questionposter

This is about what should ethically and logically happen given a circumstance like this, especially considering there could easily be alien life outside of this solar system, not about what we "hope" to happen.

How is the energy relative but the localization isn't? Relativistically speaking, how is localization determined before measurement? Is the lcoalization depends on energy, but energy is relative, yet you can't measure a photon before it's been observed, so what's it's relative localization if I move, say 10% the speed of light away from a photon? Is the localization of a single photon the same from all frames of reference if those frames could actually measure it?

It is true that isn't not completely a particle or a wave, which I already said, but wave-like properties can still describe many aspects of fermions and account for experimental results, especially neutrino oscillation and the double slit experiment as well as how photons localize and delocalize according to energy. I don't think you get it STILL. A particle doesn't include a limited field of view that limits an electron to being a little sphere or bundle, wave mechanics can be easily used to describe many aspects of a particle, but just can't completely account for a particle like EVERY variation of quantum mechanics. And once again, bolding the word "particle" doesn't make your argument scientific law. In the past perhaps Schrodinger tried to completely account for fermoins 100% by using quantum wave mechanics, which didn't work, and I had already said MULTIPLE TIMES that I'm fine with particles not being able to be 100% described by wave mechanics. Furthermore it's hypocritical of you to say that an electron is a particle considering the very quantum mechanics you are trying to uphold, quantum field theory, tries to represent fermoins like electrons as "fields" to look at how forces interact, which is one of the reasons why it's called quantum "field" theory. Not only that, but oscillation of fields is used in quantum field theory. The word "particle" is often a vague term that means different things in different contexts.

I guess 1997 isn't terribly out of date, there were particle colliers at that time and even string theory and multiple-worlds theory.

Just to make sure, can anyone actually draw a logical and sequential correlation between "believing in god" and "being broken"? "Person x believes in god therefore person x is broken"? Doesn't seem to make sense, or if it does, there's a LOT of middle pieces missing.

But you would need to constantly put outside energy into heating the water in the first place that you could be using to power things instead of boiling water. If you use all of the energy from water turning into steam to power the heater, you have no extra energy. Gravity still upholds the conservation of energy in the form of potential energy.

I don't see a logical correlation from "life exists" to "it exists to procreate". Pro-creation is a process that is the consequence of life forming and mutating as such that it will undergo processes to replicate DNA. Where is anything about a "point of life" in that? Besides, it's better that the point of life doesn't revolve around any specific thing because that means we can accomplish anything with the only worries being the limits of physics. Also, what if we genetically altered every species to not reproduce, but simultaneously built machines to create sentient life from scratch that also did not reproduce? Or what if there are organisms that don't rely on sex at all? For all we know the sun could be a living thing, it grows, changes, "dies", responds to stuff touching it... Where does "sex" fit in with those scenarios? The only thing you can logically draw from sex is that "many of the known life-forms on this planet rely on procreation to pass down specific genetic code", nothing about a point to anything. In fact, the process of proteins transferring to another location can happen without sex, and reproduction doesn't even always lead to a new living thing.

So then because life is not obligated to sex, life does not automatically revolve around it. But rather, the survival of carbon based life-forms on planet Earth in the Milky Way galaxy in this universe primarily relies on it to continue their species. What do you think happens if we encounter organisms that appear without sex or reproduction of really any sort? And as I logically said before, The universe itself is not a living thing nor is is conscious as far as we know, therefore the universe cannot define what life means to the universe, therefore there is no universal meaning (or "point") for life.

So what if life reproduces? That's just the consequence of DNA replicating to create cells that form a type of organism that would want to reproduce. There's nothing really obligating life in the universe to sex or any specific thing, every species could let itself die out if every species really wanted to. This is one of the issues I had with Mike Waller as well, he was thinking about things in terms of that things have to be done or that life revolves around some "selfish gene theory" because genes say so, which isn't true because genes as far as we know don't even have consciousness.

I'm sure other people have seen/head of pictures like this at some point too, There was a video to go with it on some discovery-channel-like program, but based on how I remember it, the tiger was walking rather specifically. It's possible the Buddhist could of taken care of it, but if it's wild and the Buddhist was just encountering it, it seemed like it was ready to attack but just never went for it. Logically, if a tiger was waiting to attack you, but you didn't run away or towards it, but rather just walked, would it be in a sort of "semi-attack" mode? Your not running so that instinct isn't active yet, but it still wants to eat something but doesn't actually know a whole lot about humans so it would be kind of cautions and curious as well...

All of that can relatively explained by the progression of sequential systems, as in, it happens naturally because there is nothing stopping it from happening. I do not logically see any component of the universe forcing a direct meaning to it, considering the universe itself is not a living thing nor is is conscious as far as we know, therefore the universe cannot define what life means to the universe, therefore there is no universal meaning (or "point") for life. If you can draw a logical correlation to the mere existence of DNA and replication and some kind of "meaning" seemingly forced onto it, go for it. If the point of life was confined merely to "sex", then I'd imagine there would be no reason for death.

Doesn't have an "edge" but still has a measurable radius, and with the universe there should be a relatively finite radius before before space folds in on itself.

How do you "know" that though? And what happens if someone merely disagrees with you?

Even in most complex parts of nature, things average out.

I don't know how much has been answered already, but astronomers already accept that the universe is infinite because they cannot see a physical boundary. And, light fades out at large distances, possibly so large that no matter how much matter there is, even if it's infinite, it will have too low of an energy by the time it get's to Earth in order to see it because it has weakened so much over the large distance, but as more powerful instruments are constructed, the further away we can see into the universe, there isn't really a point where we can just say stuff stops popping up. However, there are alternative theories such as that the universe loops in on itself and that it has a boundary, making it subject to a possible big crunch. In either, a big rip is possible because something can still be happening to local space if we are in an infinitely large universe.

What are your charges made of? Virtual photons are quite different than matter.

You could "try" to have a colonoscopy, rather, but having such a harsh colonoscopy might be just as bad.

What if not everyone believes in god? And some studies came out showing that it's likely human brains won't evolve much more.

Well since people don't really seem to like the idea of relativity, let me ask this: How do you know that that's what the point of life is?

The wavelength "measured" is relative, but since there isn't measurement before that, is there a finite localization that a photon is while its traveling? I know you didn't say "every photon", but I said every frame of reference not every photon.

No it's more like saying there's a difference between an apple and an orange in the same garden.

If the arms went on strike you still have legs and a mouth, if the legs went on strike you still have arms, if the stomach went on strike the arms could hook you up to life support, if the brain went on strike the other body parts could party and couldn't care less.

Ok, but let's say we do get that power, which is what this topic started out with.

This is why I keep saying there is no specific meaning of life, because first of all consciousness is not part of the definition of life, and second off there are organisms incapable of reproducing that still live probably decent lives. If you say the point of all of life "is" something, there's always going to be disagreement, you have to say "for me, I like to focus on..." or something like that.

Well what actually determines how localized a photon is then? Wouldn't it break relativity if from every frame of reference a photon has the same localization?