Phi for All

I think modern liberalism is broadly interested in exploring ways cooperation can replace competition around the world. Evidence suggests that working together becomes more important as populations strain available resources, face large-scale disasters, and in general need more complex solutions to modern problems. Because it's important for humans to use the right tools, always. Our extraordinary human intelligence can defend us against such ignorance, our cooperative nature can show us the benefits of achieving something together, and our penchant for rich, deeply informative communications can help us spot when extremists are trying to remove that focus.

The word "ALL" in the OP is ambiguous. Perhaps it means this laundry detergent: Stop taking the thread off-topic, Kartazion. If you think someone has broken the rules, be a Dove and use the Report Post feature. And Dial back on the Cascade of irony, your reputation for tangents isn't exactly Ivory.

If you Whisk it ALL away on the Tide, what will you Gain? An Xtra Fresh Start. The intelligent source is clearly pointing us towards emulsion theory.

You won't. It's impossible. Stop worrying yourself. Get help.

! Moderator Note We'll need to see some actual science in order to keep this conversation open. Is there anything in the way of evidence that supports your idea (not a theory)?

If more people had a better grasp of biology, fewer would be catching viruses. They certainly wouldn't be protesting PPE requirements and distancing measures.

! Moderator Note I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Hot? Do you mean long? Popular? Uncomfortable? ! Moderator Note Something about your posts suggest you might better overcome the specific ignorance you have by discussing it with people who can apply mainstream explanations to your non-mainstream concept. You've admitted several mistakes, and that's always the first step to actually learning something. ! Moderator Note You seem to be trying harder, although you don't accept much of the help you're being given. Perhaps it seems funny to ask for help and then ignore it when offered? You go ahead, but I doubt anyone here is laughing.

All the matter in the universe was once in an extremely hot, dense state, and now there's enough space between that the matter (and the universe overall) has cooled. It's not likely there was ever "nothing" as opposed to something.

There's a section in Forum Announcements called Banned/Suspended Users. All the banned ones are history. 😁

They're unnecessary. The model we currently use charts the evolution of the universe from an extremely hot, extremely dense state through expansion to what we observe today. This model is consistent with so many other observations and predictions we've made that it holds tremendous explanatory power. There is no need to make up future alien designers or gods to explain anything or fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Ah, then stop worrying. Horrible article, full of misunderstandings, please don't give it another thought. It was NOT written by a Richard Dawkins type.

There's a way to calculate the odds of having ALL the chemicals and forces react the exact same way in a second BB after a BC, I'm sure. I'm equally sure the probability is so vanishingly small that ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE would happen first. No need to be scared about this.

You missed a nice shoutout to QAnon for their selfless work against pedophilia, from the man who asked a columnist once if it was wrong to be more attracted to your 13-year old daughter than your wife.

There's no possible way to know. You're waving a magic wand, and making assumptions about an event you don't describe fully. How could we know if our consciousness is "exactly" the same as a previous iteration? Is there some baseline where we can compare one with the other? No, so it's not something we can explain meaningfully. We travel through time at a rate of 1 second per second. We can travel faster and experience time more slowly using relativity, but I think you mean traveling to a point in the past or future, and that's not possible. And we're sorry for your troubles, but since you mentioned therapy, we can't discuss your situation. We have a hard rule about dispensing medical advice. Good job seeking professional help, that's your best solution and you're smart to reach out and make that appointment. Maybe here, we can stick to discussing the science?

! Moderator Note Please make it clear what you wish to discuss. This isn't a blog or Wikipedia.

! Moderator Note The full quote is "Nine pages in and you have not yet made clear why you think transferring the nut is not a mass transfer that will cause a reaction." Do NOT use the editing software to make it look like someone said something they didn't. We'll boot you for that if it happens again.

I see the effects of competition vs cooperation here as well. It's unlikely someone who favors cooperation is going to "bait" or "trigger" someone they want to work with to make things better. OTOH, folks who prefer to compete to get ahead often use such tactics to throw their opponents off.

Thank you, BINGO!

FTFY.

It occurs to me also that the premise may be wrong. Is it really "an opposing viewpoint" that triggers someone's objections? That sounds suspiciously like a strawman of what's really going on. After all, different opinions aren't that threatening or upsetting. Isn't it more likely that the arguments are poorly understood or badly delivered? Or because of the binary way Americans think about their politics, aren't we more likely to be upset when we hear someone who seems to be voting against their best interests? In my experience, many Republicans get very upset when someone in the military expresses liberal views. Conversely, many Democrats can't fathom why working class conservatives don't want better healthcare. It's not about a difference of opinion, it's probably more about the two stupid, enormous umbrellas we try to hide each other under.

It's irrelevant to my point. Science relies on theory, not proof, and not truth. Theory changes as our knowledge changes, and always presents us with our current best explanations. When people think they've found truth, they stop looking, and that's not science. Phlogiston wasn't truth, was it? Aren't you glad it was just a theory that was overturned? Can't you understand this?

Nice insight gained from a new perspective. Um, were you being liberal or conservative here? 😕

Physics was NEVER interested in objective truth. Physics is interested in describing the way the universe behaves, and seeing if it concurs with our best current explanations (or the other way around). I find it frustrating that you show both a contempt for scientists AND abundant misunderstandings regarding science. One seems to fuel the other, and if you'd let them cancel each other out, the remainder might be interesting and informative.

Everything is in motion. Imagine 100 people are in a big gymnasium with you (this is actually a two-dimensional representation, since you can't fly). You're walking around in a circle holding a throwing dart, and everybody else is also walking around in differing sized circles. It's complete chaos, but one of those people is also holding a dart board as they move (the asteroid). Can you imagine how you'd have to figure out when/how hard/what angle to throw the dart so it doesn't hit anyone or anything else but the dart board? What?! No, it works anywhere in the universe. It works somewhat differently when we're on the surface of the planet, but the concept of degrees of freedom holds true.