questionposter

The the black hole "everything" inside the event horizon? It's hard to imagine real distance works the same way with the warping of space beyond the point at which time can even flow.

I suppose it would kind of make sense to have an opposite mass, there's an opposite of everything else...

So in both instances, the location of an individual particle is undefined so that they both act as a single entity, but with entanglement the vector state is undefined where-as in liquid helium it isn't?

While I don't think your actual "consciousness" is altered by mere experience, I guess we just have a lot more to figure out...

How did you get the "beauty of nature" from what I said? You must be some right-wing extremist bent and trying to alter everything for your own gain.

It should be perfectly logical to change 3 dimensional location of energy in different 4 dimensional coordinates. That doesn't explain why the time traveler doesn't see the process repeeating...

Can't you figure out the momentum based on the energy level?

How about the energy you put into traveling into the past is why your aloud to exist in the past? And up until you travel into the past again, you disappear form the present, and thus energy is conserved since the energy your duplicate added into going into the past again is in the past and not in the present. It's technically an infinite paradox.

But how do we know that bacterium don't have consciousness? If consciousness and life are separate things, then you don't necessarily even need a brain to have consciousness.

Actually now that I think about more, there are specific environmental limitations, and therefore we can predict with some accuracy how evolution will play out, whereas if there were less environmental restrictions there would be more possibilities and our predictions would be less accurate. If we think about right now, the global climate is warming. In the past, when the climate as warmed, reptiles have thrived much more, so we can predict with some accuracy that if the global climate keeps warming, reptiles will thrive more and will likely have the capacity to grow larger due to the fact that they can get more energy from the environment. There may even be another dinosaur era. So perhaps there may not be as much diversity as I was originally implying without environmental restrictions, but there would be more than what your implying.

Actually now that I think about more, there are specific environmental limitations, and therefore we can predict with some accuracy how evolution will play out, whereas if there were less environmental restrictions there would be more possibilities and our predictions would be less accurate. If we think about right now, the global climate is warming. In the past, when the climate as warmed, reptiles have thrived much more, so we can predict with some accuracy that if the global climate keeps warming, reptiles will thrive more and will likely have the capacity to grow larger due to the fact that they can get more energy from the environment. There may even be another dinosaur era. So perhaps there may not be as much diversity as I was originally implying without environmental restrictions, but there would be more than what your implying.

Actually now that I think about more, there are specific environmental limitations, and therefore we can predict with some accuracy how evolution will play out, whereas if there were less environmental restrictions there would be more possibilities and our predictions would be less accurate. If we think about right now, the global climate is warming. In the past, when the climate as warmed, reptiles have thrived much more, so we can predict with some accuracy that if the global climate keeps warming, reptiles will thrive more and will likely have the capacity to grow larger due to the fact that they can get more energy from the environment. There may even be another dinosaur era. So perhaps there may not be as much diversity as I was originally implying without environmental restrictions, but there would be more than what your implying. So basically, the more limited environments are, the more accurately we can predict what will thrive, probably because the more limited an environment is, the more specific adaptations need to be in order to survive.

Can we prove that if something is alive that it doesn't always have this undefined thing we call consciousness?

That doesn't make sense to me, the ground state is the lowest possible energy state for an atom, and we can calculate the energy that a particle has at that state as well as it's average radius, so...how does knowing that every atom is in the ground state mean we don't know the momentum? If we can say they are in the ground state, doesn't that mean we have to know their momentum is a specific thing in order to know that they are at their lowest possible energy state?

Why would traveling back in time turn normal matter into anti-matter? Also, the duplicate is one's self at past 4-dimensional coordinates. But then you wouldn't be able to see yourself in that past 3 second span because your so far away.

Press the right button, obviously. Or, I guess there isn't a right "button", but move right on your control pad.

No, they aren't entangled, and their probability fields are practically 0 at macroscopic distances, so it doesn't do much.

I suppose it's completely possible that getting a shot to the brain doesn't kill you, but if it doesn't kill you, then you most likely go into a coma from all the blood loss and lack of brain tissue, unless it missed the important parts of your brain that much, but animals like cows don't really move a lot, so it's probably pretty easy to get a clear shot of their head.

They probably do that occasionally, but I think it's more complex than that. I think it's an association with a particular mode of thinking in which people cling to specific guidelines. I'm pretty sure Obama was born in the US, but as improbable as I think it is, there is still a chance it's fake. In fact, I don't know if he actually did it or if he was bs-ing me to try and impress me, but there was a very very good programmer I knew who said he erased someone's identity after getting into an argument with him. The mind-set isn't that it's wrong, it's that it automatically assumes information along certain parameters, and it is possible that it's fake, and it fits the mind-set parameters. This kind of thing happens a lot more than you think though. Just look at beauty: any particular thing isn't actually universally ugly or beautiful, it's just how you look at that image, or how your brain assumes the information of it and what it does with it. Even with quantum mechanics, you have these pre-conceived notions of how things should work so you assume how things should work, which causes problems. The same point particle never occupies two different spacial locations, even though people say that's impossible and therefore think QM is wrong or too strange, mostly because that's what it seems like.

While it may seem weird, a logical conclusion can in fact be itself, relative. I'm pretty sure Obama was born in the US, but not everyone has every bit of information, so it's not to say that what they are saying isn't logical though, but if they don't have the right information they cannot logically come to the same conclusion as you unless by guessing. Even with a sort of apparent lack of "looniness" in the left wing, for now I"m still going to say that based off my own personal experiences and logic itself that there are in fact Democrats/Liberals that are as bad as Republicans/Conservatives. But I thought slut was a matter of opinion... That's probably true about Fox, but I still know Republicans who also agree.

Couldn't Shultz argue that it's true that what should happen is to rip someone's heart out and play with it like a football? Oh wait he already did that... So what's your point by only pointing out that it happens on Fox news? That Fox news reporters are the only ones out of the republican party who say those things?

Doesn't the uncertainty principal say that if you know the momentum, i.e. we know the ground state, then it's position in undetermined?

Well I thought he had meant literally just some pattern of the amplitude of a given wave, but I was talking about like the whole actual particle wave oscillating through time.

Sorry, that's not the right answer, the real answer is See, you added all that extra stuff that doesn't have much to do with this philosophy topic, like google.