Phi for All

The side where you don't just get to claim reality is everything that exists and expect that to have any meaning whatsoever. And, again, it was in answer to a question about quantum physics, where this thread started. But please, go ahead and make up whatever impractical truths you like while you're in this part of the forum, and call it philosophy. You think, therefore you are. Truth is simple, so simple it's hard to find examples of it.

I would also imagine rice meant for porridge isn't the best quality, not full grains but more broken bits, which would cook more quickly and also lend a smoother texture for porridge.

Are you steaming the rice but boiling the rice porridge?

Whose reality are we talking about, because I obviously don't identify with what you claim is "real" and "true"? How can you know that this "reality" of yours isn't a simulation that only looks "real"? How can I trust anything you claim is "true" if you're experiencing something different than I am? Many things are claimed to be truth, and you yourself show here that trying to cite examples leads to fallacious circular reasoning. "It's true that reality exists"?! Think that one through a bit further. Because you're free to claim whatever you want when you invoke your reality or your truth. You might claim that an all-powerful creator has given us life in order to test us, or that there is a simple answer to the workings of the universe if only we were wise enough to listen. Truth seems like a simple concept, but perhaps because of that, many interpretations of the concept arise. And what is reality? Can you really define it so everyone agrees? Because if you can't, your definition is subjective. To talk about this scientifically, forget truths and proofs and reality. Look instead for "evidence" "observed" in "nature". This is what we know, this is what we can test, this is what we can base predictions on that help us build our knowledge in a trustworthy way. We can work as if certain physical laws are universal without assuming it's "true" everywhere.

When life hands you melons....

Please cite an objective example of "truth". Please cite an objective example of "reality".

Deciding what you find funny and what you find merely offensively shocking is a normal development of a sophisticated wit. I personally don't like using words that describe the body or sexual behavior in an unnecessarily negative way. "Fuck" and "What the fuck?" are great expletives, and I really like fucking, but I really dislike when someone says they got "fucked over" by a car salesman, and I absolutely hate it when the worst insult someone can come up with is "Fuck you!" Somebody somewhere along the line thought it would be funny and shocking to push a negative, rape-culture influenced agenda when it comes to talking about sex and our bodies. Juvenile, hateful feelings that never matured into understanding have given rise to this negative form of funny, and if you want to hurt someone (and make other juveniles laugh) you call them a pussy or a prick or a dick or an ass or a cunt or a twat. You hope they get screwed, you hope they're fucked, and (ironically) at the same time you wonder why people are so hung up sexually? More to your point, Outrider, I think there will always be unsophisticated ignorance on the outskirts of every complicated issue. It's a normal reaction to ridicule what you don't understand, until you develop ways to see beyond your own base emotions. The things that used to trigger laughter become tempered with experience. It would be hard to laugh at an ice skater falling on his keister like you did when you were a teenager if later in life you watched someone drown after falling through a hole in the ice.

I disagree with all of that. What you deem true is personal to you, and science can't help you determine if you're in a matrix simulation or not, so reality is also a personal perspective. Truth and reality are philosophical topics, not objective science. That doesn't mean philosophy isn't valuable, but the OP is asking questions about quantum physics, so it's important to establish the proper methodology. Truth and reality are subjective, and science avoids them wherever possible.

! Moderator Note Come up with a better, less offensive title when you open the next thread on this subject.

The reason is because you have a hazy grasp of the science involved, but a much clearer grasp of computers and electronics, and you see a pattern emerging that seems to make the science make more sense to you. You're trying to force that pattern on nature thinking it's a revelation of sorts, because you're human, you love patterns, and you hate not knowing things. It's OK, but it's not science. Again, I would advise you to stop using subjective terms like "reality". All we can know is what we observe in nature. We can't know if this is "reality" in the way you're using the term. Nature and the natural world are what we have access to, and that's what science measures and tests. You're putting too much importance in the patterns you see with regards to this thought experiment.

I thought you were asking questions? It's not about offense, you're being civil enough. The moderator notes are sort of like having a traffic cop point you in the right direction (so questioning them is pointless, not offensive). It's obvious you've thought about this a lot, but not in a structured, formal way. There are a LOT of popular science references in your opening post, so when you posted in a hard science section, it had to be moved. So do you have a point with your comparison to a transistor? Are you asking what would happen to the space if all particles were somehow removed from it, and none allowed to re-enter?

If you wanted this to be about physics, you shouldn't use the word "reality". Hard physics observes "nature". Reality is too much like "Truth", far too subjective to be trustworthy. As for the comparison to a transistor, what of it? Are you suggesting a similarity is more than that? As a moderator enforcing the site's rules, swansont is just doing what the owners ask of him. Come tomorrow morning though, Dr Swanson is off to work as a professional atomic physicist. Your time might be better spent asking more questions instead of telling him what physics really is.

! Moderator Note We've found it's better to have a single discussion thread we can move around if needs be, rather than starting multiple discussions in different sub-fora. I've hidden the one in Ecology & the Environment.

My definition of "run" says he/she has to have at least two legs, which implies mass, but otherwise he/she sounds brilliant.

Is she a dog?

I don't know what morals or nationality have to do with the point of mine you quoted. You really seem to have an agenda with this one, like you're working from a script and not really reading replies. Something that makes another person laugh is not necessarily a joke, just as putting a frame around your napkin drawing doesn't necessarily make it a painting. Just because a few people laugh at something, that doesn't make it funny, and that's what a joke really needs. To me, being funny is like singing, and a joke is an artistic expression of being funny the way a song is an artistic expression of singing. The lines are pretty clear between what is truly funny or satirical and what purposely dances off into the shocking, offensive, or absurd. I think your view of humor is immature, and lacks subtlety and depth. It seems based on something ugly, something that delights in offending for its own sake, and for me that destroys any art that might be appreciated. Slapstick and shock tactics can be fun, but it's a junk food comedy diet, and many people work hard to develop more sophisticated tastes. Strange posted a great one in the Jokes section recently that fits all my requirements, and he did it in an off-hand way that made it like finding a twenty in an old coat pocket. A woman walks into a bar and asks the barman for a Double Entendre. So he gives her one.

! Moderator Note No more of this. Whatever place you were arguing before, here we attack ideas, not people. You will remain civil while you're here, or you can't stay. Don't bother responding to this, just obey the rules, please. And it's "suit", not "suite".

Another example from that era was littering. Lady Bird Johnson as FLOTUS helped push the Keep America Beautiful campaign, and for a generation people changed the way they looked at trash and their environment. I was in grade school then, and I'm still appalled when I see someone littering in public.

I think it's funny, but not for the reasons you listed in your OP. I don't agree with any of that. Saying something that will make a person laugh doesn't make it a joke.

! Moderator Note We need some evidence here from the OP, something that can be discussed rationally, or some kind of prediction that's testable, in order for this to stay open in the Speculations section. This is not the place for guesswork.

The addition of the word "merely" makes this sentence untrue. Remove it, and you have a statement backed by hard evidence, worthy of being reported. Nothing else you've suggested has that kind of trustworthy backing.

Apply that to gravity and black holes are unfairly discalculated against.

Iirc, anything over $6350 will be taxed, but it would have to be a lot over to make it worth it for the dependent to claim their own exemption. Raider's folks get thousands in credit for him, but he'd probably only get hundreds back on a part-time salary refund.

15,000 posts, you should have said something, we could have done a GoFundMe or something.

Truly the only orange cracker you can trust.