ydoaPs

After the software shift, will the thread links still be valid, or will links to other threads be borked? I know that some forum software now incorporates the thread title into the link; I don't know if the new software will do that, but it might also use a different numbering system. Also, will the [thread][/thread] tags still work?

A belief in a working Free Will necessitates a belief in at least some level of determinism.

Maybe you'd know if you read the post you quoted.

Yes. Antiparticles have the same mass as their counterparts. Presumably gravity and electromagnatism.

I don't really see how Stockholm Syndrome applies to religious beliefs except those that involve that horrible diety described in the Jewish scriptures and call said deity 'loving' and 'omnibenevolant.'

Determinism is not at odds with free will. In fact, free will depends upon some level of determinism. It doesn't make much sense to speak of someone making a choice when the choice is based on the roll of the dice. Let's just take some elementary thought about what free will is for a moment. Free will is the ability for 'you' to contemplate multiple options and choose one output. For any 'you' to be distinct from 'Bob' or 'Ashley' or 'him' or 'her', there must be some regularity; there must be a pattern in the choices(otherwise the phrase 'out of character' is rather meaningless, no?). In fact, that is exactly what we see in practice. If you spend enough time around someone you can pretty well predict their choices given a set of circumstances. How do we make choices? A basic overview of psychology(and just common sense) reveals that our choices are quite unsurprisingly based upon factors including our beliefs, values, and past experiences. These can be seen as some of the inputs into the decision generating algorithm we call Free Will. Some of you are probably screaming at your computer: BUT WHAT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS!?! IT INTRODUCES RANDOMNESS! Ah, but the neurons in the brains are classical structures, so QM is really irrelevant. In fact, we have a pretty good idea of how the relevant part of the brain(the neocortex) functions. If you're interested in the functions of the neocortex and how we can use what we know about it to make truly intelligent machines, you should read 'On Intelligence' by Jeff Hawkins(he also has a good lecture called 'Computing Beyond Turing' available on YouTube). So, we can see that Free will: 1)produces a predictable pattern of results 2)requires known inputs 3)functions in a classical rather than quantum computation device That sounds pretty deterministic to me. If you're interested in Free Will and whether it conflicts with determinism, I suggest reading 'Freedom Evolves' by Daniel Dennett.

The answer to the speed of the universe is really whatever you want it to be. Zoom out from the universe billions of trillions of googleplexes of lightmillenia until you can 'see'(due to the speed of light, no one vantage point will be able to see the entire universe until long after it's gone) the whole universe. Now, what can we tell about its motion? We can see that the individual parts that comprise it are moving away from each other; it is expanding. But that's not the motion I think you were asking about. Is it moving in a certain direction? Well, as I said, it is if you want it to be. Motion is defined by the frame of reference of the observer. There's not natural frame against which we can say whether the universe is moving(the universe is, after all, everything), but we can imagine such a frame as being you somehow stuck way out in our imaginary point discussed earlier. Now, this point can be chosen to be at rest with respect to the universe, but that's not relevant to our discussion. Are you zooming past the universe, or is it drifting past you? That depends on if you take the frame of you or if you evaluate the situation from the frame of the rest of the universe. So, in essense, the answer is whatever you choose. The concept of motion is meaninless without something against which to measure.

Are you suggesting the user of the service not pay the fees?

My bad, lack of sleep makes me read poorly.

If you don't like taxes, feel free to move to a place that doesn't have them. However, I suspect you might rather have socialized law enforcement and emergency response. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to save your house if you relied upon a privatized fire department? It's not stealing; it's paying for a service(well, several services). Due to the rediculously high prices that would ensue should certain services be privatized and the fact that most citizens rarely use said services, the way the most people benefit is a pool system. However, we cannot rely upon our neighbors to give to this pool of the goodness of their hearts, so we make contribution mandatory. Could we make contribution to the pool optional and have those not contributing pay the privatized price? Yes, but I doubt many would choose to go bankrupt after being burgalurized.

I forgot that one. Sorry, it's been a few years since trig. This is definately the one needed. The use of brackets may also help. [math]\int\sin(2x)[\sin(4x)\cos(3x)]dx[/math] in conjunction with the above quoted trig identity leads us to: [math]\int\sin(2x){(\frac{1}{2}(\cos(x)-\cos(7x))}dx[/math] which leads to [math]\int(\frac{1}{2}\sin(2x)\cos(x)-\frac{1}{2}\sin(2x)\cos(7x))dx[/math] using the same trig identity gives [math]\int((\frac{1}{4}\cos(0)+\frac{1}{4}\cos(3x))-(\frac{1}{4}\cos(0)+\frac{1}{4}\cos(10x))dx[/math] which reduces to [math]\frac{1}{4}(\int\cos(3x)dx-\int\cos(10x)dx)[/math] Now, that is much easier. Like I said, it's been a while, but I got: [hide](1/12)sin(3x)-(1/40)sin(10x)[/hide]

It's been a while since I've done much math, but it might help if you use our built-in LaTex system. An example: [math]\int{f(x)}dx=\lim_{\Delta{x}\rightarrow{0}}\sum{f(x)}\Delta{x}[/math] If you click on it, you'll get a popup that displays the code. You can also get the code by using the quote function.

Surely proposed policies should be considered on the real world ramifications of the policies rather than on emotion alone. If you determine what course of action ought to be taken without considering the effects of said course of action, then you're not very good at making decicions. The scientific method can and should be used in policy making. 1)Note problem 2)Devise possible solution to problem 3)Run simulation to see if solution works 4)Revise solution based on simulation Quite frankly, science does have a place in politics AND its place should be larger than it currently is. Not all opinions are created equal; An opinion based on evidence should outweigh an unsupported opinion.

I don't think it is. When did ideas start being worthy of discussion based on the organizations with which the idea's originator is associated? This seems to me to be some odd use of the Argument from Authority fallacy. I'm a member of Mensa; does that mean every random thought of mine is worthy of discussion in Speculations as well? I disagree with you on a few points here. I don't think that he's arguing what you say he is arguing, AND I don't think he's doing it at all well. What he keeps saying isn't, "I'm in Oxford, so you should listen to me", but it is rather, "You closed minded scientists won't consider every random ill-formed idea based on little to no evidence, but rather you rely on methods which let you tell if your ideas are correct. You shouldn't do that!" One need not hold a PhD to do science. Science is not a job, but rather a methodology. A random middle school student can be a scientist. I'm not sure why you feel that your age is in any way relevant. Because without any scientific framework, we cannot evaluate the ideas which makes any discussion moot. Science is what lets us tell whether or not an idea is correct. Actually, it's exactly the point. Einstein's posts would have been science, as they provided testable predictions; it's not just random word salad. There would be actual content to be discussed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok, then; let's forget our simple experiment. What would you replace the scientific method with? IE, what other methodology even comes close to working? You should probably go through basic science before quarks.

We do, btw, make free neutrons. I've detected them personally.

"Don't fix what aint broke!" What 'new rules' would you suggest? What works better, or even as good as, science? Why would I accept something that doesn't work? Light has momentum. Once a photon is absorbed, the its momentum is absorbed too. This means the atoms absorbing the photons vibrate more. Since temperature is a measure of the average molecular kinetic energy, this means that the temperature goes up. Heat, on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. Heat is energy transfer between systems based solely on a difference in temperature of those systems.

Obvious, eh? There's an obvious difference between water and ice(one is a liquid and one is a solid); does that mean they're not the same? The thing about science is that it's testable! Let's test this. For this test, you'll need: 1)A light source(say, a lamp) 2)A prism 3)A thermometer 3)A recording device(pencil and paper is fine) Turn on the light and put the prism in the path of the light. This should break the white light into its component spectrum; you'll see a rainbow. Now, take the ambient temperature of the room and record it. After recording that, take the temperature of a spot in each of the colours and record the result. Now you should move the thermometer just past the red part of the spectrum and record that temperature once the reading stabilizes. Based on your hypothesis, this last temperature should be exactly that of the ambient, since there's OBVIOUSLY no light there. Let's take a look at the data now. Surprisingly, the last temperature is HIGHER than the ambient temperature! Why on earth could this be? It turns out that not all light is visible! The light we just from which we just got a temperature increase is InfraRed(the same type of light that your television remote's LED produces)! There's a LARGE specrtum of light including radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, xray, and gamma rays. In fact, the visible spectrum is a VERY tiny portion of the spectrum; it is the smallest part. This 'obvious difference' you noted is a limitation of our eyes rather than a limitation of light. I was really gonna go with that they aren't based on data or experimentation. But, then again, that somewhat does boil down to it not using scientific methodology. Science: 1)Make observation 2)Get idea to explain observation 3)Make prediction based on said idea 4)Perform experiment to confirm or falsify this prediction 5)Evaluate data from experiment 6)Use the data to refine explanation if necessary or discard explanation if falsified. That's why our method is better; it makes our explanations falsifiable. We can tell if the ideas are correct. We're continually testing our ideas to make them more and more correct. As swansont says, the job of science is to limit the uncertainty in 'for all we know.' Now, what rules would you prefer? It is? How so? Our methodology makes our hypotheses falsifiable; we can tell if they're wrong. If you don't do science, you don't theories. The word theory has a very specific meaning. A theory is a falsifiable explanation that is supported by a vast array of evidence and experiments. Because our methodology makes our ideas falsifiable. Because our methodology makes our ideas testable repeatedly(if you don't believe the results, you can test it yourself). Our methodology is the only way to truly varify whether or not an idea is true. Then you've not really looked vary far. Several of our members are scientists. Klaynos, for example, works with quantum computing. Swansont happens to do several very awesome things with the US Naval Observatory. Because our current progress has evidence. Our current progress is why you can power up your computer, log on to the internet, and make posts on a message board saying your random thoughts are just as good as the theories that made such a thing possible. What path do you suggest? What works anywhere near as good as science? Science works; the 'other paths' simply don't.

Wouldn't the level of magnification provided by an electron microscope be somewhat useless in trying to study assemblies of macromolecules such as life?

Yes, although that's a simplification of the equation assuming you are at rest with respect to the system you're studying. You can't be serious with this. There's a few ways. 1)It is predicted by our theory of electromagnitism. It 'falls out' of the Maxwell Equations. If the speed of light wasn't exactly c, multiple of the best tested theories in history are flat out wrong. I don't see that happening, based on the fact that both your computer and GPS work. 2)We can measure it. We can shine a light at something and time how long it takes to get there. In fact, there is a retroreflector set up on the moon that does this(well, it reflects it and we time how long it takes for the pulse to return) in order to measure the distance of the moon. It works.

Wouldn't a positive displacement pump work better in this case then since it pumps the same amount of fluid per stroke regardless of pressure on either side of the pump? For those not familiar with the distinction, impeller pumps are like fans for liquids; their capacity depends on the pressures. Positive displacement pumps are like a syringe(in fact, you can make a simple one with a syringe type plunger assembly and two check valves) and pump the same volume of water no matter what.

I do like "One lab accident away from becoming a supervillain".

Yeah, I should have anticipated the water becoming emulsified in the saltwater.

Surely the natural separation due to density differences could be utilized to aide the pumping effort. If the oil is coming to the surface anyway, why not pump from there? I actually thought this was going on.

What is the graphical interpretation of the mixed partials? The partial derivative is pretty straightforward graphically, but I don't know about the mixed. Is it just a measure of the magnitude of the slope of the plane tangent to the surface at a given point?

"Science: It works, bitches!" Oh, wait....I think that one is taken.