Strange

There is no evidence that this is required to explain entanglement, though. For example, you linked tooth's experiment earlier: https://gizmodo.com/two-experiments-show-fourth-spatial-dimension-effect-1821739488 This has nothing to do with entanglement. And, strictly speaking, nothing to do with four dimensions: “Physically, we don’t have a 4D spatial system, but we can access 4D quantum Hall physics using this lower-dimensional system because the higher-dimensional system is coded in the complexity of the structure,” Because there is no theory that requires a 4th spatial dimension to explain electromagnetic radiation. Who knows. We have theories based on 3 spatial dimensions that explain all these things.

He does, indirectly. When he says "emitted by a stationary or by a moving body" we know (from Galilean relativity) that this can also mean a stationary emitter with the observer moving relative to it or not. Nowadays, the postulates are often expressed in terms of the observer. And that sometimes leads people to ask "does it depend on the motion of the source?" So, without being excessively wordy, it seems you can't win either way.

A surface is always 2 dimensional. There are higher dimensional equivalents. For example, the surface of a sphere (a 2-sphere or 2D surface) has a 3D equivalent, but it is not a surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere

So is the purpose of evolution (and hence life) to accelerate the end of the universe? And how, exactly, does evolution optimise the increase entropy? You have moved from generic claims of "cognitive tasks" to equally generic claims of "increase of entropy". I think you need to be a bit more specific before anyone can understand what you are saying. Hold the "of course". Can you explain, or give examples of, how intelligence contributes to the increase of entropy? Can you give some examples or references for this? This conclusion seems to be based on a number of loosely connected and contentious ideas: That evolution increases the rate of increase of entropy. That this is the "purpose" of evolution, rather than just a side effect That if this is the purpose of evolution it is also the purpose of humans. Many would argue that we can invent our own purpose (for example, being good, worshiping one or more gods, helping others, creating art, etc) That general AI is both possible and achievable (for example, "laws of physics/thermodynamics permits human exceeding intelligence in non biological form" is currently an unjustified assumption) That we should create AI to do this better (rather than for more practical reasons like improving health care, industrial safety, caring for the elderly, etc) A generic AI that is smarter than humans might come up with their own purpose. They might decide they should find a way to reverse entropy: http://multivax.com/last_question.html

You suggested they should "avoid the situation". You seemed to be saying they should dress modestly as well, but you seem to have withdrawn that one. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it were the vast majority. I would like to think not, but everything I have read leads me not to be optimistic about it. As swansont says, you don't know how many others were groped (or worse) and how they were dressed. You don't know if someone else went naked and had nothing happen to them. This is called critical thinking, not mental gymnastics.

You have no answers, though. Other than "the women should avoid the situation" Have you really no idea why? Do you really think they need to be told that being assaulted is a bad thing and they shouldn't put up with it? Many were too afraid to complain. Because they knew of the negative consequences it would have for them (and probably not the perpetrator). Even if there is someone other than the abuser to complain to, that person (probably male, because in a position of authority) will probably say, "leave it with me; I'll talk to him" ... "Hey Dave, Sue said that you ..." That's really not going to help anyone. Many did (try to) complain and were told to keep quiet or were just ignored. You seemed to be saying that design "sexily" was a risk factor and that women should avoid doing that. When I said that was unreasonable you said that isn't what you meant. It really isn't clear how women should avoid the risk when the largest risk factor is just being female in a male dominated environment (which is most workplaces). Many women already do have to do things like not getting into a lift when certain men are present, arranging their lunch schedules so they are not left alone in the office, not going for a drink with colleagues after work. And, occasionally, leaving the workplace completely. These are all totally unreasonable things that they should not be expected to do. As the odds are pretty close to zero if you are male, making it more likely means it still won't happen. If you are female it is almost a certainty however you are dressed.

You can't draw a correlation from a single data point.

But they should not have to avoid the situation. You gave the example of the team doctor molesting them. How should they avoid that? Leave the team? Take a friend when they visit the doctor? So it is not so much about educating them as putting an effective mechanism for them to make a complaint (I am absolutely sure they don't need to be told that they should do that). If the only person you could complain to is the abuser ...) And then making sure that when they do complain they get listened to (no more of that "don't rock the boat", "he is our best [whatever]", "think of the problems it will cause for the organisation" stuff) Then it is very unclear what you are saying.

This is where the "risk minimisation" argument falls down. This can't be compared with forgetting to lock your door and then getting robbed. Or walking into a particular bar and shouting abuse (or whatever the other examples were). Unlike these cases, which are examples of foolish or provocative behaviour, you are saying that women should not be themselves, they should not dress as they wish. Apart from the fact that there is no correlation between women's behaviour and/or dress and them being assaulted - there was a very powerful art installation a while ago called something like "what I was wearing"; a collection clothes that women were wearing when assaulted or raped. There were a few skimpy dresses and skirts but they were mainly ordinary working clothes, sweat pants, jeans, baggy jumpers, etc. The idea that women can reduce their risk in this way is as foolish as the idea that they should. It is like going back a few years and saying that "coloured folk" should just keep quiet and not complain, not look people in the eye, not speak out or go to certain laces in case they get beaten up or arrested for being black.

Francium would be a metal, if you could get enough to find out. It would not remain solid for long though because of the heat created by its radioactive decay. Its boiling point isn't known with any precision but I don't think it would be much different from the other alkali metals (about 1,000ºC ?) so I don't think it would count as volatile. I would imagine NaF would be the stablest of the alkali metal fluorine salts.

I wouldn't bother. It is a mash-mash of facts, misunderstandings and fiction.

You haven't answered the questions. Again. Just a reminder, the questions were: What is evolution optimising? Why? You have not said what is being optimised. (Apart form the so-vague-it-is-meaningless "cognitive tasks".) And you haven't said why. I would add to these questions: what are the constraints; in other words what has to be traded off against "cognitive tasks"? (I am not holding my breath for any sort of intelligent answer, though.) Here is how science works. You gather some evidence, come up with a hypothesis and then make a prediction based on that hypothesis. The prediction is tested against observations. For example: my hypothesis, based on the evidence of this thread, is that you don't understand your own idea enough to explain it or even talk about it in any detail. The prediction from this hypothesis is that you will respond to my questions above simply by repeating exactly the same thing you have said before (or just referencing previous answers) and, possibly, adding a link to a source with no obvious relevance (and no explanation of its relevance). Over to you ...

If this is true, then it is probably more accurate to say that handedness is determined by the mid-braid. Which answers your question, I think.

As you don't appear to have any ideas of your own, and can't even be bothered to cut and paste the relevant sentences from the article, this has become completely pointless. Insisting you are right because you are right, and being unable/unwilling to discuss the subject, is not science and not philosophy. It is just time wasting. Looks like you could have left the "thought" part out of your username.

"A reference frame is a location common to a set of measurements" == an observer.

No. I am asking you about YOUR ideas. Do you mean you don't any ideas of your own? You just want us to read someone else's? (And which URL? Are you always this evasive and difficult?)

As you didn't write the Wikipedia page on human intelligence, it somehow fails to answer the questions about YOUR claims: Can you define what you mean by "optimised"? Which cognitive tasks? How (in what ways) have they been optimised? What constraints had to be met?

Sigh. Here we go again. Where EXACTLY does he say evolution has a goal? It is five pages of dense text. Please quote the exact part(s) where he says this. OK. As you refuse to answer questions, I will suggest the mods close this thread as it contains no science and you are not willing to introduce any.

Use: [ math ]y=x^2[ /math ] (without the spaces) Gives: [math]y=x^2[/math]

Can you stop just repeating the same vague platitudes and provide some detail. Can you define what you mean by "optimised"? Which cognitive tasks? How (in what ways) have they been optimised? What constraints had to be met? And then, ditto for possible future AI. If all you can do is endlessly repeat "cognitive tasks have been optimized" then this thread might as well be locked.

So you post a link to a very long article, hoping that people will just happen to spot the paper mentioned at the end (with no indication that is the relevant bit? When you could have just posted a link to the paper. Are you being deliberately difficult? Anyway, thank you for finally linking the relevant article. Did you miss the "if" in that sentence? Or are you deliberately twisting my words? I don't care one way or another about your idea. I am not arguing for or against the connection between evolution or optimisation. I was simply pointing out that you did not (initially) provide any support for your argument. It has taken a page of your vague and repetitive replies to get you to provide a specific reference. It reached a level that provided a balance between usefulness and cost. Presumably you would say that it was locally optimised for the constraints of usefulness, size, energy use, biological possibility, etc. Except you refuse to say what evolution is optimising, what it is optimising it for and what the constraints are. We just have your vague "cognitive tasks". Nothing to do with evolution. That is an unsubstantiated assumption/guess. You are just repeating the same vague comments. Give some specific examples of the sort of cognitive tasks you are talking about. Explain how they need to be optimised. Explain how humans have been optimised for these tasks by intelligence. Define the constraints that this optimisation has to balance. Explain how AI will further optimise the tasks, including the constraints that have to be balanced. I only entered this discussion because you didn't appear to understand the difference between science and philosophy. So let me try again: How exactly would you test your hypothesis, and what would falsify it? This means defining quantitative tests and pass/fail criteria. Can you do that? If not, it is not science.

All Occam's razor says is that you should remove unnecessary entities. You are proposing unnecessary extra dimensions. That is not a "fact". There is no actual theory (i.e. tested and confirmed by experiment) that requires extra dimensions. And extra dimensions are not required (even in those speculative theories that include them) to explain entanglement.

You might want to look up Occam’s Razor. Inventing something that is both unnecessary and undetectable is a waste of time. It might make you feel better but it isn’t science. It is not random. It is deterministic but probabilistic. It might appear that way, but with no mathematical model there is no way to know. And I would guess it violates Bell’s inequality. As it is, we have explanations and that work.

That breaks the rules of the TSP - each node should only be visited once. Having two nodes is a degenerate case as there is only one route.

I can't get over this. How can someone remain totally ignorant of the existence of one of the most important (and, occasionally, controversial) theories ever? OK, you might not fully understand what the theory of evolution says; you might be misled by marketing buzz words like "survival of the fittest", you might think that Creationists or IDiots have a point, but to not even know that we have a scientific theory! It has been around for 160 years! This is taking ignorance to a whole new level. I literally can't even.