Phi for All

We have this need, as modern humans, to be better. Better lives for our children, better conditions to live in, better tools, better knowledge, better opportunities. But also a better car than her, a better home than him. Better way of life than these guys, better way of running things than those guys. What we believe in is better than what they believe in. We seem to need to justify what we do by classifying it as better than what others do. And if there's a chance others might jeopardize your better life, war will make them stop. We seem to be unable to make the majority see that peace is better than war. Many wealthy people become wealthier when there's war, perhaps we need to show that those people aren't better at all. I've long believed that when business is down for an arms dealer, their marketing departments just send some free weapons to the craziest people on the planet. It's what you do when sales are down in most businesses.

This must be where I've gone wrong. I didn't know it was as simple as refusing to "prescribe" because of unpleasantness. This seems MUCH easier than using reason, AND I get to make up something pleasant and then state this is the way it is for everybody. It's almost like I'm a god myself!

OK, so bad assumption that it's illegal to air dry. And in some climates, it's not practical. I hang dry my clothes indoors, since I can't count on it not raining, I'm not always home to bring them indoors if it does. Perhaps line drying isn't ALWAYS best. I think you're being a bit ridiculous here. Of course it's a waste of money to run a single garment through the dryer. And my wife and daughter won't let me put bras in there. Lingerie is hand washed and dried indoors. I fold underwear, so I want it dry first, to avoid mildew.

There's no evidence for an alternate reality. Anything you might suspect might be a property of it can't be checked, can't be falsified. You'd just be guessing, and that's not scientific. I don't know what "truths" you're talking about. Personally, I think truth, especially Truth, is entirely subjective. It's not as interesting as many people think it is. It's often used to justify a certain set of beliefs. It's almost never something universal to everyone. I don't know where this comes from, but I totally disagree with the first part. I can ask lots of questions that have no answer, so I fail to see anything "profound" about that. It sounds like one of those saying that's supposed to be "deep", but is just impractical. Science actually doesn't look for "answers", we look for the best supported explanations. That way, we always keep looking for better ones, something we probably wouldn't do if we thought we knew the "answer".

Personally, I think it's stupid to pretend every idea/issue is equally important. I offer modern media journalism as supportive evidence.

The bolded part makes this a loaded question. I don't believe everything humans create is more harmful than good. Can you support this statement, or were you exaggerating when you said "everything"? I do note a correlation between this stance and those who entertain conspiracies like chemtrails on a regular basis. It seems that, if you think of humans as unnatural, more-harmful-than-good creatures, you'll believe they're capable of any atrocity you can dream up.

There was a post before Physica's that did the digging, but after getting responses, the poster erased what they had written.

You say you want to be able to do outdoor activities in high humidity, but which activities are you talking about? You'll be wearing a jacket made heavier by batteries and fans, how active can you be? Will you be doing sports like jogging? You don't want something too restrictive when you want to be active. Winters can be cold where I am, but if I dress too warmly I can't bend over to put my snowshoes on. This would work for me. If I get a breeze on my face, it distracts me from how hot the rest of me is. I liked the evaporative cooling hat concept on that same Red Cross page, Acme. I think that would work best, but the fan would give me immediate relief.

! Moderator Note We're going to do it this way, this time. All other posts will be trashed. This thread has gone round in circles too long, we need resolution.

Those of us with more wisdom and experience use the second one.

Five year old necromanced thread. Response unlikely.

I keep thinking about an object (any object, but let's use a bucket of water), which you and I both examine independently. There is more data about that object than you or I alone could turn into usable information, that others could glean more or less from. Also, there are data that you could turn into information that I could not, and vice-versa, just because of the differences in our knowledge. Information seems to be subjective, but I suppose physical material can be that way. A bucket of water could be hydration for you, and a counterweight for me, and an alarm clock for someone else. I don't see what classifying information as a physical entity does to make anything clearer, better, or more understandable.

This was your answer to the question, "What properties does information have?" So not an answer. You're pretty far out in the weeds on this one (for a mainstream physics section), so I think you really need to clarify what you mean by information. Do you make a distinction between data and information? To me, data is out there, waiting to be turned into information. If data is used to inform someone of something, then it becomes information. Information requires something or someone to be informed, imo. And information seems to be subjective. An object might contain a million bits of data, but only have a hundred bits of information useful for me. And I agree with Strange, you're confusing the issue with your references to "evolution". I know this isn't the biology section, but "evolve" has specific meanings, none of which you need here. As Strange mentions, that things change is hardly a great insight. I don't think you can turn information into a material. As StringJunky mentions, it's a property of something else, which may or may not be a physical entity itself. I can't come over and borrow a cup of information. I wonder if it isn't an emergent property as well, small bits of data combining to make something bigger that has informational value the data alone doesn't have. As far as information changing with time, I think this is absolutely true, because the entity being informed is changing with time as well. However, I think the data remains the same. Only how the data is interpreted as information changes.

Why?

There are so many spectacular elements in the story. If even one of them was actually true, I think it would be HUGE news reported around the world. If they were well documented, the unknown fabric the clothes were allegedly made from would make front page headlines (the rest could easily be faked). Occasionally you hear of things that "scientists can't identify", but when you dig deeper, you discover the only people who tried were a couple of guys in a lab who have no background in the area of science they were practicing. If someone truly had clothes made from a fabric that was completely unknown to science, it would be tangible evidence that no scientist could resist studying. And if you think about it, what does it really mean to have a fabric unknown to science? Is it from a plant never seen before, or is it from a superior synthetic process we never knew existed? Again, either one would be headline news. This guy says he's been doing this for almost forty years, and yet has no evidence he can present, apparently. I think that should tell you if it's worth your time searching.

It lacks documentation. "Appear out of thin air" is a subjective phrase. Does it mean, "Showed up one day and we didn't know where they came from", or does it mean, "Multiple eyewitnesses saw this person suddenly appear out of nowhere, like magic"? Or something else? Passports and other documents can be faked, especially if the country they come from doesn't exist. Who could check their authenticity? And why aren't copies of these documents accompanying the story? Why would anyone trying to convince others leave out that bit of supportive evidence? If I start speaking nonsense words, it will seem exactly like "no known language". Hebejeeb reepnop oompah figwan. And finally, why again would the writer who is trying to convince others NOT have these "clothes of no known fabric"? Why haven't we ever heard stories of a fabric that no scientist could identify?

! Moderator Note Let's make that a staff request. Discussion without learning is unproductive, and is inconsistent with our purpose.

Recently, we had to ban someone who was a good resource in certain areas, but who repeatedly refused to exercise civility in his posts. He knew his stuff, but if he couldn't make you understand what he meant, he threw up his hands pretty quickly and called you a crank. He couldn't break this habit in the years he was a member, even after being suspended for it. He just didn't think he had to be civil, because he was right. Don't say things that don't help. If someone is having trouble with a concept, the last thing they need is to be told how dumb they're being. Your attitude affects your behavior, which affects other's attitude and behavior. And if you can't force yourself to walk away without some flaming comment, you're going to get banned.

We're not going to discuss a former member when he's not here to defend himself. Suffice to say the first line of the OP is sufficient in this instance.

He had "an episode" that caused him to bleed (I was wrong, it's not clear it's a PTSD episode, just mentioned right after they said he'd reported in writing that he'd been diagnosed). It looked like he smeared some blood on the window in the door, like he wanted them to do something about it, but then he wouldn't talk to them about it. This is where reason breaks down for me. What was this "episode" like, was it frustration, deep sadness, violence? Was there more blood than we saw? What caused the blood? Was it something the guards needed to take away from him, or something in the room that needed to be fixed? Why did the blood signal the guards that they needed to suit up the riot squad to intervene with this prisoner who came in voluntarily? If they didn't know where the blood was coming from, and Brown wouldn't tell them, I can see the need to find out. But I find it hard to believe those guards were so concerned with the prisoner's bleeding that they'd pile on top of him and ignore his pleas for a breath. If that's true, they asphyxiated him because they were afraid he'd bleed to death on them.

I have to add this to my list of popularly misunderstood science. I know quite a few people who assume a synthetic compound MUST be inferior because it's copying something found "naturally", that it's "fake". I don't think the average person sees a laboratory as a way to refine and improve "natural" processes to obtain better results.

LOL! It's clear you don't understand puzzle folk. Enthusiasm is hard to keep burning when you douse it with cold water like this.

! Moderator Note This isn't mainstream, so it can't stay in a mainstream forum. I'd move it to Speculations, but there's really no discussion points. It's so full of wrong I can't even send it to the Lounge. Since it was obviously set up as flamebait, the Trash seems appropriate.

I didn't say you weren't contributing. I didn't say you don't have good angles. I said if you know it's going to take so long to understand something using your angles, might it not be better to approach the mainstream science head-on, and read the mainstream links provided? Know the box before trying to work outside it? I also said I don't think you're being skeptical, just stubborn. Skeptics don't trust an explanation until they've checked it out, but they DO check it out, and make a decision based on what they find. They don't ignore evidence, they actively search for it. A true skeptic doesn't remain that way for long, they either decide an explanation works or it doesn't, and move forward from there.

OK, so the problem is finding the gold chloride. And it sounds like the bacteria might take longer than a quick H2O2 bath, so even if you find some, there are easier ways to get the gold. How could I forget that strategy?! Probiotic gold sounds like it might have some health benefits. Cure your cancer, give you longer erections, and make you prettier too. One ring to rule them all....