studiot

Do we need two threads (or is it three if we include the closed one) on this subject from the same author ? What makes them different ?

You are becoming a useful member, keep it up. +1 🙂 'The same' is too vague an expression to be useful. It depends totally upon circumstances. So the answer is not always. Try indistinguishable or interchangeable as the most useful. I am perfectly happy to hold a meaningful discussion on the whys and wherefores of this, but I will not participate in a repetition of the last thread.

Discussed but not answered. (I am still waiting for an answer to when I put this question)

Just looked in at half time. Lots of replies I see, but the score on my simple question (which is the key to whether or not a chemical outcome will repeat) remains stubbornly like the England - Germany score nil - nil.

+1 I also would to know why expressing a hope that something helps is considered sarcastic as I often append such a statement following an explanation because I consider it encouraging.

Yes thanks for sharing +1 I guess that there have been many routes to our present situations. I rather breezed through the low quality and frankly boring science available a decade earlier It was not until upper high school that I really got going with the physical sciences. The culture in primary and lower high school and the wider society in southern England at that time was not exactly anti-scinece, just disinterested in the subject. I only really got enthused by the physical geography we covered. Outside school I had the public library (I could borrow my mother's adult ticket) where most of the 'science' sections consisted of biographies and the Odhams children's encyclopedia, which I can't praise enough. and Leonardo de Vries' Book of Experiments.

I agree +1 @Andrew William Henderson Do you know what a complex reaction is and the difference between a complex reaction and a combination of reactions ?

Further hard information available here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57651025

Sure A simple typographic error due to haste. Apologies. This should read A material process couple can be conceptual only.

More deflective smoke and mirrors. Where exactly did I say that science demonstrates the proof of some claim or indeed anything about 'truth' ? Not so. A material process couple be conceptual only. I made no such claim, however (as I do not live in Alaska) when I 'cook' ice cream I remove energy I do not supply it.

So you can't support your claim and mentioning conservation was just an attempt at misdirection ?

Why not ? I could split water to get hydrogen and oxygen and then burn them together to get water and then split the water to get hydrogen and oxygen... in an endless cycle. It would require (generate actually) exactly the same heat each time I did it. And the result is exactly the same every time I do it - Nature is more consistent and accurate that human ropemakers. And you still have not responded to my much longer comment, do I need to report this rule breaking to get an answer ?

1) Which conservation law ? 2) So in your estimation anything at all does not include immaterial objects, such as shadows ?

That may be so (although you haven't demonstrated it). However it does not follow from this that immaterial processess require the material objects.

Since you have been rude enough to ignore my comment and question, I will be forthright. This is a complete falsehood. Every time I burn hydrogen in oxygen I get water. Physics and Chemistry tell me that I cannot get any thing else. However you are correct that some actions cannot be repeated. For instance If I measure the breaking load of a particular piece of rope, by breaking it, I cannot repeat that exact measurement, but only make similar ones, just as you say.

@Andrew William Henderson I am as confused as intoscience (+1) as to your thesis. I would therefore welcome your comment in this up to date research, excerpt from the book accompanying a BBC science series of the same name. Life in Colour : How animals see the world. Martin Stevens Witness Books 2021

There are now three concurrent threads that turn on the meaning of 'nothing'. This is after quite a few such debates here in the past. Not bad for a concept that "has no existence" I think we are generally agreed that and since we are having so much trouble with that definition I am offering an alternative approach as apposed to the getout of declaring it nonsense. @Conscious Energy has been trying to express nothing mathematically as 'zero' but does not seem to have the mathematical sophistication to do this. No offence meant CE. This approach, like most in mathematics, is best done in set theory and then we can employ the empty or null set. Beacuse mathematicians employ the null set to construct the numbers we get a hint of something we can do with nothing. This bring us to my spark plug and also my litre box, because we can quantify nothing mathematically. That is we can order different nothings as larger or smaller than each other. In some cases we can make actual measurements. In the case of the spark plug there could be simply air or there could be inert gas or there could be complete vacuum between the electrodes. The point is there is the 'spark plug gap' which is conceptually composed of nothing at all. And we can quantify this gap. Furthermore if they are actually touching there is nothing between them! Nothing is indeed a strange beast; as so often happens fact turns out stranger than our imagination (ie fiction), which is why we have (and probably always will have) so much yet to discover. 🙂

People often confuse randomness, causation, enablement, concidence and a few other things. However none of these have the strength of mathematical 'necessary and sufficient'.

You would first have to define the term event. When you do this please bear in mind that this is the (scientific aspects of) religion section. Yes. I thought so. Radioactivity is random, but occurs on account of a cause.

I have but I see no connection whatsoever. In particular the word uncause is not defined, nor even mentioned.

No. I think 'to uncause' does not refer to an absence, but to some undoing process as in undoing a shoelace. Ie it necessitates at least two processes, the original causative one and the uncausing one.

What the heck is an 'uncaused event' please ?

Well I understand 'nothing' perfectly well thank you. I agree that nothing is pretty insubstantial, but pray tell me, what is between the electrodes of a spark plug ?

I understand the moderators offered you the chance to clarify your thinking and expression when they started this thread on your behalf. As far as I can see, all that you have done is made it mode convoluted and confusing than before. 'Nothing' is very simple and can be quantified. No only can be but is every day by motor mechanics the world over.

Yes I think you put your case quite well +1 and welcome here. Sadly I think you took your analysis to extremes and even contradicted yourself with your additional post. Apart from the fact that space, empty or otherwise was not mentioned by Kitty, you have told us a couple of times that you can't link 'contains' to 'nothing' and then gone and done just that in the last line! Try this. I have just one apple in my bag. I eat the apple. Now my bag contains nothing.