Strange

Of course it doesn't. If I dream of being in Africa, does that mean I am in Africa? If I hallucinate a miniature alien flying past on a golf ball, does that mean that mini aliens piloting golf balls exist? Almost everything we perceive is an illusion created by the brain. Normally, it lets us pretend we are looking out of our eyes at the world outside. Sometimes it tells us the we are looking at ourselves from outside. That is still our brain, inside our head doing it. Oh right. Presumably you can understand it but it is beyond the rest of us poor mortals. So no evidence then. As I thought. Entirely rational. We may have trouble defining exactly what it is (or whether it exists) but all the evidence shows it arises in the brain and no evidence is consistent with it existing independently of the brain. And, no, the beliefs of religious adherents is not evidence.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the universe behaves, as far as we can tell, in consistent ways. We then invent rules to try and describe this behaviour. As I don't think the rules exist (except in our own minds) I don't think they need to be enforced. Then what enforces that physical process? And what enforces that? And what enforces that? And what ... If they can't break the laws, there is no need for anything to enforce them. You are wrong. I have given you at least one reference to someone who has thought about it a great deal. Many others have thought of it. Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis This was not a defence of ignorance, although many people use it as that. Context is everything. What Einstein was pointing out is that scientists have to be imaginative and creative as well as knowledgable and relying on experimental confirmation of ideas. As it is not possible to see the whole of it, this claim is entirely pointless. As this is a science forum: How would you test this idea? What would prove it wrong?

That is pretty stupid. No one died from gray hair. It is normal and doesn’t need a “cure”.

Is it possible to build an instrument to (directly) measure potential energy? Or even kinetic energy - this has to be “collapsed” and converted to something else that can be measured. That is a problem with your mind not a problem with the physics.

Isn’t that true of all scientific models and laws? They are simply (formalised) ways of describing what happens, whether that is classical light waves, de Broglie’s matter waves or the Schroedinger wave equation. Why are you creating an artificial distinction between them? What do you mean by “fundamental physical principles”? And what do you mean by “general laws of physics”? I’m still not sure what you are asking.

There doesn't seem to be much info out there other than the company's own publicity material. There is a review of their press release here, which might be slightly more informative (or at least, explain how uninformative the company's material is): https://www.healthnewsreview.org/news-release-review/new-non-surgical-treatment-freezes-breast-cancer-tracks/

If we ignore aerodynamic effects that might give it lift (I have no idea if that applies to bullets o not) it would fall down at the same rate as if it had been dropped. Don't know. It is probably hard to calculate, but I would bet there are guidelines for different types of bullets. They might want to wear gloves, it will probably be hot from air-resistance.

People can perceive that consciousness is separated from their body. But that does not mean that the consciousness is separated (as in, existing independently of the brain). Citation needed.

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "physical law"? As far as I can see, the wave equation IS the "physical law" that describes the behaviour of quantum events.

You are comparing two very different things. The waves describe different types of things so the meaning of the amplitude will, of course, be different. I deleted what I started writing because I came across this which summarises it perfectly: From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave The following text expands further on this distinction and the meaning. I'm not sure what you mean by "general laws of physics"; the Schroedinger wave equation is (now) one of the general laws of physics. So I guess you mean laws of classical physics but those will never be sufficient to describe quantum system. But the development of quantum theory is solidly based on the preceding laws of physics.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+does+graphics+card+work

Citation needed There is no such thing as “right brained” skipping the incoherent drivel... DNA has been recovered from fossils

The other important thing to say is that one should make regular backups. That way you can always recover your data if your computer breaks or is stolen or you accidentally delete something or ... There are several products that will backup to the cloud continuously, which means you never need to think about it. I use one of these plus regular backups to external USB drives

My impression is that "Reg" uses jargon he picked up in the first year of philosophy course (failed) to hide a rather shallow understanding. He may consider that opinion to be "abusive" but so be it.

So you ask how it is possible and then give the usual (simplified) explanation of how it is possible! It is complicated because quantum theory is probabilistic. This means you can't say what specific path a particular photon follows or which atoms it interacts with. (Which is why it easier to think about this classically.) So to work out what happens you have to consider every possible path a photon could take - every atom it could interact with, and every angle it could be re-emitted - you then find that all these different paths interfere either constructively or destructively, giving you the most probable outcomes. It turns out that the most probable outcome corresponds to the classical wave description. (Feynman did some excellent lectures to a lay audience on QED, the theory that explains all this.) Your "causes light propagation" is the wrong way round, I think. The light propagates normally, in between the interactions with the atoms. There is a lot of space between the water molecules where the light/photons propagate normally, with only occasional interactions. Yes. Classically because the refractive increases with pressure (because the density increases). From the photon point of view because the molecules are closer together so the interactions are more frequent.

You need to explain what this is about.

Quite: for breaking the rules, not for arguing

Is that circular? How do you define an equation of motion? One that describes movement...

OK, so where’s does this 5% come from? In other words what are you basing the mass distribution on? Because, obviously, you can choose a mass distribution to produce any rotation curve you want

I was thinking in terms of symmetry operations; for example a pair of enantiomers. I don’t think that would count as “movement”, but as always it depends on how the words are defined

OK that’s clearer. But I doubt anyone is denying it. Perhaps no one else has thought of it as an example. Could reflection also be considered a type of motion? We could also consider vibration or oscillation, as well.

I have to say, I can’t see where you are going with your approach. Maybe you could say what you are trying to achieve and how your questions relate to that?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing the end of execution in an example program (especially one using pseudocode) by using a HALT, EXIT, END or similar instruction. The other common way of showing that the processor will stop executing is to use a branch (or jump-relative) 0 - this means that the processor will just keep executing the same instruction all the time. (In some processors this can be detected as, for example, a breakpoint.) In a real piece of code to be executed, then the correct way to end the code depends on the environment it is being run in. If there is no OS, then any of the above approaches is OK. If there is an OS, then it may be a return or breakpoint is the right way to end the code. assembly is essentially what an OS is written in No modern OS is written in assembler. They are nearly always written in C, possibly with small bits of code written in assembler where specific short code sequences are required. the only way to really end it is to shutdown the computer. That really isn't true. This is just an introduction to the types of operations available in a typical processor. You are introducing all sorts of unnecessary complications. The only problem I can see here is that you have: LOAD 200 MOVE 200, 100 The first instruction loads the value from address 200 (the value 1) into the processors register. The second instruction copies the value from address 200 to address 10. So you don't need the first instruction. You could do: LOAD 200 STORE 100 but that is one extra instruction so simpler just to use the MOVE.

Also, are you looking for a classical (EM wave) or a photon-based description?

In what sense? It works as in any other medium: the light occasionally interacts with the molecules on the way through. Is there some specific aspect that is not clear?