Tom Mattson

A good place to start would be The Particle Adventure. Thumb through it until you get to "The Standard Model", and start paying attention there. This would be an impossible question to answer. Force carrying particles cannot be detected. Their existence is inferred from their effects (collisions, annihilations, and decays).

The predictions of SR (via the Lorentz transformation, hereafter LT) are not illusions of the mind, but rather how events actually happen. The numbers that you calculate from the LT are the spacetime coordinates of events as measured by rods and clocks local to the event. The numbers that you calculate do not describe the events as you see them. In order to make that prediction, you have to take into account the signal delays due to the finite propagation speed of light.

2--An inside and an outside. Seriously, there's more to that answer than a joke, because in 3D analytic geometry, we aren't so much interested in the number of sides of a polygon, or the limit in which an n-gon becomes a circle, as we are in the number of ways in which a surface is orientable. In the case of the sphere, we can orient it in 2 ways. One in which the normal vectors point outwards, and another in which they point inwards.

You're right: i2=-1 contains more information than does i=sqrt(-1). -1 (like all numbers) actually has two square roots: +i and -i. The part in red is where the mistake was made. MrL Jakiri's comment was right. I can do the exact same thing with real numbers. 2*(-2)=-4 sqrt(4)*sqrt(4)=-4 sqrt(16)=-4 4=-4 Ta-Daaaa!

The answer is 'i'. OK, how about this: 'i' is not an element of Z, as 35 is. 'i' is an element of C, as 35 also is.

Definitions don't "come from" other things. The Taylor expansion you speak of is a theorem, and the complex exponential relation you cited is a special case of that. It is not a definition.

Sorry, I haven't been around here in a while. Besides, I saw that someone helped you with this at Physics Forums. I don't know much about this myself. Are you still stuck?

What's this doing in the Number Theory Forum? Anywho... Calculus III typically has: *Vectors and curves in the plane *Vectors in space and solid analytic geometry *Functions of several variables (this is where you meet the partial derivative) *Multiple integration *Vector analysis (grad, div, curl, divergence theorem, stokes' theorem) *Intro to differential equations (if there is time)

Actually, it's up to the religious fanatics to prove the existence of the soul. I see no reason to believe in souls or spirits.

Hi, I'm not sure of what you're talking about, but if you could type out the expression for the potential I might be able to help. There are math symbols in the Smilies menu to the left when you reply. Click on "Get More".

You can start one at MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc. all for free. There are no pop-ups at the MSN forums. To get traffic, simply put a link to your forum in the signature line of all the forums you currently belong to, and post like a maniac.

This is utterly irrelevant. You just don't get it. This thread is about a thought experiment testing the materialist assumption that all of existence is material existence. The test is that if the exact physical state were duplicated, replicated, teleported, faxed, or whatever else you want to call it, that you would get a person with the exact same identity up till the point of duplication. No one gives a shit about the difference between teleportation and replication.

I am inclined towards materialism.

M-CaTZ, you are getting hung up on a trivial point here. It doesn't even matter whether or not it is appropriate to call this "teleportation". Call it "cloning" or even "faxing" if it makes you feel better, but the problem can still be discussed. Right-O. Obviously, this can't be settled by argumentation alone. The conclusion that blike reached is based on the materialist assumption that all states of existence are physical states. If that assumption is correct, then you would indeed have an identical mind with the same memories, disposition, etc. And if you made a duplicate without simply destroying the original, then the two would be identical right until the moment the duplicate sensed his new surroundings, because materialism also says that different stimuli result in different brain states.

My point is that you are after a degree that doesn't exist. One does not get a PhD in quantum mechanics, any more than one gets a PhD in classical mechanics. You have to choose from one of the areas offered by the school you go to, which are typically the areas I listed.

KH, You might want to do a little more looking into this. One does not get a degree in "quantum physics". Every physicist is an expert in quantum physics. The fields of concentration are typically broken down as follows: 1. String Theory 2. Quantum Cosmology (Loop Quantum Gravity) 2. Subatomic Physics 3. Nuclear Physics 4. Atomic Physics 5. Condensed Matter Physics/Optics 6. Astronomy/Astrophysics Of course there will be variances, but that's basically it. To get a PhD in physics, one typically has to take a full year of nonrelativistic QM, a semester of relativistic QM, and a semester or two of QFT.

That's an interesting take on it, because I do not consider it an argument for spontaneous complexity at all, let alone a subset of such arguments. Note that I have not argued for chemogenesis, I have argued against nonphysical minds. That would seem to weaken their case, because it leaves them less room to hide in the supernatural realm. We know that a mind that emerges from the distributed network in the brain can design things, but we have no evidence of a mind generated by a brain that can will things into existence. Or was god's body physically present to manufacture every atom that exists? Attaching a body with a brain to the designer seems to cause more problems for ID, not less.

You do not have to keep track of the motion. Indeed, your program is supposed to do that for you! I will start with the basic motion: The orbit of the body. After that, we can add rotation if you want. Also, I don't know if you want to include the effect of the rotating bodies bulging in the middle; that will make it more complicated. Anyway... As you are probably aware, the dynamical law governing the system is: (Sum)F=m(d2r/dt2) or, if you prefer torques: (Sum)T=I(d2(theta)/dt2) (sorry, don't know how to make Greek letters). In either case, this is a second order differential equation. That means you need two pieces of initial data, say, the initial position and initial velocity. You will need this information as a vector. In other words, you need all 3 components of the two pieces of information. Once you have that, you can set up the differential equation (you know the force: gravity) and have the computer solve.

Yet another unsupported derogatory comment from the troll. Miguel, I seriously doubt that you "realize" very much at all. My last post--the one you just quoted--was not an attempt to "show" you anything (except the silliness of bringing up Feynman, something many high school students would realize). It was a request for you to substantiate your baseless slurs against the posts I've made so far. Is it too much to ask for you to answer those questions? This is garbage. Especially coming from someone who admittedly supports ID as a matter of faith. OK, I'm going to restate my argument against ID, since you seem to have ignored it the first time. My argument against ID, as it appeared in this thread, is basically as follows: ID assumes there is a disembodied, super intelligence that is responsible for creating everything. This assumption is made by completely ignoring the Problem of Other Minds. Why do we think other minds exist? By observing behavior of other bodies. No one has ever observed a mind that is not connected to a body (specifically, a brain), and so the fundamental assumption of ID is pure speculation with no basis in observational data. Thus, I reject ID as groundless from an evidentiary point of view. My argument challenges the very basis of the ID theory: the existence of the Designer itself. Is it possible that you will address any of it, without simply shooting your mouth off about how irrational or hazy it is?

And I explained that I meant, "the picture of physical reality painted by our observations". What is so hazy about that?! What are you talking about? And what specifically do you find wrong with the statement: "There is no evidence of a mind without a brain." See, you offer absolutely no constructive feedback, which is why you come off sounding like a troll, to be honest. So far in this thread, the only remarks you have made to me are unsupported denunciations about the statements I've made. Anyone can do what you are doing. ??? You do realize that Feynman did no research in cognitive science, don't you? And you do realize that my statements in this thread have been about cognitive science, don't you?

Miguel, You are completely missing the point here, and dragging the thread way off topic. We don't need a comprehensive theory of reality to talk about intelligent design. You initially criticized my statement that a disembodied super-intelligence has "no basis in reality". My response was along the lines of, "OK, fair enough, what I meant was that it finds no support in our best evidence." That is a true statement, but you still thought it was irrational (although you did not give any reason for that). Why can't you just accept my clarification and move on from there? This is getting tiresome, not to mention boring.

I take the so-called relational view of time, namely that it (as well as space) is just a mode of existence of matter. We only came up with the concept of time because of observing motion, and this is most definitely not controlled by the mind. Someone touched on the difference between "time" and "the perception of time", and that is a key distinction to make. Put someone in an underground tunnel for a week (or some other partial sense depravation device) and he will completely lose track of time, because he has no reference to motion (namely, our motion about the Sun). That is, unless he is greatly skilled at saying "one Mississippi...two Mississippi..." at a regular beat, even while sleeping.

Exactly. All I meant by my statement is that there is nothing in the picture of reality painted by our best evidence to support the ID case. I can understand a person's urge to suggest that we are "designed". But why say it was purposeful? I see no reason to postulate that humanity was designed by anything other than natural forces, as rdjon noted. As far as ID goes, I don't have a problem with the "D". It's the "I" that I find superfluous, and indeed specious, for the reasons I mentioned. And that's all I've been saying all along.

By "reality" I mean all that exists as concrete objects (as opposed to abstractions). I define concrete objects as anything that occupies space. I am not just talking about knowledge that comes from the senses, but also scientific instruments by extension. I did not introduce it. I may have been the first to use the word "reality", but when asking a question about a scientific theory at a science forum, it is obvious that we are talking about the observable universe, aka physical reality. OK, so let me know if you are satisfied with the definition I gave. Edit: Fixed quote bracket.

Why is it irrational to state that all our knowledge of reality comes through our perceptions? Can you name me one bit of knowledge that doesn't origninate there? What other inputs from the outside world do you have? I am talking about our knowledge of the universe as physical reality. And despite your objection, I am sticking to my statement that all we know of that reality comes from observation. Simply calling it "irrational" for no apparent reason isn't going to convince me to abandon it. Are you asking me for something here? I can't tell. I thought the reason was obvious: The original post in the thread asked us about such a thing. You are half right: I reject religious thought. Anything for which there is zero evidence (such as a mind without a brain) is completely incredible. Fundamental science has no use for religion, and I don't know where you would have learned otherwise.