Dekan

This is intriguing. The use of "pressure" in the clue, instantly evokes "BAR " - the unit of pressure. And G. O .D is only one letter short of GOLD. So one's thoughts are ineluctably led to "GOLD BAR". Which is, obviously, valuable. However, the clue says - "all valuable" . Thus implying more than one valuable entity in the code G. O. D. Could these be GOLD, OIL, DOLLARS? To support this suggestion, both Oil and Dollars frequently come under pressure, market- pricewise. Bar Gold - which is ABLE to keep its value more reliably. Am I on the right track?

Well, I'd rather omit all the work-creating ingredients and just buy the hygienically-packed supermarket bread. It's much easier. I mean, if you want some beef, do you go out and prowl anxiously around the countryside looking for a cow, so you can attempt to attack it, and stab or bludgeon it to death? That's what our Stone-Age ancestors had to do. Whereas these days, we just calmly open a tin of corned beef from the supermarket. Seems like a wonderful advance to me. But then, some people never appreciate what they've got.

Quantum Mechanics is called "Mechanics", because it works. But nobody understands why it does. This is possibly like "Evolution". Nobody understands why a bacterium should evolve into a human brain.

Would you really? They'd be quite indigestible. Admit it - you buy loaves of sliced white bread from Walmart. And so you should, as a citizen of 21st century America. Don't be ashamed!

That's right. Those who agree with the consensus, get plus-points, for being compliant. What else would you expect? People like to be accepted, and made welcome. They want to conform, and fit in. It's human nature. So, when posting on these forums, you should never, on any account, deny this: That changes in the Earth's climate are driven by man-made carbon emissions. (Actually, even as I typed that, I couldn't help laughing!) But the laughter doesn't matter.. Just agree with this view, and you'll be OK, and get an easy ride.

If you couldn't get processed foods from a supermarket, what would you do? Grow your own wheat in your back-garden, thresh it, winnow it, and laboriously grind it with a millstone into flour, then use a wood-fuelled oven to bake it into bread? That's a lot of hard work. Who really wants to do that? In past ages, we had no choice - we had to do it. But nowadays, with modern civilisation and Science, we can just drive our car to the supermarket, pick a sliced-loaf from the shelf, and take it home. Some people don't appreciate how lucky they are, to be living in the 21st century.

Perhaps all philosophers should be required to set out their thoughts, in strictly short posts. That would be a great relief.

Thanks Ophiolite. I think, what's wrong here - as I already said - is this word "selection". It implies conscious choice.

But how can we know what's "utter nonsense"? We can never be sure. For example, here's a quote from Arthur C Clarke's book "Profiles of the Future" . I know it's probably been done before, but's it's very good: "Suppose you went to any scientist in the late nineteenth century, and told him: "Here are two pieces of a substance called Uranium-235. If you hold them apart, nothing will happen. But if you bring them together suddenly - you will release as much energy as you could obtain from burning ten thousand tons of coal". No matter how far-sighted and imaginative he might be, your pre-twentieth-century scientist would have said "What utter nonsense!" He could have told you exactly why it was nonsense: "Energy cannot be created out of nowhere. It has to come from chemical reactions, electrical batteries, compressed gas, spinning flywheels, or some other clearly defined source. All such sources are ruled out in this case - and even if they were not, the energy output you mention is absurd - it's more than a million times that available from the most powerful chemical reaction!" Of course that was in the 19th Century. Nowadays we've progressed. In Physics, you can entertain anything. Only theories that question "Man-Made Global Warming" are regarded as nonsense.

Could you clarify that Strange, because it seems to me, that favourable traits aren't "selected" or "chosen" - they just "happen". And if the trait "happens" to cause an organism to produce more offspring, then the organisms that possess this trait, reproduce more. So they get more common. It's just simple maths. What's this "Nature" thing that's selecting them?

Suppose we were exceptionally intelligent dolphins. Would we know what a lateral "horizon" was? Probably not. Because when we looked laterally, we wouldn't see a horizon. The lateral, sideways, view, would be too dim and constricted by coral reefs, marine outgrowths and stuff. But - if we looked upwards, towards the surface of the sea - wouldn't we then see a clear, flat, plane horizon - ie, the dividing line between sea and atmosphere?

I think the term "Natural Selection" is not good. It tends to causes confusion. Because of the word "Selection". This is a noun derived from the verb to "select". And the primary meaning of "select" is: "Carefully choose as being the best or most suitable". At least, that's the Concise Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word. Obviously, we shouldn't attach a superstitious value to dictionary definitions! But such definitions, do show how words are generally interpreted. These interpretations can guide, or lead, our thoughts. Thus, our thoughts tend to be lead, by the word "Selection" - towards this idea: That there's some kind of "choosing" going on. Which seems to imply a conscious entity, to do the "choosing". Hence, God? Would it be scientifically better, if the term " Natural Selection", were replaced by a more neutral term. Such as "Natural Result". Or "Natural Outcome"?

Religion was a first attempt, to explain the Universe. Science explains it better. So modern people like Science. They don't want Religion.

Thanks MonDie, I had a look at the link you kindly provided, but couldn't understand it very well, that's my fault. I think probably that war-games attract young people most. When I was young, I used to be fascinated by books about nuclear war. But now I'm older, I don't like the books so much. I don't like the waste of material they describe. Not so much the waste of human lives, but the loss of cities.

How many posters on here actually play "war-games" videos? I've never played one. Because they're primitive, and repulsive. Like a retrogression to the jungle. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone here on Science Forums admits to playing such things. I thought that on Science Forums, we'd be more interested in Science, than in fantasies about killing each other.

As always, your paintings are well worth looking at. They show valuable insights. The insights might be thought, by be some people, to be Freudian. Like for example, in your sailing-boat pictures. A Freudian psychologist might interpret them like this: 1. The picture on the left, shows a boat thrusting ahead, under full sail. The sails are proudly erect. They're propelling a big hull. Which has an engorged prow. Like the head of an erect phallus. From the prow, we see bright spray and spume emitted. Obviously, orgasm is occurring. 2. The picture on the right, shows the boat sadly going back. Its sails are no longer taut and erect. They're leaning over, or drooping. The sea has become darker. Such darkness represents the post-coital depression. And note this - the boat has a white coating, at hull level. Which may portray the seminal fluid? I know that my interpretation of the picture, might not be what you had in mind. But good art, such as you produce, gives rise to many interpretations. That's why it's interesting.

Thanks Swansont, I looked at the links you kindly provided. They certainly show that present-day "theories" of Physics, are very difficult to understand.

Thanks Swansont. How "large" does the separation have to be? Suppose the separation between the slits is actually smaller than the wavelength of light. Would that create a kind of "second order" diffraction effect?

Yes, I think your claim is right. Philosophers didn't invent the scientific method. More likely - they actually resisted it. Because they didn't like the plain exactitude of Science. As an example - didn't one of them dismiss Galileo's 1610 epochal "Star Messenger" book, with its painstaking scientific diagrams of movements of Jupiter's satellites - by this snooty comment: "A dry discourse, devoid of all philosophy" As for intellectual clarity, I've always found more far more clarity in books written by scientists, than by philosophers. The philosophers were worthy in their time. Like in Ancient Greece. In those days, they deserved respect. Because they "loved wisdom", at a time when most people didn't. So the philosophers shouldn't be despised. But their "wisdom" didn't go very far. These days it's been replaced by modern Science, which is much better. I think we should thank the philosophers for some of their past efforts. And bid them adieu.

We seem to be relying here, on a distinction between "one-slit" and "double-slit". But when exactly does "one-slit" become distinctly a "double slit"? The distinction is taken as self-evident in most experiments. Because the experiments seem to employ two widely-separated slits. Say for example, two 1-mm slits. Separated by a gap of 10mm. This gap is big enough, to make the slits clearly two separate entities. So suppose we start the experiment with a single entity - a 1mm slit. And start firing electrons through it. Well, it's just a "single-slit" . So we see "diffraction", but no "interference", yes? So far, so good But now suppose something unexpected happens - an errant spider lands on top of the slit. And the spider descends downwards. Spinning a thread of the finest micrometer-thin silk as it goes. So when the spider gets to the bottom of the slit - the slit has been vertically bisected by the spider's thread. My question is - has this turned the slit into a "double slit"? And will it therefore produce "interference" patterns?

Yes- but isn't that dangerous? The big Venusian microbial clouds could leave their home planet, and expand into space. They might come to Earth and invade us. They'd have rich pickings here - 7,000,000,000 warm human bodies to infest and replicate in. Before you know it, we'd all be taken over, and just be zombie hosts for Venusian microbes. Dare we take such a risk? Maybe we should send a 1,000 megaton nuclear-armed space-probe to Venus. To nuke the planet from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

I don't care which it is, the word "Philosophy" makes me feel sick. Can't we get rid of it, and replace it by "Science" and "Engineering". These words feel good and wholesome. I don't want "Philosophy", it sounds repulsive

If someone posting here was a Doctor of Philosophy, would their posts be better than everyone else's, or just the same

It does seem surprising that Venus is so horribly extreme in its conditions. Given that it has about the same mass and diameter as Earth, it might have been a hotter, but life-bearing, version of Earth. When it turned out to be such an absolute hell-hole, that was of the biggest disappointments, and shocks, of the Space Age. As regards Venusian sulphur-based life forms, that's possible, I suppose. But they'll only be bacteria. So forget 'em. Who wants to have intelligent discourse with a germ?

That's true. Consider this: Suppose you have some money, say ten dollars. Then you stuff the bills under your mattress, and leave them there for ten years. Then at the end of the ten years, you lift up the mattress, to take a look. There's still only ten bills there. They haven't replicated at all. You still have the same "Capital". Whereas, it would be different if you'd put the bills into an economic entity. Such as a business, or even a savings bank. Your capital would be at least 11 dollars, or more. That's because , as cicero wisely suggests, money is not a mere dead store of value. Rather, it's a living seed of "Capital" - which can grow and replicate - through economic organisms like business.