SamBridge

I don't know that you understand "cause." Not cause as in "because," cause as in "this moves here, hitting that thing, causing it to move here," what is the reason for time's arrow exists at all in the first place? Why isn't time just stopped?

Well, except that it kind of is. These large dinosaurs we're talking about here aren't the slow ones you see in Jurassic Park (which got anatomical aspects of dinosaurs wrong), those Brontosaurus were fast, which takes enormous amounts of energy. Dinosaurs were not "hot blooded" as you think mammals are. They had a higher temperature at their size not due to being like mammals, but due to their Giganothermy. Dinosaurs as you might know are descended directly from reptiles, which are cold blooded, but were able to grow so big and keep a high Metabolism, not because they were hot-blooded as modern mammals, but because they were "luke-warm" blooded, and their body temperature as adults was regulated not by the enzymatic reactions of mammals, but by their sheer size resulting from their Cascade Evolution, achievable only if the dinosaurs were able to initially take in energy from their environment just as reptiles did.

Doesn't matter, they chose not to move their body to the physical location where a bathroom is, and free-will only has domain over what people can agree they have control over. If someone can't control it at all, then it has no part in considering free-will.

I am too, I thought you knew better than to say an imaginary thing is real. Then don't discuss that way. It's also easy to use the quote system, To see you're clearly using faulty logic to being with. A material 25 foot spider is material, and an imaginary 25 foot spider is imaginary. An imaginary spider is not a real spider. If I wasn't using English you wouldn't be able to provide a counterargument to anything, obviously. I dare you to find a quote where I said "let's not use English anymore." Now you're just being insulting. Oh, so I can measure the imaginary 25 foot spider then? Where is it? I don't see it anywhere... The word itself doesn't exist as anything more than electrical pulses, but the thing they are used to describe can exist in the same exact manner that mathematics itself doesn't physically exist at all, but things like motion and forces still exist. Mathematics is merely an abstract language to try and describe measurements. Unless you're saying measurements don't exist...

Yeah I mean I already know that entropy is used in the arrow of time, but how about an actual "cause"?

What you're describing is entirely different. You're describing an automatic process that no one would agree they had control over. They don't have control over whether or not the feeling arises, but they have control over when/where they go go to the bathroom. In fact they can get sick from choosing to not do it. If someone can choose light themselves on fire and sit still while burning to ashes even though they can't control the process of combustion, I think someone can control when/where they go to the bathroom.

Yeah Anyone. But then we can't prove anything immaterial exists. Exactly, so if there's no one around to invent the word "math," and there's no symbols and equations floating around through space, yet reality still exists, so math is separate from reality. Nouns are an arbitrary label, they have no physical relevance. Any word you use was imagined. No it's not materiel because you just imagined it, and you already said what you imagine is the opposite of real. Imagining something doesn't magically make it exist.

You don't have to, because questions are just questions, not necessarily points. Just answer the questions.

You didn't, I did. The larger ones wouldn't.

And the locations of different components of the rocks are physical. But if no one was around to label it as such, who would there be to distinguish what a shape is? I'm pretty 100% sure you can't just magically pull a circle out of the universe. And math itself isn't physical, nor the universe itself, it is simply a tool for approximating.

I'm seeing a lot of 'I think," but what about some "I know"? I think this article http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ gives a good overview of the different sides of issue and how they are combined. We have this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/ but also have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Obviously, we can identify patterns, but just as obviously, they are not 100% predictable, and the future doesn't even exist. So the answer is somewhere in the middle.

No you're somewhat right, I've done photograph clouds before and I have seen lens-like clouds that are isolated with no mountains around on multiple occasions. But, I can tell they are not UFOs because I can see them dissipate over local lakes, sometimes enough to fade away mostly and stretch out. Isolated lenticular clouds can sometimes form from waves of air movement itself in a powerful gust picks up a slab of moisture like a pileus cumulonimbus effect as opposed to mountains, but only very rarely, about as rare as kelvin helmholtz clouds.

Although he may be somewhat untastefully abrupt, he has a point. Some small airplanes can maneuver very easily and are often closer to the ground in a small enough radius to go from one close end to another. Otherwise the only other thing that could simultaneously emit light and accelerate that fast in 3D space in so many different directions is ball-lightning or a really small remote control device with strong lights.

An unanswered question is a logical argument? But, how do you measure something that's "immaterial"? And since can't measure it, then how do you know it exists? Physical and immaterial are antonyms, something cannot be physically immaterial just as a red object can't be blue and going left isn't the same as going right. The fact that you can say something is immaterial proves there is a difference between something physical and something that is immaterial.

As I said before, mammals cannot simultaneously that grow large and be as mobile as dinosaurs, their metabolism would be too high, that's why the biggest they really get on land is elephants. Elephants still get eaten by lions and tigers occasionally, but they just can't evolve to be much bigger, so instead they travel in groups. And I don't expect someone to trust a TV show more than rationality. You had question, that's fine, just don't use the TV show as the answer, otherwise there's no point posting here.

It's not, just don't use it to create the whole fire. Get some scientific wood and rational matches.

Except that it actually doesn't because we can imagine a scenario without a TV show that still follows patterns we scientifically measure. A TV show won't do that, but we can, we can adjust the parameters to what makes sense in our own minds, without a TV show, based on scientific knowledge. Because they're huge and there's not much that can actually hurt them. Whales don't have many predators, the only predators the smaller ones do have are giant squid, and even those squid don't eat blue whales.

Read post #6.

If something isn't real, how is it being measured?

What he said...?

Then that just shows brontosauruses would still remain unchallenged if they lived today...by both other dinosaurs AND mammals. Until velociraptors start uncontrollably reproducing because of adaptive and smart they are for surviving, I would not recommend using some pop-culture TV show as the basis for any scientific venture.

No they were actually wrong, it's just that they had good models for the data of the time period which was later found to not model everything.

Not with epistemology. Observations only give us data for an approximate model. How would you define where you pinpointed everything without math?

I'm talking about a relation to both. You can't apply one system to every other system in the universe, it just doesn't work, there will always be places where the approximations diverge.

You do have a point, but it is somewhat predicted that mammals even such as primates would hardly be around if dinosaurs were still around. That said, do you think a bear is more powerful than a group of 2-3 velociraptors? Do you think any known mammal is going to mess with a herd or even a single brontosaurus? Animals like lions and tigers would be the ones to challenge dinosaurs but only the ones around their size and up to the size of an elephant, and frankly land mammals can't evolve to be as big and mobile as larger dinosaurs because their metabolism would be too high. But if dinosaurs were still around, we don't really know what mammals would still be here anyway, except for maybe ground mammals.