Strange

http://supernova.lbl.gov http://classic.sdss.org/supernova/ Then you need to provide some evidence for that. And provide an alternative to the theory of General Relativity. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/10/what-astronomers-wish-everyone-knew-about-dark-matter-and-dark-energy/ Good luck with that.

I can't see how HUP applies to Schroedinger's Cat: "The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat There is no mention of the uncertainty principle in that article. Can you explain how it is relevant?

I thought this was about superposition?

And, unlike a human, it can't do anything else. Come back when they have created an AI that prefers being on Facebook to playing Go. If they were truly intelligent then when we ask them to help us, they may well say, "no" because they have more interesting things to do. Similarly, a general purpose AI (even assuming such a thing is possible) when asked to play Go may say no because it doesn't like board games or no because it isn't very good at it or no because it is too busy planning the destruction of all organics life ...

Or, if. That assumes such a thing is possible, and there is no evidence that is the case. And there is no reason to think that humans would stop innovating just because AI exists. Maybe the next human invention will be on "off" switch for AI.

Does that mean that it has to be only one state? I had assumed that the superposition of a live cat and a dead cat would involve a huge number of superposed states. And that was one reason for the implausibility of the scenario.

Why do you think this is mankind's last invention? That is probably true of most specialised courses. Glad to see you are bringing the same high standards of English to this thread. Oh. I thought developing AI was the purpose of human life?

Higgs bosons are unstable and decay almost immediately. https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/june-2014/measuring-the-lifetime-of-the-higgs-boson However, the Higgs field does exist everywhere. Space is not a vacuum. There is matter everywhere. And there are also virtual particles everywhere because of the non-zero energy of space. And space can be manipulated; the presence of mass-energy causes curvature of space-time. The Higgs field is not matter. It is a field. And the Higgs boson is ... um, a boson; in other words a force carrier, not a matter particle. It is not static and unchanging; there is overwhelming evidence that the universe is expanding. In summary: you don't know what you what you are talking about.

So we should refrain from discussing AI on a thread about AI? Reported.

As you are obviously a non-native speaker, I think you should listen to the people who are telling you that your understanding of your second language is wrong. (At least one of whom is a professional writer.)

And yet a large number of well-educated native speakers of English disagree with you. No well-educated, native speakers of English agree with you.

There aren't any. It is just that thoughtfuhk is unable to understand English.

As that is not what teleonomy means, according to all sources (including your own) I have reported you for trolling.

APPARENT purpose means there is the appearance of purpose even though there is no purpose. This is confirmed two sentences later, where it goes on to say: "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention." So your own source says that there is NO PURPOSE in teleonomy. Otherwise a new word would not have been needed. If you again claim that these sentences mean the opposite of what they say then I will have to report you for trolling. And your second quote says nothing about purpose. Is English a second language? If so, I can make some allowance for that. If not, you appear to have severe reading comprehension problems. Moontanman does not say that teleonomy doesn't exist, he is saying that it is used to refer to cases where purpose doesn't exist. See above.

Several people have pointed out why the definitions of the word do not agree with what you say. With evidence cited both from your own sources and from other sources. It is entirely reasonable when the problem is that you are making up your own definitions for words.

You appear to think that people are unaware of it because they know what it is and you don't. Except they say that teleonomy does not involve purpose. Contrary to your claims in the OP. I am curious if you actually see the definitions saying something different, or if you are just ignoring what they say and pretending they agree with you. But it looks your purpose is to troll the forum.

Source?

You are the one who is confused. Teleonomy does not mean "purpose in the realm of science/objectivity." (It means a lack of purpose despite appearances.) The fact that you have to redefine/invent the meanings of words in order to try and defend your opinions perhaps suggests that your opinions/beliefs are not well-founded. You are, of course, free to have your own belief about the purpose of life. But you cannot (a) pretend it is the only propose and (b) pretend your belief is supported by science. Anyone can make up their own purpose for life (as there isn't an objective, or "real", purpose) and they would all be just as valid as your idea.

Your argument based on Torricelli's law is both incoherent and irrelevant. Real conspiracy theorists at least pretend to have a valid argument.

It seems that logic needs to be taught in addition to critical thinking. Saying that Wikipedia is not to be trusted is not to say it is wrong or unreliable. Since when have these not been verifiable. You know biology is a science, right? I think that only religion deals with "truth".

I suppose it could be useful to introduce / teach the principle of sound correspondence and historical linguistics. I'm not sure it would be of much interest to anyone who wasn't studying that. (And I think people could just guess the answer most of the time, without applying linguistic principles.) I got to about 10/26 and got a bit bored with it. I don't know if it goes on to do different things. If so, it might be useful to give the option to choose what to do. And to show a running score - I think I got them all right but couldn't remember. Also, on my phone it was a tiny little box squidged up in the left hand corner.

This is a science forum. Not a stoned hippy ramblings forum. The first is officially the worst pop single ever recorded.

LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_the_power_of_zero This is a surprising answer. I had assumed it would be simply "undefined" but apparently not.

It depends (as always with questions like this) what you want to model and why. If you want to model at the level of bases in DNA then you will need 4 or maybe 5 values to represent them (remember, RNA uses uracil instead of thymine). But you might need more if you want to model the artificial DNA created recently that used 6 base pairs. If you want to model the codons, then you will 64 values. But if you were only interested in the amino acids that they encode, then you would only need 20 values.

1. What is "expense of general time"? 2. Please show how you derive this equation.