Strange

Yep. That's what we used it for. (And the mechanical bits, as well.)

Can you still buy it? (We used to just go round to the local chemists shop and get big bottles of it, but I thought you couldn't do that anymore.)

I rather like the smell of iso-propyl alcohol. Nostalgia, maybe ...

And volume can exist even if empty, so it would follow that time can exist with no change.

It seems unlikely. Your idea (as expressed in the title of this thread) is the almost exact opposite of the paper. They say: increasing entropy may cause consciousness You say: consciousness causes increasing entropy (I say: correlation is not causation.) You could also learn from the cautious language in that article. They are scientists doing research based on real data, and yet they use terms like "could be", "suggests", "might be", "a good starting point", "needs to be replicated", "hints at". Compare that to your(*) aggressively confident, assertive and insulting tone. Perhaps you could learn something from the thoughtful approach in the article you link. (*) Random Guy On The Internet with little support for your ideas beyond a few cherry-picked articles.

Object-oreineted programming is a programming model which is based on representing things as "objects" which can have associated data and functions to operate on the data. This is supported by most modern languages (Java, C++, C#, Python, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

You don't seem to understand. Telepathy isn't rejected because people have non-scientific thoughts about but because there is no evidence for it. You can continue to think about it and, if you want to be scientific, look for evidence. But until there is some evidence, it is safe to say that it doesn't exist. Science isn't about opinions.

I have just read the linked article. A bit of a waste of time. Once you strip away the pop-sci sensationalism, Barbour appears to be describing general relativity: all moments of time have equal existence.

People believe all sorts of things. This is a science forum.

But all experiments to test it have failed to find any evidence for it. Also, if it existed it would provide an advantage to those animals/people with it and so evolution would have made it stronger. By now we would have the Telepath Olympics. As this is not a scientific test, it is highly likely to be influenced by things like confirmation bias.

I don’t think your lack of understanding is going to affect the science.

It’s not a joke. The only thing that matters is their speed relative to each other. It doesn’t matter how fast they are relative to a track, the moon or Alpha Centauri. Faster is, by definition, their speed relative to some third reference. So without that third reference “faster” is meant less. But why does that matter? You can say one is stationary and the other is moving. Or you can say the first one is moving and the other one is stationary. It makes no difference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

A one-time pad is an encryption key that is used by you and me, say, to encode the message in some (eversible) way. For example, you take the first letter of the message and the first number or letter of the key and add them together. Then you do that for each letter in turn. The key point is that the one-time pad is longer than the message in fact, it is longer than all the messages you will ever send so you only use each number or letter in the one-time pad once. You and a friend could decide to encode your messages using War and Peace. After you have sent about 500,000 words, you will need to switch to a new book as the key. As long as only the two of you know what the book is, then the code is unbreakable. Actually, if you use a real book, then the natural language patterns in the book will provide enough statistical regularity that could allow the code to be broken so, in practice, when one-time pads are used they are actually books of random numbers. The risk then is that the enemy gets access to the one-time pad and then they can decode all your messages.

Absolutely. But whenever that has been pointed out Furious Furyan has denied it!

Indeed. Since the domestication of plants and animals umpty-thousand years ago, the fact that evolution happens has been obvious. The only debate can be about the mechanisms and, given the mountains of evidence, there isn’t much room for debate there, either.

He’s lost it.

FFS. Put a sock in it, mate. Sheesh.

That makes sense, in this context. But, to me, the opposite of "definite shape" is having an undefined shape - rather like the undefined location of an electron.

True. If the eavesdroppers have access to your device, then it's "Game Over"! The only truly unbreakable encryption is a one time pad.

"Air has no definite volume" is a horrible way of expressing it. If I were taking the test, I would be tempted to say "none of the above because two of them don't make sense".

(Actually, we cannot see galaxies at that distance; it is the size of the observable universe. The furthest galaxies we can see are a bit closer than that. But we probably don't need to worry about that now.) The most distant light we can see is actually the CMB. It was emitted when the universe was about 4.5 billion light years in radius. Since then the universe has been expanding so the light took more than 4.5 billion light years to get here. It is a bit like fish swimming against a current: as the light travels, the distance it has to go is continually increasing. So it took 13.8 billion light years to get here. Meanwhile the universe was still expanding so, by now, the radius is about 46 billion light years. The Wikipedia page has a good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size It is measured (mainly) by measuring the red shift at different distances. There are also indirect ways of measuring it, but that is beginning to get beyond what I understand... It is approximately the same at all distances. It was assumed that it would be gradually reducing over time. But measurements show that it started increasing (relatively) recently. Hence the need for "dark energy" (whatever it is) to explain the acceleration. It is dependent on the age of the universe, not the age of galaxies.

You are right, impossible is a bit strong. There are systems that use stronger encryption.

I have never used it, but I gather WhatsApp is encrypted end-to-end which makes it impossible to intercept. There are several other communication apps that are similar. And if you are concerned about the authorities knowing that you have communicated with someone, even if they can’t tell what was said, then you can use something like Tor to anonymise.

Not completely but mostly. And soon. That is already possible (and easy).

That’s fine. I’m not an expert on the subject so I don’t want to make definitive statements in hat may be wrong (but I am pretty confident that my explanations are accurate ) These are popularisations and you aren’t going to find the level of detail you want in those sources. I can’t remember if Dawkins books have references to the original papers supporting what he say. If so, you might find more detail there (and in the papers they in turn reference). You may have to pay to access those though. (And they might be pretty incomprehensible if you haven’t studied the subject in depth.)