Phi for All

! Moderator Note Not you, someone else. Taken care of, move along.

Terrorists are usually state funded. Prophets over profits.

But it's not. "Distance" is already being used by spatial dimensions. Your nomenclature is confusing. If I show up at the Eiffel Tower's restaurant tomorrow for lunch, I've used two spatial dimensions to get me to the right place on the surface of the planet, a third spatial dimension to go up to the right altitude, and a temporal dimension (time) to be there when they're serving lunch. I can't hand you a bag of time (or any dimension, for that matter), but it's an observable phenomenon so it's definitely "real". And it certainly has an earthly existence, that's why we measure it and use it in most of our calculations. A PDF should be safe enough to download, but I'm reluctant if your paper is based on some of the claims you've made already. Time is not an easy concept, but it seems like you threw it overboard as soon as it became difficult, and decided to make up something that makes more sense (to you, at most). You should stop messing with the font size and bolding most of your posts, as that's a total crackpot move. Thank goodness we caught you before you added color. Can you answer some of the questions and replies you've already gotten? Otherwise, it seems like you're just pushing us to accept what you've said, and that's not discussion, it's soapboxing or preaching.

At some point, the cost of the disasters should outweigh the cost of the training that's being neglected. For some reason, in the last few decades, training employees correctly has become a bad practice. Too many employers don't want to spend the resources up front because the employee MIGHT leave for a better job after training.

Are you responding to what I posted?! It doesn't seem like it. I commented on your post because you claimed the majority are focused on making things bad for the talented people. I think they are focused on making things better for themselves. If that makes things bad for you, it's a consequence, not a focus. I don't know how this ties to what you posted above. It's like you're having multiple conversations and randomly switching questions and answers.

Or they aren't thinking about that in the least, and simply do things for themselves that you resent a great deal.

This is always a big red flag for me. Theory is the strongest explanatory mechanism science has. Are you looking for "proof"? Proof is for maths, but you don't want to do the maths. Rejecting the foundations of spacetime is going to be an uphill battle all the way. Astrodynamics uses those foundations to land a spacecraft on an asteroid millions of miles away. Without them we miss. How does this match up with your observation that time doesn't exist?

Do you remember what this thread is about? Shall we close this one so you can pursue this new problem?

This is totally inappropriate for a hard science topic. True? Reality? Science isn't interested in either of those subjective descriptions. This also highlights my objection with your methods. You get to claim ad infinitum that we don't understand X because you're skeptical of the actual science that's gone on before, of how investigations you've never studied may have been handled poorly. Your incredulity means you're always right, never wrong. It's truly frustrating trying to have a conversation where consensus is in one person's hands rather than among peers. Are we done here, or do you want to start a different thread in Philosophy?

1-3 are the same things. We can definitely do better. This is a capitalist problem though, manufacturers not wanting waste to cost them profits. Remove capitalism and there are suddenly great reasons to clean up our environment. 4-6 are similarly related. Remove the need for capitalist profit and increase education availability to make these vanish. 7-10 also mostly go away when there's no reason or profit in them. Better social investment also reduces these drastically, helping us move away from basic tribal conflicts. 11-13 are yet more examples of problems that mostly go away when we allow pressures OTHER THAN profit to influence our decisions. More capitalism is making these problems worse, so the answer seems obvious. 14-16 are humans forgetting that we have intelligent brains, and that we can overcome animal behavior by actually using them. These are really the only "shortcomings" on your list, since the rest can be fixed by removing the desperate need for more and more profit in our economies. We CAN be ignorant and selfish and greedy like many animals, or we can realize that cooperation and communication gets everybody what they need so greed and selfishness have no firm ground to grow in.

This might be the perfect time for a candidate opposing big corporate influence. Republicans are pretending to dislike corporations so they can favor the big businesses that favor them and denounce the businesses that object to their voting restrictions, but much of their base is old enough not to like the fascist signals coming off of leadership. Most (all?) of the age-appropriate Democratic candidates are all corporate sympathizers banking on populism AND negative reactions to populism. The best that can be said about them is that they won't spend any time dismantling our democracy. I think there are a LOT of People who want to spend less time worrying about political leadership. They'd like to know that their numbers count for something, that We the People are worth the big investment other countries make every day, and that the current corruption brought on by the lack of corporate regulations and restrictions can be stopped.

OTOH, this would really help with 5-9, 13-16.

Absolutely NOT the worst thing about abortion and birth control! Simplistic overgeneralization. Birth control has always been needed, because not all births are wanted. Shine some light on this with calculations, please, because it seems like you pulled this from someplace dark. And in the 20s it was said that by now people would have flying cars. Reality has that affect on science fiction. Specious argument. We also could have spent our space exploration funds on taking care of so many people. Great example of logic failing us when applied outside maths and philosophy.

Awww, that's so cute! But if I'm one of the trillionaires who owns most everything else, I can make it impossible for you to keep and work that land, so you eventually have to sell to me like everyone else did. This kind of money can do things money isn't supposed to do. I'm still discussing the ownership aspect of your OP, since robots making everything for people who have no money to buy anything seems far-fetched and uninteresting. I firmly believe there will always be jobs that require a human presence, no matter how good we get at robotics.

They may have found that, in order to deal with human houses, the best overall design is humanoid. It would be interesting to see a robot that could handle doorknobs, laundry hampers, trash cans, pillowcases, toilet plungers, and vacuum cleaners without human-like limbs and digits.

It costs as much as many cars do. It's supposed to clean house for you. Why not design the parts most likely to get wet to be water-resistant?

Ummm, who owns this land they're trying to farm?

Clothes are basically tools that a robot doesn't need. Giving them a more human appearance is the only real reason to clothe them. Your engineering concerns are based on poor designs. Robots can be built with all these features integrated into their systems, without the need to deal with loose fabric all over their bodies.

I didn't feel that part of the OP was in good faith, so I didn't respond to the "no jobs for anyone" extremism. Who cares who makes the product if nobody has the money to buy it? But 100% capitalism is something many people mistakenly think would be a good thing.

Without state or public ownership, eventually the largest private owners would own everything. Then they'd deal amongst themselves until one or two managed to buy up the others, and finally one would manage to outmaneuver the other and own it all. So 100% capitalism would eventually look like a monarchy or dictatorship, with everyone working for the king, who owns it all.

We'll have an Admin check the settings and see if there's something to be done.

I lost quiz night by one point! The question was where is women's hair the curliest? The correct answer is Fiji.

If you used the whole quote, your question is answered. "It seems you are combining technical terms in ways that do not follow textbook definitions or established engineering practices, making it difficult to understand your discussion." IOW, you put terms together in a non-mainstream way, which is hard for anyone who's studied this stuff to figure out. You're serving word salad when clarity is the goal. If you're having trouble following, read all of what's being written. Don't you assume others are reading all of what you write?

All you're doing is cherry picking bits you find on the web that you think support your claims that we don't know enough about the mind. This isn't "firmer ground", it's been artificially filled in by you. YOU don't know enough about the mind, and you're projecting that onto everyone else. Why don't you just take some mainstream classes and learn what you don't know??? Your own ignorance is causing you to see it everywhere! Fix it! You don't reference the claims you make. You reference things that are adjacent and then hope we make the same wild leaps you do. That's not mainstream science. And all these references should show you that there are indeed people working hard to understand the mind. They just know a LOT more than you or I, and their work isn't super accessible by those who haven't studied it. None of it supports the claim you've made that we're all wrong about the mind, in fact it shows that the scientific method works, and works well. Our best explanations change over time as they're tested and challenged. Reptile brain gets replaced by something closer to what we observe, or a current explanation is drilled into to find its spectrum of influence. And yes, electric fish adapt to their abilities like every other species. You're like so many before you, thinking you can think outside the box without learning to use the tools inside first.

Can you imagine having a conversation with some folks and suddenly someone jumps up on the coffee table and spews out a rant like that? That's not discussion, that's a lecture nobody signed up for.