Phi for All

Uh oh. How could you possibly know that? And what about the hard evidence we have that, at one point in its evolution, the universe was far too hot and dense to support anything we might call life, let alone intelligent life? Since you refuse to comment on posts that show otherwise, or clarify your definitions when asked repeatedly, it seems you've decided to stand on your soapbox and declare your words to be Truth. There you go again, insisting that a property of a thing is a thing itself. Nobody can borrow a cup of your intelligence, because it's not a physical thing that can be formed into an order or pattern.

This is the age of extremism, and more folks are coming out of the woodwork with intractable demands for our society. American Taliban, for sure. Terrorist religious tactics with heavy doses of toxic masculinity are rampant in right wing leadership. Is this like the new Texas gun laws, where 60% of Texans don't approve, but they're saddled with partisan whackos in office who're going to push this through to please Trump?

Examples were given where humans react without thought AND without having their brains removed. ALL the examples given from EVERYBODY assumed an intact brain. Only YOU have introduced the assumption that these reactions occur without a brain. To use one of my examples, how much thought do you think goes into closing your eyes when a sudden puff of air hits you in the face?

Standing still is a great example. The muscles in your feet react to imbalances perceived in the brain with conscious effort but no conscious thought. You act without thinking to maintain a balanced stance. You don't think about blinking before reacting to a puff of air in your eyes, or ducking your head more if you feel the top of the doorway against your hair.

First, find out where the engineers live, then find one that weighs 2 pounds (protip: look for the smallest house). Next, put some duct tape face up like flypaper outside their door. When the 2 pound engineer gets stuck, take his tiny hammer and fix your metallograph. Welcome!

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged.

That's not "basic logic", that's "this makes sense to me" reasoning, and it's often incorrect. Creation is a process and not a physical thing. You can develop a process, or identify it, but nothing physical is created until a specific process is implemented. And what do you mean by "capital C"? Is that some special kind of creation? Are you introducing your religion into this discussion?

I'm just afraid this is like modern skepticism, where people are constantly on the fence about an explanation because they haven't heard anything that satisfies them. That's not how a real skeptic works. Evidence is the key here. What makes this feeling different from what many yoga and meditation practitioners induce? They often visualize a golden ball of light that can seem warm and sort of "buzzy", and move that around their bodies. If you have an instructor telling you what to visualize, everyone in the room can experience the same thing. It's the power of suggestion, and we know the connection between mind and body is... phenomenal. This has been said many times in 6 pages, yet we still get people joining to tell us how freaked out they are, and complain that nobody will answer this simple question, and damnit we should take this somewhere else!

Let's not, since I feel like you want to move the goalposts now. Defining what you mean shouldn't be hard, and your simple statements use definitions I want to be clear on. Were my questions about snowflakes confusing? I'm trying to figure out why you want to define existence the way you do, yet I'm getting a bunch of pushback. I have seen no logic yet. Where was this posted? Do you mean something other than philosophical logic? Mathematical logic isn't really applicable here. Are you using the popular, non-scientific definition of logic that means "this makes sense to me"? I asked questions before and they were ignored. I showed how your reasoning was fallacious and my comment was ignored. This is not so much a personal "stumbling block" as it is a locked door you're holding the key to.

I'm still waiting for answers about definitions for "equal" and "like no other". And shall I assume you agree with me about your fallacious reasoning and assumptions wrt your eternal singularity?

This might be best. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing people come here for science-minded explanations, only to reject them as "those who have already mocked us". We've tried our best to respect that this is a real phenomenon while gently trying to remove the "supernatural" aspect from it (hello, science discussion forum). We've tried to show how everyone can do this to some degree, but it's clear this is something some people feel makes them potentially special, and they don't want to hear mundane reasoning. So post your link to a discussion offsite, which is normally against our rules. I'll close the thread and folks can guess about this all they want. Does that sound fair?

Transubstantiation leaves me with a similar feeling. There must be a correlation!

With all the conspiracy, misinformation, and unevidenced claims going around, we're trying to achieve "heard" immunity. If you "heard" it somewhere, check it out before you spread it out.

jayb has been suspended for a month for foul posting. Civility is required here.

I'm not sure how that can qualify as informative, something a definition is required to do. Perhaps the problem lies with your definition of "equal". A snowflake is one of a kind, but are its fellows "equal" to it? Each snowflake is unique, but can you also say they are "like no other"? This is an argument from incredulity. You simply can't believe, it makes no sense to you, therefore it isn't. We can't know if the universe is eternal, or infinite in size . It could be. Or it could be finite. It's also an assumption that matter was created from nothing, and one that has led you to these conclusions.

It's still a good idea to make sure we're all using the same definitions. It seems more like a non-description to me. A hand-waiving side-step that leaves me completely uninformed about it, other than it seems there's only one of them. I hope you can appreciate what we have to go through wrt posters and advertising. You're free to use scientific references to support your assertions, even place links, but please don't quote other forums when citing evidence. Use more trusted sources that support mainstream science, not YouTube videos and opinion sites. There's no need for us to read some other philosophy forum's posts when we have you here to discuss the topic with us. We want to hear your thoughts, as a member here. Are you referring to a technological singularity, or a mathematical singularity, or just any one-off phenomena that seems unique? Why does it describe all of existence perfectly for you?

Since this is a science discussion forum, perhaps you could start by giving us your definitions of "Absolute" and "Singularity", so everyone is on the same page.

My mistake then, I quoted you saying you had complete light fittings, not replacement bulbs. My comment was on fixtures where the LED lights are integrated into the fixture, rather than being an LED designed to replace an old filament or CFL bulb or tube.

The replacements can't be as efficient as your complete, integrated LED fixtures. They waste resources on emulating older configurations. An LED bulb isn't enjoying the spirit of solid-state electronics, imo.

The more accepted perspective is that time and the spatial dimensions offer us degrees of freedom rather than constraints.

Dave upgraded us to the Invision 4.6.0 software this morning. It may take a bit to iron out some wrinkles, and feedback is appreciated.

The other factor is the mother. There is a huge metabolic cost for the mother developing a brain that will double in size within a year after birth. Ape brains are about 40% adult size at birth, compared to us at around 25%. At a certain point, the metabolism of the fetus exceeds the mother's ability to keep them both alive, and the mother gives birth.

! Moderator Note As per the rules. This science discussion forum has them so we don't waste time on WAGs, and they specifically require you to support your assertions and give meaning and clarity to your arguments, yet you continue to post vague guesswork with no evidence. There are other forums where they don't care that you simply wave your hands instead of supporting your science. You should check them out, because if you continue to post here, we will continue to enforce the rules the site's owners have asked us to. Thread closed.

To remove the Al-Qaida network and their influence, to mitigate the power of the Taliban and punish them for harboring terrorists, and to make sure no more terrorist attacks against the US could originate from Afghanistan. That was the job, so we're one for three. The business, on the other hand, managed to keep the arms industry smiling. Billions spent on military hardware, much of it either in the hands of the Taliban now, or destroyed by our own to keep it from falling into terrorist hands. Billions more unaccounted for in corruption, waste, or abuse. We pretended we were helping the Afghans enjoy the fruits of modern freedom, but we left a bunch of greedy, inhuman profiteers in charge of making it so. We never should have done things the way we did, given the history of the region. This is a culture that doesn't trust anyone they haven't sat at a tea table with, face to face. It would have been more effective to put a price on Bin Laden's head, or pay a bounty for captured terrorists. As it was, we kept alternating between burning opium fields and guarding them as a necessary cash crop for the economy, all the while trying to remake these people in our image. I'm sure they think we're insane and want nothing to do with us. I'm glad we're no longer there. I can't blame Biden since Trump would have done this in May, with even more disastrous results for those who waited too long to leave. And the Afghan president's departure is to blame for the speed with which the Taliban is retaking the country. Nothing demoralizes a soldier like seeing the fleeing backside of his C-in-C.

What I didn't ask for was word games that don't help the OP's misconceptions.