Strange

Are you asking why the electromagnetic force exists and why it behaves as it does? That is a question for philosophy (or religion). It is just the way things are.

Every tenth Roman soldier, surely. So next time someone objects to the "destroy" sense, I might say I don't mind that but it should only be applied to soldiers not buildings or the economy. Or ask them if the object to December being the 12th month... There is no such breakdown. Or, at least, you have provided no evidence of a breakdown in communication. The word "evil" and the English language is not different from every other word in every other language. So why are making this idiotic argument about "evil" and English? If you are not sure exactly what sense someone is using the word "evil" for, then you can ask them. That is the power of language. It has nothing to do with "English". I don't know what your native language is, but it is equally true of that. Language is the arbitrary assignment of meaning to sounds by a group. That arbitrary assignment of meaning can (must) change over time and from one group to another. Obviously not. If you want to discuss the concept of evil, then do that. I am not at all interested in that discussion and will leave you alone. But stop making stupid statements about language. If you keep doing that, I will keep pointing out that you are saying moronic things.

This argument appears to based on what robots can do today. There seems to be reason why robots in future should not have consciousness. At least, I have never seen a convincing argument against that. But I have seen a few plausible explanations of why it might be possible. There is no evidence of that. As far as we know it is a side-effect of the complex processing entity that is the animal brain. It could equally well arise from a sufficiently complex electronic computing device, The "computers can only do what they are told" argument is hopelessly naive. We already have computers that can come up solutions or designs that the programmers never envisaged.

Sorry, I thought that had been answered. the gravity from something magically appearing would propagate at the speed as light. So if the Sun (or a distant galaxy) suddenly disappeared we would not the change in gravity at the same time we would see the event. So, if that happened outside our observable universe then we would never see it and never notice the change in gravity.

It seems to me to be the least important. Godot may be a better one.

The trouble is, those examples are based on something impossible (a mass suddenly appearing or disappearing). That mass can never disappear and so the question is irrelevant. However, if you suppose the same unrealistic though experiment (our supercluster just vanishes) then, yes, that would never be detectable by those galaxies outside our observable universe, whether by visual observation or detection of the change in gravity. But as mass cannot disappear like that, the question doesn't really arise. Although, a more realistic example might be: the gravity waves from the merger of two black holes in our galaxy could never be detected by a galaxy outside the observable universe. Does that answer the question?

Exactly. Similarly, if hearing voices does not affect your day to day life, it is not a "mental illness". But when those voices drive you to attack random strangers (because you also suffer from other psychoses) then it clearly becomes an "illness". (Excuse the use of generic you, again, but that is a standard part of my idiolect.) As English is not your first language, maybe I should try and make the point more clearly. Yes, psychiatric medications can have serious side effects. These can lead people to stop taking them, sometimes with negative results. The point is that this is not unique to psychiatry (which the article in question seemed to be arguing). It is true of all medications for all conditions. So, in all cases, whether a disorder is "physical" or "mental" (which seems a fairly meaningless distinction) the use of medication is a balance between its benefits (whether that is pain relief or reduction of psychotic symptoms) and its side effects. Is that clearer? The article linked had many other statements that seemed to me to be equally fallacious and intended solely to gain an emotional effect, rather than making a rational argument.

It is not a rabbit hole. It is a simple matter of fact, which you seem to be trying to turn into a molehill (to mix metaphors). The OP was (apparently) suggesting that someone or some organisation/group should provide an official definition of the word "evil" in English, so that it could be used as a standard term and avoid ambiguity, and he mentioned dictionaries in this context. (Why he picked on the word "evil" and the English language is beyond me. Which is why I think this clearly falls into the category of "stupid questions".) However, the role of a dictionary is not to be an arbiter of meaning and to provide "definitions" in the sense of "this is how you should use this word". The role of a dictionary is to provide descriptions of how a word is used. You can, quite reasonably, call these descriptions "definitions" but they do not have the purpose or authority (equivalent to that of an industrial standard, for example) requested by the OP. People will continue to use words in new and different ways, irregardless of what the dictionary says. Eventually the dictionary will catch up with those changes. Dictionaries follow, they don't drive. So it seems you are playing with the loose definition of the word "definition" to create an argument where there is none. What exactly is your point?

Only changes in gravity travel at c. At that distance, the distribution of mass in our galaxy (and the galaxy cluster and supercluster we are part of) will be roughly constant. So I don't see how receding at more than c would make any difference.

No one claimed that we have. But we have seen new species appearing. Let me repeat: WE HAVE SEEN new species appear.

Gravity extends to infinity, so no.

I don't think that is true. And, how could you compare clocks then and now? The only way of comparing clock rates is to communicate between them, or bring them together. Neither of this is an option for a clock 13 billion years ago. I have been told that you can choose a coordinate system where there is no expansion of space, but a shrinking of rulers and a changing speed of light. This is generally not used because it is more complex and less intuitive. It would also be exactly equivalent to the current model (as it is just a coordinate transform). So if inflation is required (and it isn't clear that it is required) then it would still be required using a different coordinate system.

So, in the extreme cases, yes.

Exactly. If "you" weren't free to make the decision, then someone else must have taken it. Who was that? Your subconscious? Is that a separate person? No. You are free to make the choice. Having made it, you will not let your "conscious" mind know until a little later. Otherwise it would feel like you made the decision before you had made it. Which would be very confusing.

It is a definition/description recording how people use the word, not defining how the word should be used. No, it isn't just you.

No. No.

But that doesn't man that we didn't freely make the decision. Just that our brain "hid" it from our conscious awareness temporarily. I assume this is part of the mechanism that allows the brain to integrate inputs with large temporal separation to create the illusion of now. For example, when you pick up a cup of coffee, the visual stimulus (hand touching cup) is almost immediate but the feel of the cup takes hundreds of milliseconds to arrive. The brain has to make those look simultaneous. And hide the long delay between you deciding to pick up the cup and the motor signals reaching the arm. So I don't think free will is an illusion, but the sense of things happening "now" is.

But at least I spotted it before you did. Maybe it was deliberate to make a point. Maybe it went over your head. And at least I don't keep posting the same thing with moronic colouring and random punctuation. Do you think that preceding statements with "//__" makes it look arty or more intelligent?

But "all of this" (critical thinking, experimental method, quantitative data, analysis of results, etc) is important to establish whether music actually has an effect or not. After that, you can start asking why. The other thing I would suggest is a double blind trial. You need one person to set up the samples and arrange for them to be excused to music. The sample are simply numbered so that no one can know which music/sound/silence they were exposed to. Then another person measures the responses. After that, these are related back to the music exposure. This helps remove bias due to the person doing the analysis subconsciously favouring one sample.

Nonsense. Science is a recent invention and has adopted a philosophy of methodological naturalism. So your god is not part of science, however much you might wish it. That is just a bizarre inversion of the etymological fallacy. Gravity has always existed even if the word "gravity" has changed its meaning. So the concept of gravity was a suitable subject for science. Your god has never existed (or at least never provided any evidence of its existence) and so has never been a suitable subject for science. In what process? You are strangely obsessed with god for an atheist. Science didn't exist in antiquity. Science never included any of those things. OK, the aether was briefly hypothesised but rapidly excluded from science. Stop repeating such idiotic and irrelevant statements.

I can't see this effect being significant. It would also be about the same for all stars and groups of stars. So it wouldn't have any effect on the measurements related to Hubble's Law.

No, they weren't science. Science is a modern invention. This is pretty rich, coming from someone who is here to promote his baseless, pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious beliefs. Science doesn't have dogma. (Pseudoscience and crackpottery does though.) Not really. Most people on this forum form their opinions based on evidence, not arbitrary belief systems. Seems quite likely. And UFOs, chemtrails, Apollo hoaxes, ... The word has been around since at least 1500 (from the latin). It was first used for the force of gravity before Newton was born. http://etymonline.com/index.php?search=gravity

Can we just clarify what you mean by "probable cause"? Are you referring to the reason why the universe exists, or something else? And, as I said before, could you provide some reference for this? Why do you think this is relevant? The existence of singularities in GR is really an indication that the theory does not accurately describe the real world (where singularities do not exist). Cranks never see/admit to the flaws in their thinking.

"So far there is no experimental confirmation of either binary or quantized nature of the universe, which are basic for digital physics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics Citation needed. But, of course, this has nothing to do with the random redefinition of the word "god" to mean "a bowl of petunias".

Because modern science didn't exist.