topic. ~The question in the initial post was "Is there some law of computation which states that `if` statements are unavoidable?" Now, once again, Can someone explain to me how, if we take a computer programme as a means to turn a finite set of input data into a finite set of output data, it can't be replaced by a look up table? If you have , for example, a pair of inputs that are each one byte wide and the table has an output for all the 65536 possible combinations of inputs, how can there be an index that's out of bounds? Incidentally, Sensei, I realise that, if you have spent that much time doing things the conventional way, it might be difficult for you to explore alternatives. At least read the question I asked and answer it, rather than citing bits of irrelevant code.

The fact that you are explicitly dividing by 1 shows how poorly you understand maths. However the real problem is that you have opened 6 sets of brackets, but only closed 4 of them, so it is impossible to work out what you actually mean.

You failed I could use a laugh. Can someone explain to me how, if we take a computer programme as a means to turn a finite set of input data into a finite set of output data, it can't be replaced by a look up table?

What definition of the word "math" are you using there? Because what you have posted is gibberish.

I was giving philosophy the "benefit of the doubt" (considerable doubt). It was a summary of this "But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it justified to accept a theory." If you say that philosophy achieves less than that, fair enough: I'm not going to argue. You also said "Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers" As far as I can tell, that's a matter for some mixture of psychology, anatomy, physiology (possibly computer science) and a few other things- but those are all science ad it has been clearly stated (though not rigorously shown) that science isn't philosophy. That we have reached 5 pages without anyone actually answering the question "what-problems-does-philosophy-solve" rather gainsays the notion that philosophy provides clarity. At root, you say " If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'.". Name one.

What you describe as it "offering more" Is essentially the invention of the "Scientific Method" which happened some time ago. That's a problem which (arguably ) philosophy "solved" not "solves" What are the circumstances where someone says "Help! I need a philosopher!"?

In principle, with a diode, the current direction doesn't change. it's "forward" or zero. (Pace Zener diodes and back diodes if you like) The words were not invented for electronic engineers, but for electro-chemists and so i don't mind much if they use them differently, but this is a discussion about electrochemical cells..

Not if it's the refractive index of a unicorn. Do you plan to actually answer the question? Can you show that the things that are unprovable are important or might they all refer to things like the refractive index of a unicorn?

Is philosophy an art and do we expect it to "achieve" anything beyond being enjoyed by some people? If it's an art- comparable in some way to things like music and sculpture- then it has a purpose, but I'm not sure it solves a problem apart from the ones put forward earlier as jokes- it may be a pleasant enough way to waste some time.

And, as the song goes, "let's go round again". Nobody has disagreed with that assertion that " a more complex model as Reality is will have even stronger limitations in the possibility of describing it completely by a finite set of principles." OK? So repeating it adds nothing to the discussion. There's no doubt that some ideas will remain unprovable in any system of maths that's even remotely complex enough to describe the universe. Can you show that the things that are unprovable are important or might they all refer to things like the refractive index of a unicorn? .

You too have missed the point. I did say there were a finite number of possible entries. If those entries include 10.4 then you have to scale the input s so that 10.4 doesn't map to the same location as 10.3. No computer really deals with decimals- the numbers all get represented as binary. Once you have that binary, you can use it as a memory address and look up the output from that memory without any further calculation- so there's no need for ant If statement. That's easy enough to do. The only thing Sensi seems to have been right about is the memory penalty and, since that was mentioned in the first post it's not an issue. The question is can it be done in principle, and the answer seems to be yes.

Why?

Yes, or you could just use an engine.

We both agree (rightly or wrongly) Arc meant "Philosophy and astrology are both useless." or something close to that. However you leapt from that to " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.". And I pointed out that nobody had declared anything like that. Someone said that two specific things (which happen not to be science) were useless. Your idea only makes sense if, for some bizarre reason, you think that everything which is not science is philosophy (and vice versa). I pointed out that, for example, music is neither science nor philosophy. Arc didn't comment on the value of music (and nor did anyone else until I mentioned it). Yet you implied that he declared it useless (along with everything else that isn't science) As I said, it's a straw man.

You say "yes it does", but I explained why it doesn't. “If you start with the balloon further up it has already acquired potential energy but it still has some more to acquire. " It doesn't acquire energy by giving it away as electricity. "Your argument is like saying “if I start with a half full tank I can’t get as much energy from the tank." Well, saying “if I start with a half full tank I can’t get as much energy from the tank." is, of course, right. So you agree that my argument is right.

OK, for a start, we need to clarify what an anode and cathode are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anode They are not the positive and negative electrodes respectively.

Start by writing down what the reactants and products are.

Can we agree that the best way to treat many or most (non trivial) symptoms is to take them to a doctor (or a pharmacist/ nurse/ paramedic), and find out what's gone wrong and that asking on a web page isn't a very good way to deal with such symptoms?

With all due respect to your profession, should anyone ever suggest treatment of a condition where the patient doesn't have a qualified diagnosis? (outside of emergency and first aid care) You are, of course, right about the over-use of antibiotics. There's every chance this "strep" throat is a viral infection. In the absence of any other information, antibiotics for this individual have a better chance of causing an upset stomach than of treating the illness.

I recommend ignoring people who give medical advice on-line without credentials and an examination.

Does the wholesale cost of kerosine quoted include tax/ duty? If so do the power stations pay that same level of tax? Also, if this is true http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29903666 then crude oil is currently about $82 per barrel There are about 7 barrels to the tonne so crude oil costs about $570 per tonne. The heat of combustion is probably not that dissimilar What oil fired power stations burn is more like crude oil than like kerosene. So that's a factor of roughly $570/$743 That brings it down to about 55%. Still rather high.