gib65

Johnny5, There are 2 ways to interpret your logic formula, and I'm trying to figure out which one you mean. I'll use A and E as the universal and existential quantifiers (since I don't have access to special symbols here ). The 2 ways are: 1) ExAy(if not(x=y) then x before y.) 2) AyEx(if not(y=x) then x before y.) The difference is subtle but crucial, and in fact they are saying the opposite of one another in the context of the question: Does time have a beginning? 1) says that there is at least one point in time such that for all other points in time not equal to itself, it comes before them. 2) says that for each point in time, there is at least one point other than itself that comes before it. 1) suggests there is a first point in time, whereas 2) suggests there is none. 1) suggests that there is a "first" point for which all other points in time (not itself) come after it - there is no point in time that comes before it. 2) suggests that for any given point in time, there is some time before it - 11:00 comes before 12:00, 10:00 comes before 11:00, 9:00 comes before 10:00, and so on ad infinitum. It sounds to me like you mean to imply 1), but then you are right that you need a statement A to arrive at such a conclusion, and therein lies your problem (at least, I'm inclined to believe). I don't think you'd ever find such a statement. For me, 2) is intuitively true. Of course, this is all in the context of the never-ending-cycle-of-big-bangs-and-crunches. If the big bang WAS the begining of time, space, and all matter and energy, with nothing preceding it, you may very well find your statement A after all.

I was just thinking: some theoreticions believe that the universe will eventually collapse under its own gravitational pull and result in a Big Crunch? Some of these theoreticions would go even further and postulate that after this Big Crunch, the universe will once again be in the same state it was in before the Big Bang, and so another Big Bang will occur. If this were true, then the universe is simply a perpetual series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, and it not only makes sense to project this series into the future but into the past as well, which means that the most recent Big Bang was not the absolute beginning of the universe but only the beginning of the current cycle. In effect, it would mean that there isn't necessarily a beginning since this series could be retro-projected eternally. Is there any reasoning to this idea?

I've heard of it, but I've never really been sure what it is. As far as I know, it is the fact that when two particles interact they are forever effected by each other no matter how separated by space they become. So, if you did something to one particle, the other particle would be effected even it was half way across the galaxy. Am I on the right track?

That's depressing

No.

Yes, these are certainly criteria for being real science, but what I'm wondering is overall, how strongly does the scientific community of the world consider this to be fact as opposed to speculation. You know what I mean? Take string theory, for example. Today, string theory is still not completely accept by 99% of scientists and it has yet to be seen if it will one day be considered "the truth", but it's way more scientifically grounded than, say, Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. Where does quantum consciousness stand in this regard?

Has anyone heard of quantum consciousness? Here's a website that describes it: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ Any thoughts/comments? How close is this to being "real science"?

Have there ever been any studies done to show that one's freedom to express him/herself artistically is negatively correlated with the amount of violence he/she is prone to engage in? I started wondering this when I was thinking about these gothic/heavy-metal rock bands like Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie, Limp Biscuit, etc. and how I've never heard of them going to jail for serious crimes of any sort. Do you think that artistic expression serves as an alternate channel through which to "exercise our demons"? If so, do you think this is why countries with the most violence are usually also the ones with the most censorship on the press and individual expression?

Actually, the scientific revolution started roughly around 1550.

Yeah, I think that's the point he's getting at. When was it? About 65 thousand years ago? Suddenly, homosapiens started becoming imaginative and artistic! Sure, they had their reasons: artistic inspiration, wonder, ideas, theories about the cosmos, you name it... but I think what paleolithic was asking was why did evolution decide it was necessary to endow homosapiens with this gift?

I just did the math, and 64 oz. of water makes more sense now. That means each glass = 8 oz. I just checked one of my bottled waters and it said 16 oz. I always considered "one glass" to be roughly equivalent to one of these bottles, so I found it hard to imagine having 8 of those a day, but 4 sounds more reasonable.

They say that the optimal number of glasses of water one should drink per day is 8. I'm skeptical though. If we really needed that many, wouldn't we crave it? Lucky if I crave more than 3 glasses per day.

I was wondering something about how evolution works. Most leaps in evolution happen via a genetic mutation, right? But what good is an advantageous phenotype when it makes your physical appearance deviate from the norm. Wouldn't that make you "ugly"? Aren't we attracted to what looks like "normal" physical features? So if one of the side effects of genetic mutation is to end up looking like a gimp (however advantageous it may be), how would you go about finding mates to reproduce, or even being socially accepted period?

You make good points, Hyebeh, except for this one. I think you're confusing the intent with the results. It was our intent to better our lving conditions at the start of the industrial revolution, but the idea that we are damaging our environment in the process is a more recent finding, one that seems to fly in the face of the original intent. We may be hurting ourselves more than benefiting ourselves. We know today how much more we depend on our environment and how delicate it is to the slightest changes than we ever knew before. Nevertheless, you may be right in that our intention to change our environment in order to improve our lives may still be a viable option. This has yet to be seen though. Can we undo the damage, or at least stall its growth long enough, so that our original intention can be met?

I just read the article. It seems to me that the biggest misconception the author has about evolution is that natural selection is the only mechanism driving evolution. These appearant leaps in phenotypes distinguishing one species from another can be easily explained by genetic mutation. Take, for example, a fin becoming a web over one generation, and then an eon later, becoming a paw. Although this would seem like a leap in evolution (which it is), the leap is not so big on a genetic level. Now I'm not sure what the genetic code for fins, webs, and paws are, but the idea would be that when the fin evolved into a web, the gene for the fin went through a mutation that might have changed only a few molecules in the DNA, but because the DNA acts as a code for the phenotype, even the slightest change can cause huge alterations in the phenotype. PS - The article did mention genetic mutation in a few places, but the context was all wrong. It talked about breeding pigeons as a way of genetically mutating the species, which is completely wrong. That's just artificial selection. If you want to genetically mutate the species, you have to take pigeon sperm and egg into a laboratory, get into their chromosomes (however that's done), genetically engineer it, and then manually fertilize the eggs with the new genes, which is not the standard way of doing it.

You should ask her to post it here, in this thread.

I'll take your words for it, since I have no idea what those things are.

The left brain and right brain are responsible for different mental functions. The left brain is primarily responsible for logical/analytical thinking and the right brain for artistic/creative think. This is overly generalized, but the point is if you remove the right brain, the individual will continue to function but will not be able to think creatively. If you remove the left brain, the individual will not be able to think logically. There are other functions that would be thrown out too. The left brain is responsible for speach and language comprehension, so removing the left brain would render the individual speachless and incapable of understanding speach. On the other hand, the right brain can identify objects visually and solve visual problems, so the individual would still be able to carry out these tasks. I'm not sure how much the left brain would be able to learn to take on these tasks should the right brain be remove, or the right brain learn to take on language tasks should the left brain be removed. AlexT, when you said the left/right brain could take over the tasks of the other, did you mean it could actually do this?

Ah! Then that settles it!

Hm. What kind of predictions does virtual particles make? How have they been tested?

IS this true? I'm no microbiologist, but is it really true that the "damage" being done onto the environment at the current rate will eventually wipe out ALL bacteria life? Surely there will be some sectors in the world and pockets of mini-ecosystems that will remain to harbour some forms of bacterial life. I guess maybe you're right. In the past, whenever a species couldn't adapt it was usually due to some change in the environment or a natural disaster that had the effect of nature recycling herself rather than putting a stop to life in general. But the effects on the environment we're seeing today are all together on a different level. We're not just changing the environment such that a certain species can't survive in it, we're changing it such that the essential criteria for life proper are being eradicated. Still, I can't help but to have faith in life's astonishing ingenuity when it comes to adaptation. In the words of Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park "Life finds a way."

Virtual particles are particles that exist for such a short period of time that they can't be observed. If this is true, then wouldn't this defy one of the criteria of science, namely empiricism?