Strange

I was going to suggest that, as a more accurate approach. But even then I guess you need to be able to calculate the airflow (range) in order to design the system.

I am visualising it as the wave function being so "spread out" (non local) that it includes any space that the particle could get to at superluminal speed.

Mind you, they put the Daily Mail fairly near the centre on both axes. I would put it a bit further right and right near the bottom. They frequently publish lies and completely fabricated stories.

I am not threatened at all. I am commenting on (not criticising or dismissing) your ideas and trying to get you to enter into a discussion. You seem uninterested in discussing them though. The five post limit is only for the first day to try and deter spammers (I'm not sure it works very well) and I have no control over it. Anyway, you are past the limit and are now free to discuss your idea in as much depth as you wish. So, we are all here waiting, with open minds, to hear what you have to say. What's that? You just came here to insult people? Oh, OK. OK. Maybe others will carry on a discussion of this interesting idea. I think that is a good point. People differ in where, and how, they draw the line between their "self" and the outside world. Some people see themselves as very much an "island", a self-contained entity with well defined borders. Others don't draw much of a distinction between themselves and the rest of the world. (And, as with all these things, there is a complete spectrum.) I guess the latter type might be more likely to say that the universe is conscious because we are part of the universe.

Yes, you can. It doesn’t mean to do though. That is why science depends on evidence. But those wouldn’t necessarily be the same in DNA. Context is vital. The same sequence could mean different things depending where it was Clearly, you think you are smarter than everyone here, and no one here is worth talking to, so maybe you should find an alternative. If you only want to lecture people who already agree with you, rather than discuss your ideas, then maybe a blog would be better.

I guess the argument would be that that is a definition based on (small) biological life and that maybe it should be broadened to encompass larger possibilities. (I am always wary of that because if you make the definition to broad, you end up needing a new word to describe what we currently consider to be "life".)

I think you have just captured the entire philosophy of the forum.

It was just an example of something which is is undoubtedly alive. I also gave the example of the whole universe, which has been considered by many to be alive. However, despite this apparently being consistent with your idea, you seem reluctant to discuss it. Have you heard of John Wheeler's "participatory universe", for example? Or Philip Goff's "panpsychism"? The OP has reached their 5 post limit for the first day. Let us hope that they take the time to consider their approach and come back with a more constructive discussion. Here is an overview article that might give the OP some ideas to think about / research: https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-universe-may-be-conscious-prominent-scientists-state

Because lots of people have thought about this. And had polite, intelligent discussions about it. You are not the first person to suggest we should consider things at all scales to be alive. You may be one of the least constructive, though. It depends. If you approach it scientifically (ie. using evidence) it is a scientific question. If you approach it analytically, using rational debate and logic, it is a philosophical question. If you approach it on the basis of personal belief, then it is a religious question. It is not clear which approach you want to take. (I am guessing not the scientific, evidence-based one). It is a very common idea that has been debated frequently. No one but you gets so antagonistic about it. Do you know that most people don't? Then maybe you should not have joined. They are not. But I would like to see a slightly less combative approach. I started off trying to understand and explore what you were saying, but you have responded with nothing but insults. Why not start again more calmly. How about defining what you mean by "life force"?

We have cosmology, which studies the entire universe. That is as big as it gets. (And, yes, there are some scientists/philosophers who argue that the universe is conscious or alive.) No

You would have to explain what that means, before I could answer. What is a "life force"? What would it mean if the Earth were a life force? Have you heard of Gaia theory? That may be the sort of thing you are thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis There are living organisms bigger than dinosaurs. For example: https://www.businessinsider.com/largest-living-organism-the-armillaria-ostoyae-fungus-2017-5?IR=T No. Why would you think that?

So bad, we banned him twice

At the end of that it says: "localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal" which made me think of entanglement: like, is there some analogy possible between the model of tachyons and entanglement...

! Moderator Note Both have energy. This does not imply that matter is made of light. This thread is closed. Do not bring this subject up again. Feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum to fill the obvious gaps in your understanding.

Some of these may be instinctive in humans. (Although I don't think that is certain.) In which case, you build the same knowledge into the AI. Others are learned by experience. And an AI could do the same. Walking is not a binary thing, either. The AI robot's first attempt, after falling over once, might be to proceed by falling, dragging itself forward with its arms, standing up and then falling over again. It might progress from that to crawling. Then eventually staggering. Then walking in the most efficient way. Similar stages of progression could take place in communication skills. All of your counter arguments seem to consist of: "this thing [which is well known and demonstrated in practical systems] could never happen". I think you should go and study some examples of machine learning (for communication, interaction, mechanical skills, etc) before dismissing it as implausible. An argument from ignorance or incredulity is never convincing. As I said in my first post.

As you know from you extensive reading, if a vacuum collapse were to occur it would spread at the speed of light. So, no it isn't possible. They are formed by gravity. Simulations reproduce the formation of these large structures. If you follow "voids" link from the Wikipedia page that Ghideon mentions, it explains that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)

Training can use exactly the same techniques as "experience". Training and experience are the same thing.

Yes, it is straightforward to calculate their (somewhat paradoxical) behaviour using SR. But presumably somewhat more complex in GR.

I guess this is because we learn, from a very early age, that numbers are things we use to count physical objects with. It takes a while to realise they are abstract concepts based on certain properties (which happens to make them useful for counting things). And then it is a small step to different types of numbers based on different proerties. Or you can take a geometric approach to understanding complex numbers, rather than a purely arithmetic one. It makes more sense then. "The model works" is the key point. It doesn't necessarily mean that the curvature is real. (After all, we know think of the Newtonian "force" of gravity as not being a real force.)

It is just the interaction required by an observation or measurement that matters. If an interaction occurs, but is not part of a measurement or observation, then it has exactly the same effect(*), so "sentience" is not an issue. (*) This does, of course, raise the philosophical "tree in a forest" question of how we would know it has the same effect. And in quantum theory, this is what leads to the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment (and all the extensions, such as if his lab assistant opens the box but no one opens the door to the lab, then is the whole laboratory including the assistant in a superposition of states). As none of that makes any practical difference, I think we can ignore it.

! Moderator Note Moved to Trash

It is a bizarre question, but the answer is that they must have the same number of chromosomes and genes if they have the same genome. It's as if someone asked: "if the contents of these two books are the same, do they have the same words and chapters?" The answer is: Yes, because that is what the "have the same contents" means. (Maybe the people who wrote the question don't actually know what the words "genome", "chromosome", etc mean.)

Is that possible? (I suppose they could have been wrongly classified as different species, but then the genetic analysis shows they are actually the same.)

If they have the same (identical) genome then surely they are the same species? Also, I would assume that "genome" includes the division into chromosomes, so that would also be the same. And if the genome is identical then the genes must be identical.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations