Dekan

John's experiment does raise an interesting issue - the degree of credibility. Other posters have touched on this. For example, it's hard to believe there's really an elephant in the garden. But we couldn't entirely rule it out. There might be circumstances where it was conceivable. The chances would be close to 0 - but not entirely 0. So it wouldn't be entirely irrational for someone to give it credence. However, suppose the proposition was this: President Obama is in the garden every night, having exuberant gay sex with a sullen Mitt Romney. Surely no-one could entertain such a belief? (Or rather, they might entertain the thought, but give it zero credibility) The point is - aren't some things at least faintly believable, whereas others absolutely aren't?

We'd be doing all this, if it weren't for US Politicians.

Thanks y, I looked the two links you kindly provided. Frankly, I'd dismiss the whole subject as complete gibberish - except that nuclear bombs exist, and have been detonated, so there must be something in it!

Isn't matter supposed to be made of "quarks". How many quarks are there in an electron? This is worse than epicycles!

That's true - Nature is satisfying - all her circles and spheres have a exact ratio of circumference to radius. Otherwise - there'd be gaps. Problems only arise when we try to measure the ratio. Then our Math fails to give an exact answer. This failure shows that our present-day Math doesn't provide a complete explanation of Nature. Of course we can prevaricate, and try to explain it away. By inventing terms like "pi", and "irrational numbers". But that doesn't sound very convincing. Surely the fault lies in our Math, not in Nature. Perhaps we'll advance to better Maths in the future!

I've studied the link you kindly provided - thanks! But the link does show, that Standard Index has decimal points in it. Plus signs like "x" - and small superscript numbers like "6". Can these "x"'s and superscripts be written in binary computer code - bearing in mind that computers can only recognise (or as Imatfaal previously clarified, "process") - 0's and 1's - nothing more! What would a Standard Index look like in Binary? This is what I find hard to understand. If computers can do every mathematical calculation using just "0" and "1", why aren't we doing it too?

So with a binary number, it's possible to specify the location of the "binary point", using just the binary numerals - 0 and 1 Could the same be done with a decimal number - ie, specify the location of the "decimal point", using just the decimal numerals 0 to 9. If so, do we really need the non-numeral symbol - the "."?

Thanks imatfaal. I notice that you say the binary point "could" serve to distinguish halves, quarters, eighths etc. I understand that. It would certainly be useful to humans. But what about computers, which operate on binary numbers. Doesn't this binary system mean that computers, at their deepest working level, can only recognise two entities - either "0" or "1". Is that true? If it is, how can they be made to recognise a third entity - the Point , or "."? Or don't they need it?

You're right that they're linked. But perhaps Philosophy lacks the precision of Science. As might be demonstrated by your interesting "apples" example. This asks "How many apples make a heap?" Surely Science would quickly resolve this - by introducing a precise definition of the term "heap". Defining it, perhaps, as - "a group of 10 or more objects". Under this definition, 10 apples would constitute a "heap", but 9 apples wouldn't. Wouldn't that sort it out, and end any further philosophical debate?

Just to pursue this a little further: In base-10 decimal maths, we find that the "decimal point" helps - for example, it distinguishes 3.14 from 31.4 But suppose instead we used base-2 maths. So all our numbers were strings of 0's and 1's. Like 100111010. In a base-2, binary system - would a "binary point" be of any help - or even of any meaning?

I think I see what you're getting at. In your example "3.14159.....", each numeral represents either a "1", or a multiple of "1" - as "3" represents "1"+"1"+"1". All units. No numeral represents a subdivision, of the unit "1". The decimal point may give an impression of such subdivision. But in reality, there are only whole units in any number. For example, the number "0.14" means 14 units out of 100 units. Always the basic units are "1"s, and quite indivisible. This would be clearer, if we used fractional notation and wrote "14/100" The "damn dot" confuses our thoughts! (Convenient though it may be for succinct arithmetic)

A good question. It strikes at the heart of Mathematics as applied to Nature. Let's consider: When we look at Nature, we find that all natural objects are made of round things. Thus the Earth is round, and it orbits round the Sun, which is also round. And the Earth and Sun are supposed to be made of smaller particles, like protons, electrons and neutrons - which are also round. "Roundness" seems a basic property of Nature. However - what happens when we try to investigate this Natural "roundness" by applying our Mathematics to it. Even if we use the simplest example of "roundness" - a perfect circle - we find notoriously, that Maths cannot provide an exact solution to such a basic question as - what's the ratio between the circle's radius and its circumference. All the Maths comes up with, is the dispiriting and fundamentally unsatisfactory series : 3.14159265358979323...... and so on to infinity. Doesn't this point to some kind of disconnect between Maths and Nature?

Very interesting diagram. Note that it shows "Cardiac pumping" in the middle. That implies that a central, active, "cardiac pump", or "heart", must be there, in order to transfer oxygen to tissue. But is that necessarily true. I'm thinking of insects - they don't have an active internal "heart" organ. They just passively absorb oxygen, through holes in the outer surface of their bodies. The vital gas is then diffused through the insect, so supplying the energy needed to built new insect tissue. This system clearly works for insects. And it follows the similar principle used by plants, which also don't have "hearts". Like insects, the plants flourish by passively absorbing and diffusing the oxygen needed to build new plant tissue. So if plants and insects can use this quiet, efficient system, surely mammals and humans could do the same. Without the extravagance of big clunky lungs and dodgy "beating hearts". Does it take too much imagination, to envision a credible "HOMEWORLD", where intelligent creatures have evolved to breathe through their skins?

Thanks Royston. Your mention of the term "Pure Velocity" gets at what I was thinking of earlier. "Velocity" isn't a physical thing, it's just a fancy word for "speed"". Just as "space" is a fancy word for the separation, or "gap" between objects. So instead of saying - 1. "The Galaxies are moving further apart, because the space between them is expanding" Couldn't we say : 2. "The Galaxies are moving further apart, because the gap between them is expanding" Would this result in earnest discussions on the properties of "gap"? On your point aboint about QM working, in the sense of giving the right answers, do you espouse the view: "Never mind whether it makes sense, just shut up and calculate!"

Thanks Swansont - this is worse than Medieval Theology! Couldn't we just stay with Newton, and tweak the equations a bit?

The Horn is still used in Heaven. Apparently Gabriel will blow it at the Last Trump. He's a traditionalist. No saxophones.

Human thoughts are generated by human brains. And human brains are basically the same. So they bring up the same basic thoughts. Such as: 1. Sex 2. Fear 3. Regret If you doubt this, just consider your own nocturnal dreams! Aren't these dreams the manifestation of a human "collective subconscious"?

If energy isn't a "thing in itself", but just a "property", then couldn't there be just one kind of basic particle. With different amounts of energy, Which make the particle look like different things. As for example, ice, water, and steam, look quite different. But they're really only frozen, tepid or hot dihydrogen oxide. This example is banal. But I'm a bit confused by your claim that energy is a "property".

What is it a property of?

That's the point! I'd like to see a precise mathematical calculation of when it happens. I suspect no calculation can be supplied, because the idea of "Space" expanding doesn't make sense. "Space" isn't a real thing. It's just a sexy word for the separation between objects. Suppose someone told you that there's an actual thing called "Separation", and it keeps expanding. What would you say?

Yes, straight sex is merely Nature's way to induce genetic reproduction. It's quite demeaning really. When a man gets into bed with a woman, both participants are Nature's puppets. Lured by present pleasure, into the future distress of coping with squalling babies. Which no man really wants. The woman might. But the whole business seems such an obvious genetic ploy on Nature's part. Whereas, when a man gets into bed with a man - Nature is transcended - and gloriously outwitted! We say "Forget the ruddy genes, whey-hey, let's just have some fun!"

Thanks Zapatos, very interesting post. The "distance" concept is what I'm struggling to understand. The general idea is that at short distances, "gravity" is stronger than "expansion". Is that right? If so, Ok - but when does a distance stop being short? To illustrate this question, may I use your example of two stand-alone galaxies. Such as our Milky Way and Andromeda's M31. These are some 2+ million light-years apart at present, and are getting closer - drawn towards each other by the inward pull of gravity. But what if the distance between them, was 4 million light-years, or 10, or 100. Presumably at some point, inward "gravity" would get too weak. Then outward "expansion" would take over. So the two galaxies would start moving away from each other. I suppose my basic question is this: is it possible to calculate at what distance "Gravity" is overcome by "Expansion"?

Can we define exactly what a "supercluster" is. How many galaxies must it contain in order to qualify as a "supercluster". Could we say, for example, that a cluster of a mere 9 galaxies isn't enough - in this puny agglomeration, gravity is too strong. The G-Force overcomes the Dark Energy. But everything would be different if you added 1 more galaxy, so it became a 10-galaxy cluster. This would promote it to "Supercluster" status. It would then kick the contemptible G-Force away, and start operating under Major League "Dark Energy" rules. This theory seems kind of implausible. Doesn't it place too much dependence on the meaning of human-invented words like "Supercluster"?

The OP might have a valid and valuable idea. Perhaps the human brain does work as a kind of lens. Like a magnifying lens, or "burning glass". In such a lens, the glass itself, doesn't do anything. It's just a lump of silica. But what if you hold this silica lump up against the sun's rays. Then it serves to concentrate the solar rays. So they're focussed into a fierce hot point of solar energy. This energy can produce a dramatic effect at the focus. It will, for example, pop an ant into quick combustion (I speak for all childhood crouching lens-wielding formicides). The point is that the glass lens by itself, doesn't generate any energy. It just picks up and concentrates energy from an external source. Now A-wal refers to an aerial, or antenna. This seems quite a good analogy. Like in a radio-set. The radio has to pick up a signal coming in from outside, before it will function. The radio can't do anything by itself - it's just a box of transistors. Just as a lens is just a lump of glass. They both need external energy in order to function. Then they can do wondrous things. And it might be the same with the human brain. It's just a lump of organic mush, in that brilliant and memorable phrase. Can it really produce the wonders of human thought, without any external input?

But when you're on the bike, you've got the added weight of a metal contraption under your lower body. So your body has to fight against gravity to stabilize the extra weight. Otherwise it would make you fall over. That must make you work harder surely?