MigL

Some misunderstand quantum particle behaviour, thinking that they are waves in some circumstances, and particles in other circumstances. They are not ! What they are, in 'reality', we're not really sure. But we have two models, one which treats them as waves, and the other which treats them as particles. If we set up an experiment to test our wave model, we detect wave behaviour from the quantum particles; if, on the other hand, we set up an experiment to test the particle model we find quantum particles to exhibit particle behaviour. All we are confirming is one or the other particular model, and its area of applicability. We are NOT confirming any underlying 'reality'.

Your story, while very cute, is not similar at all. Tell me exactly what 'ze' means? Is it a country of origin ? France maybe ? It's easy to make claims. Proving them wrong is just as easy at 2:57 0f the following video ... Sorry about the idiotic title; it was the first one that came up in my search. It is everyone's right to have their OWN world view, and not have someone else's forced on them. Doing it voluntarily is a courtesy.

Well, at least you upped the number ( by one ) from the number of transgendered athletes competing in professional sports 😄 .

That depends strongly on your definition of 'better'. Without any counterarguments, I see that the race to the top of the 'holier than thou' heap has intensified; there is no need to consider other opinions, and viewpoints, in an echo chamber. Trying to make life better for the oppressed and disadvantaged is a valid and noble cause; appeasing nutbars who want to be 'fashionable' and refer to themselves as 'thou' ( the point Koti was trying to make ), or simply delusional people with mental health issues ( we seem to have growing numbers ) is NOT. Nor is it 'better'.

If you went in your back yard, and made some measurements, you would probably come to the conclusion that the Earth was flat. The extremely large radius oof the curvature makes it 'appear' so.

The original 'goalposts' were 'vague and incomplete', disregarding the rubbish about infinity. I'm not sure as to the meaning of vague in this context, but incomplete certainly applies. Big Bang Theory is based on GR, which we know to be incomplete, as it doesn't apply to all circumstances. And 'how matter came about', at the expense of anti-matter, is certainly a gaping hole in the theory, along with some of the other unknowns mentioned by Mistermack. Suggesting Big Bang Theory is complete ( or that any model can be complete ) implies a lack of understanding of the theory Just saying ...

Huh ?

From your point of view, obviously not. But the point of discussion is to explore alternate viewpoints. As you don't want to do that, or simply don't care, you are preaching. We have rules against that.

So you are not here for a discussion, just to preach ? I capitalize everyone's name; the 'y' was a slip-up. My bad. No I'm not fine with civil disobedience. And I wasn't last year either, when all of you were with the protests and riots. ( and I implied as such in my post ) Most of the time we can't tell if you're posting drunk or sober. ( sorry bud, I couldn't resist 😄 . And this thread is definitely lacking in humor )

I'm fully aware of Koty's motives ( to prove a point ), but I would still like an answer.

I think you put too much emphasis on labels, and trying to characterize people according to those labels. People don't live their lives according to one specific philosophy, rather, they pick and choose differing philosophies to apply to different aspects of their lives.

Excuse the absence; was busy all day. How else would you protest what you believe to be unjust treatment of your sdaughter ( son ) ? I can point you to plenty of threads where members of this forum have advocated breaking the law to protest unjust treatment. And you only think those news outlets distort stories because they have a different agenda than yours. Was this team composed of one or more clinical psychologists ? Tell me again ... What is Jordan Peterson ? Is he not a clinical psychologist and a Psychology professor at one of Canada's most prestigious shools ? Or is he 'out of his area of expertise' simply because you don't agree with his views ( but you agree with the school psychologist, and others, who recommended the girl's gender transition ) ? I have one final question for everyone... Everyone has claimed that it's a courtesy to use someone's preferred pronoun. So, if I don't address Koti as 'thou', am I simply discourtious, or am I a bigot ? ( bigotry carries a lot more baggage, and consequences, than being rude )

Yeah, someone is going to have to do a better job of explaining why that example does not apply. Here is a man, with a 5th grade daughter ( not an adult ) who has certain ideas ( whether right or wrong ) about gender reassignment. This is happening to his minor daughter ( son ) without his consent He is voicing those opinions because his concerns, about his daughter ( or son ) are not being addressed, and is being muzzled, by the law ( OK, not Bill C-16, granted ) from voicing those opinions. And you guys said it would never get to that !

Horseshit ! ( as INow would say ) I was asked for an instance where a person has been prosecuted under canadian law, for his/her views on gender transitioning. I provided one . Does any media outlet, conservative or liberal, deny that he is being prosecuted, and jailed ? Let's try to keep the goalposts in one place, gentlemen.

That's pretty low, INow, making accusations after people have 'left the room'. Simply ask, and you shall receive ... Canadian Father Jailed for Speaking Out about Trans-Identifying Child (city-journal.org)

No But I can be convinced otherwise with evidence.

Because I like to argue, and get under people's skin ... No seriously, you go through life and you see things in a certain, limited perspective. Sometimes you become 'blinded' to other perspectives, so it's a good idea to open up to differing points of view, and maybe open others eyes as to your point of view. We don't know what we're missing until it is pointed out to us. But mostly, it is because I like science, and learning in general. I have learned quite a bit here, and I like to think I've also disseminated some knowledge.

Can't speak for Koti, but why should I be offended if someone mis-pronouns me ? As I've previously stated, language is a tool that is used to translate one person's ideas to a second person. They are the one person's ideas; why should the second person have any input, or be offended by, the way the one person chooses to express his/her ideas ? A book does the same thing with written words. Should you be upset or offended, that the book doesn't mention you specifically, or your preferred pronoun ? Oh wait! Silly me, I forgot, the new PC pastime is re-writing classic books, because the language used at the time, offends 'modern' sensibilities.

Not about being offensive ??? How many people have lost their jobs, been severely financially impacted, or had to defend themselves against charges that someone brought up because they were offended that they did not use their preferred pronoun ? ( go back about 4 pages; theVat posted one such example, where there was no discrimination, simply offense taken ) Like I said in a previous post ... If I said about gays or transexuals what Peterkin said about priests, that 'they deress funny and God only knows ( he does ! ) what they get up to in the closet', what would your response be ? I'm willing to bet you would find that offensive. So why the double standard. Are we allowed to offend some groups, but not others ? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy ? ( I forget who asked, this thread moves way too fast to keep up )

Beliefs have no place in science.

Glad to be here, buddy.

Shouldn't I be the one to make that decision. Or are you going to be 'offended' for me, INow ? I don't care f you use they or he, as long as the meaning is clear and not ambiguous ( I would think Clint Eastwood clearly looks like a he ). Language is not a 'weapon', it is a tool that translates ideas to other people. And ideas cannot be prohibited, only actions can.

Well let me see if I can point out at least one of them ... IIRC, Peterkin knows that Religious beliefs are one of the protected areas under Bill C-16, yet he has no problem being offensive to Catholics, by making fun of priests, and implying they all get up to bad behaviour. If I had said that about gay/ trans/women or any of his favored causes, he would have been all over me. ( sort of like when a mosque or synagogue gets vandalized, and there's lots of hand-wringing/political visits and posturing, but about 50 Cathlic churches are burned down in Western Canada, in the wake of the residential school mass graves, and most don't even make the news ) Seems some people are more interested in appearing politically correct for the 'cause celebre', and wearing their 'offense' on their sleeve than actually protecting people's feelings. Apparently they want to pick and choose which areas they apply their politically correct views to. Well I wouldn't go that far, but he is certainly a hypocrite.

And I would argue that's courtesy, and optional; It should not be law. I should not be forced to legitimize anyone else's subjective beliefs. ( last time that was tried was the Spanish Inquisition )

I would have to agree with Joigus and Swansont. 'Classical entanglement' is better ( and more accurately ) known as a correlation