ydoaPs

It's the same exact way with literally everything. All of our knowledge is derived from measurements. It's just that some people only see this as an issue when time is the subject being studied. Ontological discussions are bound by the same restriction.

I've always thought that was a weird standard. If 70% of the population had kidney disease, I feel as though it would still be seen as a disease. But if 70% of the population has schizophrenic hallucinations, they're perfectly well.

Oh, and here I thought the historical basis of marriage was a legal contract between families.

That's because it's the same thing.

But what if it really is God? There are people that sincerely believe that God literally spoke to Abraham and had him kill his son (though he stopped him). A little less clear cut, though, it killing "demons" as that doesn't necessarily involve hallucinations.

One sometimes hears of murder cases where the defendant thought they were battling demons or that God told them to do it. They are immediately labelled by the religious as insane. How can we make that judgement, though? If they are part of a religious tradition that teaches that demons are real (and can possess people) and that God literally tells people to kill others, how can we tell fervent belief from mental illness? Are religious people only sane if they don't really believe what their story books say? Are literalists sane? Where and how do we draw the line? If you hear a voice in your head claiming to be God and it tells you to kill your child (just like in the Bible), is it insane to listen?

Give us a formalization first. How can we tell you if it is inconsistent if you've given us no measure? We need math.

Yes, yes you can. It's one of the basic principles of science: falsification. It relies on a logical tool called Modus Tollens. p->q ~q ~p In this case, it was a bit more complicated, but still the same idea. a->(svm) (premise) ~s (empirically derived) ~m (empirically derived) ~s&~m (conjunction 2,3) ~(svm) (DeMorgan 4) ~a Where a is "aether exists", s is "we are stationary with respect to the aether", and r is "we are moving with respect to the aether". We have indeed proven that luminiferous aether does not exist. See the experiments swansont mentioned for the empirical derivation I spoke of above. It DOES make bad predictions. That is what let us prove that aether does not exist.

I'm looking to start learning CS just for funsies. Do any of you have suggestions for layman level books that go through how transistors work, how gates are made of transistors, how gates make processors, memory, etc.?

It's delusional to ask you do use an example that doesn't rely on a category error to make your point?

So, do you just not read posts at all? There are no chemically valid codons that are gibberish. They all make acids. All codons are functional information. And I've already given an example of entire chromosomes being duplicated. Take a sequence of codons and try to make it contain the same amount of statistical information, but less functional information. Hint: you can't.

Codons don't make words. They don't code for meaning given to things. They simply play a chemical role that determines what acids are to be made. Unlike your examples with words, all possible codons make the genetic equivalent of meaningful words. That is, they all make acids. This means all codons are functional information. Adding more codons means more information. It means more functional information. Your point? Yes, a mutation must occur before it is selected for. This is nothing new. What selection does, is weed out the harmful mutations. Please make up your mind. Either the size of the genome affects the amount of information, or it doesn't. If it does, your argument fails because evolution OBVIOUSLY can add information. If it doesn't, your argument fails because all genomes regardless of whether they are two codons or a hundred trillion have the exact same information content so long as they all use all four bases. Try this with codons to see your error. Create any sequence of codons, then do what you did here using nucleotides.

I was thinking the same thing.

Nucleobases aren't a language; they're not coding words given meaning by humans. They are chemicals which make acids which make proteins. All information with nucleobases is functional information. In fact, the vast majority of scrambling mutations don't have any effect at all on the organism since the combinations of nucleobases (in groups of 3 pair called codons) don't map 1 to 1 onto the set of amino acids. When we have genes duplicated (such as in the case of Downs Syndrome when a whole chromosome is duplicated), both statistical and functional information is added. Then comes in natural selection which weeds out the harmful mutations. Do humans and bacteria have the same amount of information in their genes? They both only have 4 nucleotides, right? edit: added link to DNA codon/amino acid table

One Tesla is one kilogram per Ampere square second ([math]T=\frac{kg}{Cs}[/math]). So, let's try out some dimensional analysis: [math]\frac{kg}{Cs}(\frac{1}{s}-\frac{C}{s})=\frac{kg}{Cs}(\frac{1-C}{s})=kg\frac{1-C}{Cs^2}[/math] Yep, you're wrong. And that's not even addressing the meaninglessness of your terms. Frequency of what? Current of what? You say it can apply to individual particles. They have no current. Let's even go with what can only be a typo (since frequency is not measured in s2). [math]\frac{kg}{Cs}(s^{2}-\frac{C}{s})=kg\frac{s}{C}-kg\frac{1}{s^2}=kg(\frac{s^3}{Cs^2}-\frac{C}{Cs^2})=kg\frac{s^3-C}{Cs^2}[/math] Any way you slice it, your "mass" doesn't have the units of mass.

And it is interesting to note how well those that watch The Daily Show did.

Not by any reputable scholar.

It IS hearsay and Luke even says as much. The Gospels don't pretend to be eyewitnesses (as I've just implied, Luke even explicitly says it's not); other people put the names on the texts and now people pretend they are witnesses. Bob's hearsay is still hearsay if Frank comes in a few hundred years later and calls him a witness.

That is actually entirely wrong.

Only the bad philosophers would say they are mutually exclusive. And there are all kinds of bound infinities, such as the set of all numbers between 2 and 3. There was not, will not, nor will ever be a time when the universe does not exist. It is eternal. There was never a time before time t at which the universe existed. It had a beginning. Look at that, they go together just fine.

Since no one has shown the derivation, I'll post the derivation and explanation from my post in this thread. Maxwell equations: [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{E}=\frac{\rho}{\epsilon_0}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{B}=0[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math] These are the equations that describe how electric fields and magnetic fields interact. Think of [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot[/math] as describing whether or not a vector field is pointing inward or outward, think of [math]\bigtriangledown\times[/math] as describing which in which direction and how tightly a vector field is curled, and think of [math]\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}[/math] as being the rate of change of the vector field. A vector field is a space where there is a vector at every point. A vector is a mathematical object with both a number and a direction. Having no charges to worry about with light, we can set the charge density equal to zero which makes the equations: [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{E}=0[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial{B}}{\partial{t}}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\cdot{B}=0[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{t}}[/math] Now, let's take the curl of the curl equations and see what happens. [math]\bigtriangledown\times\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\bigtriangledown\times{B}=-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}[/math] [math]\bigtriangledown\times\bigtriangledown\times{B}={\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}\bigtriangledown\times{E}=-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}[/math] Since [math]\bigtriangledown\times(\bigtriangledown\times{V})=\bigtriangledown(\bigtriangledown\cdot{V})-\bigtriangledown^2{V}[/math] for any vector field V, we can write: [math]-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}=-\bigtriangledown^2{E}[/math] [math]-{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}=-\bigtriangledown^2{B}[/math] which we rearrange to get: [math]\frac{\partial^2{E}}{\partial{t^2}}-\frac{1}{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}\cdot\bigtriangledown^2{E}=0[/math] [math]\frac{\partial^2{B}}{\partial{t^2}}-\frac{1}{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}\cdot\bigtriangledown^2{B}=0[/math] which are the electromagnetic wave equations. The speed term is [math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}}}[/math] where [math]\mu_0[/math] is the permeability of free space and [math]\epsilon_0[/math] is the permattivity of free space. Plug in the numbers and that's how we get c. While it does not allow html, this board does use a similar formatting system.

Actually, he didn't. You're thinking of the other guy. Jesus said the whole Law is in place until the end of the world.

Some of the fakes weren't done by them. They just fell for them. There's actually quite a bit of archaeological evidence against Mormonism:

The same way romantic love differs from platonic love. Is it really this hard to understand?

If you can't tell the difference between a "bromance" and actual romantic love, then you're beyond hope. Hopefully one day you'll find love.