Strange

Maybe @Q-reeus could answer this as he is advocating the theory?

That will be at least partly because English tends not use adjectives as nouns. But equivalent terms (several beginning with N) could be used. At which point, they become part of the insult, rather than just an identifier. This is one of the reasons why terms migrate from being formal words to identify people to being informal and then insulting. For example, in Japanese, kimi originally meant prince but then became an informal term of address (similar to the way "squire" has evolved in [Bristish] English) but now, it is pretty insulting to use it to anyone except close friends.

I'm fairly sure that has always been there.

! Moderator Note This forum is not a place for you to advertise your YouTube videos.

That is a very common misrepresentation of the holographic principle (more extreme versions imply that the 3D world doesn't even exist). What the holographic principle says is that some information in a 3D volume of space can be represented on a 2D boundary (with no loss of information). The original example was the observation that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its area, not its volume. That is one of the simple examples (eg. left vs right socks gloves). Another is rotation. There are many others; there is a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it (I really struggled even with the most basic ones when I studied physical chemistry). It appears to be fundamental to quantum theory, where many of the properties are defined in terms of symmetry groups. You seem to be thinking of geometry as the stuff we see and played around with on paper (lines, circles, triangles, etc) when we were at school. But I think of those as just a visual representation of some geometry - much of it is hard to represent that way. For example, non-Euclidean geometries in N-dimensional spaces (especially when N is greater than 2 or 3).

No. Can you provide a reference? You need to say which paper, otherwise there is not much anyone can say about it.

As the media are not even capable of reporting accurately on issues like Brexit, nor challenging the lies of politicians about it, you have implausibly high expectations of them.

Interesting definition of “opposite” where you repeat exactly what Phi said!

The collapse of entanglement is instantaneous but that is the final step to read the result. Quantum computers still need time to solve a problem. It takes time to set up the state of the system to solve the problem, it then takes time for the system to go through the steps required to do the calculation. Quantum computers may be faster for some types of problems, but the time taken to factor a number, for example, still increases with the size of the number

That is just as irrational and unscientific as belief in any other deity. I suppose a case could be made for a Stupid Designer...

Good point. I'm sure we've all had that moment when your mouth goes, "It's all right, I've got this" and then proceeds to say something that makes you want to crawl under a rock until this civilisation has collapsed. No? Just me then ...

I was going to say this, but then started thinking about the fact that so much mathematics uses concepts from geometry. For example, Fermat's Last Theorem was proved using elliptic functions. They also form the basis of modern cryptography. As the name suggests, they originally came from geometry. Whether they still count as geometry or not isn't something I could comment on. Also, complex numbers, a fairly abstract extension of the reals in one sense, can also be represented as points on a plane. I wonder if all of mathematics could be considered to be geometry. (But that might depend on exactly how one defines "geometry".) If so, what is the connection to symmetry, which is also fundamental to many branches of mathematics and physics.

As they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I think that is an interesting (and very complex) point. I certainly don't have an easy answer. It is not as simple as dismissing the claim of sexism (or whatever) but neither can we assume "guilt". It may well be that someone is not aware of how language has changed. Or just is not aware that what they are saying is deeply sexist. (They are in need of "re-education"!) Not at all. People who share the speakers sexist/racist/whatever views, may not see it as discriminatory or offensive. I am assuming that some (and, today, perhaps most) discriminatory language is not used in a deliberate attempt to insult or demean people. Much of it is used without thought, based on cultural assumptions that are unfair and inappropriate. We have come a long way from the days when a sign advertising a room for rent might say "No dogs. No Irish." And even a long way from "some of my best friends are Jewish". But people still casually say offensive things. Like introducing people on a discussion panel as "... Professor John Jones, Doctor Bill Bones, and finally, the prettiest member of the panel, Jane Doe" (omitting the fact that Doe is a PhD and a professor with more published papers than Jones and Bones put together). At which point all the women (and some of the men) in the audience are facepalming while some of the men are smiling about how pretty Jane is (and thinking "what a nice compliment to pay her"). The speaker (and some of the members of the audience) just thinks he is "being nice". He needs to understand that, even though he may not have intended it that way, what he said is sexist, demeaning and offensive. Weirdly, when I noticed that, I knew it was wrong but couldn't for the life of me think of the right name!

I don't understand any of your post, so I must be even smarter than you! BTW: you have a link in that text, which doesn't work. Was that deliberate?

And it’s great if things can be resolved quickly with an explanation/ apology. Which might mean explaining why no offence was meant or why the thing that was said was offensive (or both). But doesn’t mean the person wasn’t offended in the first place.

It was a misreading of the post that led to someone feeling offended. You can't say there was none when the reactions was: And any of those could cause offence. You seem to be saying that the offence isn't "real" if it wasn't deliberately intended.

I assume you mean where none was intended. After all, if people perceive that they are offended then they are offended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin ! Moderator Note Seeking medical advice and especially for self-medication with dangerous chemicals is not a suitable use of this forum.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

There is nothing in the definition that says they are temporary or volatile. The only group of people that would be more dangerous in that job than current politicians!

! Moderator Note This is not a suitable question for this (or any other) Internet forum. Ask a professional.

That doesn't make you any less susceptible to it. Which is why science doesn't rely on subjective impressions. I spent many years working in the sound industry. I never heard of musicians, engineers or producers needing to be wary of pareidolia. Unfortunately, you seem to have used up your newbie limit of posts on spamming the forum. Bad choice.

Good point. I suppose, if there were gods, they could choose to reveal themselves and provide evidence in this way. They seem oddly reluctant to do this. What I really mean was doing some sort of controlled scientific experiment. If gods were testable in this way then they would not be metaphysical beings and so, arguably, not gods at all.

Glad see that you recognise that your experimental set up is less than ideal. A few things you might want to think about to make your observations slightly scientific: One of the purposes of an experiment is to confirm the predictions of a model. So you should be able to predict exactly what results you expect within a range. Not just "look at this pattern". Another purpose of experiments is to rule out other explanations. For example, is the pattern caused by the rough surface of the magnet rather than the presence of a magnetic field. So, for example, you could demagnetise the magnet and see if you still get the same result. Or you could attach a small mirror to the end of the magnet and see if you still get the same pattern. Or, even better, a small mirror attached to an electromagnet so you can adjust the strength and direction of the magnetic field to see what effect it has. Of course, all the above depends on being able to reproduce the experimental conditions. So having a hand-held light source is obviously inadequate. As your claims contradict long-established science you would need much more compelling evidence than this rather shoddy setup.