Strange

What do you mean by "particle"? What do you mean by "nonexistent"? And considered by who? Could you ask questions that are less vague (and less repetitive).

I don't think anyone would disagree with that (*) but it is a large leap from "what we perceive is constructed and may not exactly represent the external reality" to "reality doesn't exists!!!1!" (*) well, actually, I know from a long running thread on another forum that some people would!

A waste of whose time? Why does a universe need consciousness? What is the point? What does it add? The universe seems to get along OK without it.

I would say he is also misinterpreting or incorrectly extrapolating what idealism says. I don't believe it says that there is no reality, but that we can never know if there is, or what form it takes. All we can know is what we perceive, which may or may not correspond to some external reality in some way. It seems to me that going from "we can't know" to "brains don't exist" is as bad a logical leap as from "unidentified" (flying object) to "aliens!".

Nope. I search for the phrase "classical objects do not exist according to QM" and it doesn't appear on the page.

What do you mean by "exist"? Does the computer that you are using exist?

No. Although, 1 is larger than any number you can create by appending 9s to 0.9.

My clock doesn't have any gears. And, by definition, time is what clocks measure.

Description of the system here: https://wwwmagic.mpp.mpg.de/ Overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGIC_(telescope) I am not sure what the "two different energy levels" refers to (there are a wide range of energy levels detected).

It would always have a finite number because you can always add another digit (same reason there is no largest integer).

It is possible the whole universe is infinite. Not that that is relevant to your question. I'm not sure there is any contradiction. Hilbert spaces have infinite dimensions, the natural numbers have infinite cardinality, and there are other infinities that occur naturally in mathematics. That doesn't stop it being applied to the real world. Just because we could count an unbounded number of apples doesn't mean we have to (or that we can't count three of them).

You will need a bit more than a few incomprehensible pictures to make your case.

Ah, The Daily Fail, that great bastion of truth, decency and popular idiocy. Presumably it is benefit scrounging illegal immigrants that will cause the world to end. Or women. On the other hand, if they say the world will end in 2100 then we can be extra confident that it won't.

I thought it was 2001. Or was it 2011. Or ... If I had a dollar for every year the word was supposed to end, I would have several dollars.

They are both unprovable one way or the other and therefore, like other quasi-religious beliefs, of little interest.

Citation needed. Haven't you asked exactly the same question before? Possibly more than once.

Probably not: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnoJusTruBel

What do you think?

Even if that were an accurate model (it probably isn't) that is independent of isotropy. You could have an anisotropic bubble expanding into empty space.

Exactly. The expansion is defined by a scaling factor. And, as you say, a constant scaling factor leads to an increasing speed with distance (or time). This is the reason for Hubble's law. But what was discovered ~20 years ago is that the scale factor is not constant but appears to have started increasing about 5 billion years ago. That is what is described as acceleration.

It has been measured (otherwise we wouldn't know about it ) but I don't think there is an simple way of characterising it (I certainly don't fully understand it). Note that this acceleration has a very specific meaning: the deviation from a constant rate of expansion. So, although a constant rate of expansion means that things raced faster as they get further away, that is not referred to as acceleration (because it is not proper motion, just the effects of scaling the geometry of the universe).

There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing. On the other hand, science has to be open to new possibilities. So, if there were evidence that the universe cam from nothing, then we would have to accept that. That does not match what we observe. If it exploded, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it to become a black hole. There have been some scientific theories along these lines, but they are not generally accepted. For example: https://www.insidescience.org/news/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe Indeed. It seems a pretty popular idea. But without some evidence for it, it isn't really science.

After 37 pages of discussion of the scarcity of evidence for his existence, this is a particularly unhelpful comment.

That you are unwilling or unable to provide any data to support your opinions/beliefs. And that, therefore, you are not interested in science. And yet, despite your ignorance, we are supposed to take your opinions seriously.

You can find several discussions of this on Stack Overflow and elsewhere. For example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7918806/finding-n-th-permutation-without-computing-others http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/60742/finding-the-n-th-lexicographic-permutation-of-a-string http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29236556/how-can-i-calculate-n-th-permutation-or-tell-the-lexicographic-order-of-a-given https://codesciencelove.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/finding-the-nth-lexicographic-permutation-of-0123456789/ https://apps.topcoder.com/forums/?module=Thread&threadID=645384 https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-find-the-lexicographically-Kth-permutation-of-the-sequence-1-N-efficiently http://nrecursions.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/nth-permutation-without-swapping.html http://code.activestate.com/recipes/126037-getting-nth-permutation-of-a-sequence/ http://www.confusedcoders.com/data-structures/lexicographic-permutation-of-string http://echochamber.me/viewtopic.php?t=104500 That is just the first page of results for: https://www.google.com/search?q=generating+nth+permutation