Strange

The Universe is uncaused. Imagine this: 1. Nothing produces nothing. 2. If something exist,it must be eternal. The Universe is eternal, therefore it is uncaused. [Therefore god doesn't exist.] (But your argument looks like the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

Sounds like you are looking for "hidden variables"; i.e. some underlying (deterministic, local, "real") thing that somehow causes quantum effects so they appear probabilistic. Bell's Theorem tells us that can't be the case.

As ar as we know that is what is going on inside the black box. The probabilities don't appear to just reflect our lack of knowledge (as they do in the classical world) but seem to be a fundamental result of the non-localised nature of reality. So if "particles" are disturbances in the field, then they are disturbances in the whole field and their behaviour is affected by everything in the field (e.g. both slits, in this case).

Fundamental particles have (as far as we can tell) zero size. But, on the other hand, they are not localised until they interact with something. So the shapes of electron orbitals in an atom describe the probability of the electron being in that position. So the question "what shape is a photon" is fairly meaningless. You can only describe the probability distribution (until it interacts). And, as there is a finite probability of it being at both slits, that is why you get interference patterns.

I think Keats was being an idiot when he said that. When you understand how a rainbow works, it is even more amazing!

To me, it just confirms that it is about probabilities.

Ah. Good catch.

But they don't have language. Although, studies do show that they have learnt almost everything they need about language within the first year but it takes a lot longer before they can produce language.

You do know that this has all been done before? You have yet to say anything novel. I mean, if you have really thought of all this by yourself, then congratulations, I guess. But before you spend too much more time on it you might want to read up on some of the relevant work in the philosophy of language, information theory, linguistics, etc.

There is a serious problem with this idea (which is not novel, Boole and others wanted to do the same thing). Mainly this is to do with the fact that concepts are not discrete things. They are fuzzy, overlap, have changing meanings, and mean different things to different people in different contexts. Is "size" a concept? What about "big"; is that the same concept or a different one? Is "huge" the same concept as "big", or some sort of super-concept? Is a mountain "big"? Well, compared to a pebble it is, but compared to the planet it is "small" or even "tiny". So building your dictionary is only practical if you have an AI which already knows all about the world and can, effectively, build the dictionary itself. But this is hard. Mouseover text: "In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it."

Turns out that website is nothing to do with mensa: https://www.mensa.org.uk/iq-tests But they do have this: https://mensa.org/workout/quiz/1

It isn't obvious to me. (It is not obviously wrong, either.) And there is no such thing as "the universal clock". Also, remember it is a theory of relativity: you can compare two clocks at different gravitational potential. But you can't compare a clock in the past with one now. Also, even if you are right it has no bearing on the speed of light, as swansont says.

Note that they demand money after asking you loads of questions. They don't warn you about that up front. So, I have no idea what they think my IQ is, but I am smart enough not to give them any money. (Edit: no offence to Code42!) Too many of the questions rely on knowledge not intelligence. There is one asking what coins would be needed to needed to make $0.41 in change. I don't even know what the numerical value of most of the coins is and so there is no way I could answer. And I could argue for all five options in the "which of the following is least like the others" questions.

Not obvious to me.

Do you have a reference for this?

Yeeess... *Baffled ny this apparent non-sequitur* I. Can't. Even. There are many interpretations of quantum theory. They are all supported to exactly the same extent by exactly the same evidence. That is why they are interpretations and not different theories. Or maybe you just need to take more and better measurements to confirm of disprove the hypothesis.

So the fact that we gather a huge amount of data from observations of space and we have used minute changes in that data to find exoplanets and other odd phenomena means that aliens can't do that? Are you drunk?

Pretty much, yes. It could be. But there is no way of knowing. Are realists correct or are idealists correct? No. The difference is that science tests its models against reality (or, more precisely, against what we can measure). Philosophy doesn't. So we can show that a scientific model is correct or not. You can't do anything like that for a philosophical idea. This depends on what you mean "explanation". For example, planets exist because of the rules of physics. Is that what you mean by "explanation"? It is a very different sort of explanation from your building example. You have moved the goalposts. Even if everything has an explanation, that does not mean it has a reason. A building has a reason: it was built as a house or factory or whatever. But I don't think planets have a reason, they are just a consequence of the way physics works. Philosophy doesn't know any such thing. Your argument is fallacious. Huh? Those measurements and observations are the evidence.

If it evidence based, then it would be science, not philosophy. How do you account for the fact that there are many different philosophies with different and frequently contradictory ideas? They can't all be right.

There isn't really a yes/no answer. So, in some circumstances one observer may say that the time it takes for light to get from A to B means it was travelling at less than c. But any observer between A and B will measure the speed of that light (locally) as c. But, yes, this is explained by GR.

I never said such a thing. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to say that I did. Is it deliberate, or are you incapable of understanding what you read? And again. I never said such a thing. It is dishonest and pretty offensive to say that I did. Is it deliberate, or are you incapable of understanding what you read? There is nothing inside muons to be affected, so how does that work? And, if every possible way of measuring time is affected in the same way, then that is all that relativity says. It is (like all science) about what we measure. If you want to invent some udetectable unchanging tine, then that is not science. It is just a fairy tale to keep you happy. Indeed. But I think it is very misleading to describe this in terms of one object emitting photons/gravitons - after all, magnets don't glow in the dark.

Well that explains a lot.

Yes, tackling deforestation is a good idea and a good ideal

And do you have such a model? This is the Galileo Gambit, a well known fallacy. (I don't think the Earth being flat has ever been a mainstream idea, for obvious reasons.)

Radio waves are the same thing as light waves, just a different frequency.