imatfaal

Is this not the dividing line between Soul and Consciousness - the taint of the supernatural hangs around the former but not the later If it is supernatural science cannot investigate it - if science can investigate it then it is not supernatural. Science needs the beginning of empirical observation to start from; without that a fully-fledged and working mathematical model can be completely divorced from the datum reality and not much good for anything. I think some belief systems have souls (for want of a better word) that are entirely separate from the conscious entity - another being trapped inside. And the null hypothesis that we would seek evidence to disprove would be that the soul did not exist. We have more of a clue about consciousness - even if we are still struggling; but as our only access to the emergent property of our brain which we call consciousness is via subjective reporting/questioning of a conscious mind it is very difficult to extrapolate from that point to something similar which is a soul that must be without the aforementioned reporter Until there is a tiniest scrap of objective proof - then yes I would agree. The belief in the existence of a soul, I think, is a quintessentially supernatural belief - but not necessarily religious and def not personal God religious BTW - feel free to open a physics thread on the atomic clock stuff. It is fascinating

From a brief skim of the article, he writes like an autodidact who has, unfortunately, stuck to pop-science representations of physics rather than getting his hands dirty with the maths. Modern pop-science textual descriptions of physics - especially when written for the lay-reader - are (almost) worse than useless; this is doubly annoying when they are written by great theoretical physicists who should know better than to dumb down so far.

What is the time dilation difference between a kilogram of Butter at about 37 MJ/kg and Sugar at around 17 MJ/kg? ie I am not really sure what the question is.

! Moderator Note Thread locked pending staff discussion

Exactly - the mis-information purveyed by the campaigns was verging on the criminal; in a more easily prosecuted arena - if you had it in sales literature it would constitute good evidence for fraudulent misrepresentation

MDs - Managing Directors of their own research co.s or Doctors of Medicine? To be frank - I struggle to see the reason to leave in either case; but then I know at least one medical researcher (who is both an MD and an MD) who when taken to task about why he wanted to leave was, amazingly and uniquely for him, unable to come up with a cogent argument. His was a more democratic/egalitarian stance in that his main thoughts were around the mood of the country, the prevalent general sentiment, almost the zeitgeist and his belief that the country would best heal outside the Union. He was right about the mood of dissatisfaction

Actually I would vote Remain in that one as I did in the original. Stronger Together! I love the European Project - and may leave England to remain part of it; but I would hate to see the balkanisation of a country I love, has done so much to be proud of (and so so much to be ashamed of too), and is a functioning pluralistic, (almost-) secular, modern liberal democracy

That is so annoying - I ended up taking there their and they're out of my dictionary to stop the machine auto-correcting the wrong way when my fat fingers mis-typed. I don't mind getting spelling wrong when it is obviously a typo; but a grammatical error is embarrassing.

I think rivers are owned by Crown - and her maj lives in London. And I think the Thames is still administered by the Port of London Authority - and we could dust off the Belfast

Must be remembered that London is only land-locked to an extent - it used to be the busiest port in the world; a bit of dredging and knock down a few banks...

I thought there was convention that affected precedent when a justice is there for the beginning but not the vote - but it seems Scalia was not involved in the oral argument either; I must have had my dates mixed up. I think the consensus is that the Senate will confirm Merrick Garland (who is pretty moderate) if Clinton wins - cos otherwise new Pres. might try and force a real left-winger on them recused - btw

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/06/27/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html Some good news - The Supreme Court in a surprise 5-3 decision struck down a highly restrictive Texas law that would have closed most abortion clinics in the state. The decision in Whole Womens Health v. Hellerstedt means a lower court's decision upholding the state's restrictive law is reversed. 5:3 Alito, Thomas, and Robert Dissenting. I think if I have my scotus jurisprudence correct Scalia's absence will not make any difference and would not obv have changed the verdict

That was a week - so an increase of about 1 pound in 7. And it was important enough for the Leave Campaign to have painted down the side of their battle bus Just to note: The £350 million a week quantum is complete Bullshit as well. But we now live in a post-factual democracy as TS mentioned above

Exactly. And it was so barefaced - not "we didn't say that" not even "you misinterpreted what we said" but "we shouldn't have said that - it was wrong" FFS. Every time I open the BBC news website I am shocked by the Britain Votes to Leave headline - I still cannot quite get my head around the enormity of our mistake; but I think even I expected it more than the Brexit campaign themselves

Isn't quantum mechanics really concerned only with observables?

! Moderator Note This has become ridiculous. If the next post is not coherent and sensible I will recommend to the other staff that we place you on the moderation list which will mean that your posts will not appear until approved. FYG this sort of post would not be approved and neither would many others of your streams of consciousness.

bbc line up for this evening - this is not a hoax And another - more chilling infographic - this time from Lord Ashcrofts poll

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/brexit-the-morning-after/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0 Great piece from Krugman in the NYT

Just to re-iterate - and I am pretty sure this is correct - nothing is technically binding on a sitting parliament; the queen and her ministers in parliament are sovereign. We don't even have any entrenched or higher legislation which requires a super-majority or a plebiscite to amend or get rid off (one could argue the EC act, the EU Act and the Human Rights Act are the closest). So the result of this referendum is not binding - but as nothing really is then the fact is less important. I don't think that there is the political will to try to reverse this decision - lots of the old left are against the EU because of the fundamental neo-liberal classical bias (or should that be neo-classical liberalism ?), many of the right are just simply xenophobes, and the centre of both major parties is pretty toothless at present. The only area with a workable grievance is Scotland where not one region voted for Exit - but they will seek a different second referendum

"If I have seen little farther..."

Do you mean that Scotland will already have seceded from the Union? I think that is entirely possible. Unfortunately I am pretty convinced we won't have another referendum unless something of earth-shattering proportions happens. This is also a worry h/t mikail golub 'Brexit' to be followed by Grexit. Departugal. Italeave. Fruckoff. Czechout. Oustria. Finish. Slovakout. Latervia. Byegium.

The plan at the moment is to move to Edinburgh - cos say what you want about the Scots they are canny and would not / did not fall for the pack of lies that so many south of the border did. I was very opposed to the Scots leaving the Union - now I wouldn't blame them if they did and I might even join them. US regulations - Gun Control, War on Drugs, etc. No thanks.

Is that because the pair alone cannot satisfy both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum at the same time - or is there another (more fundamental - is there anything more fundamental?) reason that this cannot occur?

! Moderator Note This thread has failed to reach the level we demand for Speculations. Locked. You may PM a staff member with a request to reopen iff at some point in the future you have a model that works mathematically and a description that makes sense.

Trurl Stop me when I say something you disagree with 1. We have the PNP nothing else. 2. We want p and q which are the prime numbers which when multiplied give the PNP 3. I do one calculation to show that 3 is not a divisor of PNP you do many. You do 12 operations to show 5 is likely a divisor - after 1 operation I know it is a factor 4. You do not get any hint from any of the incorrect choices of divisor about which new test divisor to try 5. You have to try all possible prime as your test divisor until you happen upon one which (kinda) works Where is the time saving or increase in information? Please try your method with a larger pair of primes which you do not (or at least pretend you do not) already know the factors of. And lose the pseudo code - write in mathematical terms; you need a simple algorithm that is quicker than dividing. No it doesn't but neither does yours! If you think it does - and claiming that on one example is a bit rich - can we have a longer example