cypress

Ah but it can because it is the product of both the oxidation reaction and the reduction reaction... that is what is throwing you off If we write them out separate it may make it more clear So the oxidizer is Mn7+O4{-} and it is reduced to Mn+4O2, right?

We could try chat. Ill stick around for a while. You're just guessing now... These work best if you reason through them. From the description the solution is basic so you won't have any H+. OH= alone is not going oxidize and generate the needed electron for the reduction reaction.... Let's start from the beginning. All of these problems are redox reactions which can be written as two part equations. The first step is to identify the compound or ion that is the oxidizer and which is the reducer. The oxidizer is, like oxygen, going to accept electrons and the reducer is going to give up electrons. Oxidizers therefore with be metal ions with large positive charges or ions with elements that easily accept additional electrons. With this you can find the oxidizer and the reducing agent.

It was a fair attempt, but H+ is not going to give you a source of electrons and it is electrons that you are short. Note also that the problem statement mentions that the solution is basic. So if you work it with that adjustment you might get it. You're on the right basic track. Mn+2 + MnO4-1 +1e -> 2MnO2 but you need a source of one electron.... so you need to keep going.... Just line up the additional equation that will give you an electron and see what else you need to now balance.

No, neither of those ratios will work because those ratios don't lead to balanced redox reactions. You have to have balanced equation both from a charge perspective and molecular perspective or you are not going to get this right. The one to one ratio leaves you one electron short.... Use that as a hint to try to figure out what other ion in the solution likely participates. Use also the description of the given solution. Once you have that figured, next use the electron shortage to figure what product removal of an electron from that ion is going to produce. Then try to balance the equation. We will work the others next.

No, they are uninteresting because they are irrelevant to explaining quantum events and they are irrelevant to explaining the events that result in objects that contain markers of design. They are not the same kinds of objects and are thus straw man examples. Functional is well defined. You offer no evidence that I ignore functional aspects. Thus demonstrating that this is an open area of inquiry and it is improper to suggest that since simple physical phenomena has been explained by material cause, therefore we should believe that all will be explained. One of the most interesting aspects of quantum mechanics is that while the mathematics provides accurate and reliable descriptions of what happens, QM does not provide explanations for causation. QM is not able to explain why these events occur the way they do. It is a science that does not provide for comprehension of cause. the two additional examples have the same issue.

Most of chemistry problems make use of the principles of conservation of mass and energy and equilibrium. Tritation is about mass balance and equilibrium. The challenge is making the right conversions and keeping your units correct. In problem 2 you are given the original solution density and you know the density of pure water so you can find the total mass per mL of HCl in original solution if you were of a mind to. You are also given the final solution volume and concentration so you can can find the total mass of HCl in the final solution. From this using mass balance you can plug that mass into the knowns of the first solution to find the volume of the first solution that results in the same mass of HCl since mass is conserved. Try to construct these equations and I will have a look at it.

I don't see the issue. You have a formula and more than enough information to use the formula. Where are you confused?

No, sorry that's no better. Thank goodness I did not make the claim that one is simpler than the other since we don't know. Nor did I make an equivalence between permitting and causing something. Indeed, it illustrates the lack of an explanation, and does not represent scientific comprehension. And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events. I don't see how uncertainty equals no cause. Can you demonstrate it does?

Your example seems to be a straw man because the relationship is not of the same kind. The greater the instability the shorter is the half life, so there is a direct relationship between instability and nuclear decay. With life the relationship is different because things that are more alive are less prone to death. I don't see how one can say that uncaused is factually simpler. We don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for uncaused events just as we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for a cause that transcends our universe to act on our universe, so your conclusion seems premature. Also, the beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused, so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.

Radioactive decay necessarily requires an unstable nuclei. It may not be sufficient, but it does seem to be necessary, so it seems more accurate to say that at least one cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nuclei. How could one tell the difference between a supernatural cause and uncaused? If it is not possible to tell the difference, then why should we conclude that something for which a cause is unknown is without a cause?

Well stated. It is about a group of people who see candidates who supported their ideas and policies falling behind in the voter polls and their attempts to rationalize that is is because while a majority of voters share support for those ideas, they have been fooled, rather than that the majority now disagrees with those ideas and policies.

I doubt though that you are suggesting that either is an example of the kind of supposed fact that this universe apparently does not operate according to cause and effect that sisyphus has thus far failed to describe.

The cause is known. Radioactive decay is caused by and is a result of unstable nuclei.

In a society with open information, there is deception and misleading statements on every side of policy debates. Studies indicate propaganda is effective only when information is limited or other forms of coercion/control are employed. Some may have been misled but on the whole I would disagree.

Interesting, can you please provide an example and sources for the "fact" that our physical universe appears to not operate in accordance with cause and effect?

Well yes, true enough. You can only work with the hands you are dealt. As you note, if the majority of either or both parties offer up candidates that are less than stellar as occurred, then fault for that simply regresses.

I previously indicated that they are uninteresting because they are largely irrelevant to the current focus of this topic. If you and Mr. Skeptic want to offer the cause of lightning, or rough seas or the moon's luminescence as relevant to understand the apparent ability to manipulate events as described in these quantum eraser/delayed choice experiments or if you wish to extend them to the cause of this universe or life in it, then I'm not very impressed. Once again I do not advocate for what you call "supernatural", instead I focus on an alternatives to material causes. The cause of the universe and the life in it have characteristics that are unique and stand apart from your examples because they contain within them, elements and markers that are only found in events that are planned and constructed for a purpose by an intelligent agent. They are unique when set next to the events you describe as being explained by material means. These observations lead to a testable concept that objects and events in this universe that show the same characteristics will be found to have been caused by an intelligent agent as well, and no events or objects with these characteristics will ever be explained to have been caused by material processes alone. Falsification is easy if one is able to demonstrate that a known material process in operation today does in fact produce these markers of design without aid or intervention. The markers of design are defined as well. Large amounts of functional information that exceeds the amount predicted by probability theory is one of the easiest markers to identify. Functional information is a specific form of shannon information that when translated and processed generates functional systems. Another example are systems that are fine tuned to produce and support functional products.

I tend to agree. It seems the voting populace is reacting to prevent a continuation of the administrations policies which they seem to oppose rather than being misled. I suppose it was ignorant of the voters that many didn't recognize what they were getting in voting for this administration in the first place.

Instead I would suppose that you read some posts far too literally, and in doing so, often fail to comprehend what was intended by the person. Many posters, myself included do not write as precisely as you seem to think. I am sorry that I don't write exactly what I mean to say. I would suggest that you ask for clarification when you encounter what you see as inconsistencies. While I have previously indicated that Mr. Skeptic has offered material explanations for uninteresting events, I noted that they are largely irrelevant to the kinds of events noted in this thread so I don't see the value in continuing to discuss them.

No it is not the only use. Let's say the rectifier is used simply to convert from AC to DC but maintain the same voltage. Do you suppose the transformer would still be included? If so, try to figure out why it might still be required.

Your observations are true by definition, so I understand the tautology you employ. I have read plenty of conjecture in the past and yet no evidence (facts that demonstrate with causal adequacy that a particular cause has the capability of causing a particular event) has been offered for a material cause for this universe and life in it. Let's be honest, your supposed evidence is a metaphysical argument.

Why do you assume these Americans are confused? Perhaps the confusion is with you. What bothers you more, that many Americans are growing impatient with inability of progressive policies to improve the economy or that these same Americans don't seem to care for the policies after all?

If this is a homework question, you should suggest an answer first. I will be happy to help you improve on your answer or provide some steer.

Except as far as I can see no evidence was offered by you and proof was not demanded by me. And yet every time we look at the beginnings of the universe and life in it we never see any evidence to support a material cause. You have still not described any material evidence for the events mentioned and you have not indicated how material solutions to unrelated events could somehow improve the reliability of your metaphysical conjecture. You seem to misunderstand. I am not here suggesting that a supernatural explanation is superior to your metaphysical belief in materialism. I am noting that your belief is not supported by evidence and is therefore unscientific. To note that your viewpoint is metaphysical as opposed to scientific is not equivelent to suggesting an alternative. It is sufficient to note that you lack evidence.

the formula for expected value is the sum of the products of probability of event and the value given that event occurs. So in the case of the student we have the probability of the student being a rider on bus one at 40/148 and the value given the student is on bus one as 40 so 40^2/148 and so on.... for the driver the probability is 1/4 for each bus and the value given bus one is again 40 so it is 40/4 and so on...