Strange

True. But there is no best or fairest form of democracy. However, I would say that direct representation is among the worst possible options (for the reasons given).

We have always been at that point and always will be. When people first saw the stars as lights on a sphere, that was reality for them. When we have a deeper theory of quantum gravity, then that will be our reality.

If you want to do arithmetic with 1100 bit numbers, then I would recommend using one of the existing libraries to do this. Anything other beyond addition rapidly gets complicated and needs testing. For example: https://gmplib.org On the other hand, it sounds like you need to reconsider your approach.

Absolutely. I see no difference between our daily experience and science in this respect. They both use observations to build models of the world around us. Science is just a bit more rigorous about accuracy and subsequent testing of the model.

And they are now admitting that they will have to keep freedom of movement in order to have free trade with Europe. Two great lines from lying scumbags "leave" politicians this morning: "The public are not three-year olds" [meaning: so they should know we didn't mean it] "People expect to be lied to" [ditto]

Any or all of the above.

There is nothing imaginary about it. As you would know if you have ever stubbed your toe. And there is more to it than electrons and photons. There are also protons and neutrons which, with electrons, make up solid matter. Plus there are several other particles such as neutrinos, etc.

Can you explain why? I'm not sure what else you expect. This is just a fact of life: we can only ever know about the world by what we measure - that might just be using our eyes and ears to interpret our surroundings, or taking accurate measurements with instruments to test a theory. All we have, in both cases is our observations. That is as close to reality as we can ever get.

We measure things like charge, voltage, distance, time, force, etc. These are the (only) "real" things.

Indeed. They are all things we can measure. "Reality" is something else. Maybe.

I was going to say you could use a laser and mirrors to create a triangle in an area of high gravity and then measure the angles of the triangle to more directly observe the curvature. But it is even simpler than that: gravitational lensing.

Interesting question (I was not familiar with the word decussation before). It seems to be related to the evolution from invertebrates (where the main nerves around the digestive tract at the front of the body) to vertebrates (where the spinal cord runs down the back). The arrangement of most of the internal organs is reversed as well. More discussion here: https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-why-does-nervous-system-decussate

The only access to what "physically exists" is through our measurements and observations. If our measurements and observations are consistent with curvature, then that is the closest we can get to saying curvature is "real". To get any further than that, you would have to define more precisely what you mean by "physically exists" or "real" if they don't mean "what we observe and measure".

But sometimes the "will of the population" is just wrong. Thanks for proving my point. You don't allow the popular will to decide that minority groups should be persecuted. The role of government in such cases is to protect the minorities and to educate the population. For example, the British government will never have a referendum on capital punishment. Because they know there is a good chance that the public would vote in favour, and then the results would have to be ignored. It might be safe to allow the public to choose a new flag or national anthem. But even then you have to retain the right to overrule them. After all, we wouldn't want the new UK national anthem to be "All hail, Queeny McQueenface". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Sir_David_Attenborough So, democratic? Not in the real world.

If it bypasses the properly elected representatives. If a quarter of the population can impose their will on the rest. If the majority of those happily admit they don't understand the issues. If the claims made by one side are not just wrong but deliberate lies. Then I think it is a pretty poor example of democracy. The fact that these issues are incredibly complicated and require huge amounts of time and expertise to understand is the very reason we have representative democracies. Throwing that away for the most important decisions is insanity.

Reality is what we measure in various experiments. The reconciliation is comparing these measurements with the mathematics to find out if the theory is a good description of reality or not. If the mathematics matches reality then it is a good theory. If the mathematics theory does not match reality then the theory is rejected.

Ah, I see. You are talking about personal opinions. Not science. I agree that scientists are just as likely as anyone else to have irrational opinions.

A few weeks ago, Farage said that a 52:48 result should result in another referendum: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 There is now a petition to demand this: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 Somehow, I suspect Farage won't be signing it.

It is certainly democratic. Unless you live in a country where the government is not elected? It is far more democratic than a referendum, for example.

Curvature can be measured (e.g. the Pound-Reba experiment mentioned in post 9). The question is whether that reflects some underlying reality or not.

I would say they are just as real as they are in any other branch of physics. However, "reality" is more the domain of philosophy than physics.

Plates? With fish 'n' chips? I don't think so. That is not the British way!

Nice insight!

It seems that the need for ingroups and outgroups is hard-wired in human nature. Presumably it has/had some evolutionary benefit.

We do have to adopt a lot of US regulations in order to sell products there. And in many cases (apart from those set by international standards bodies) we have no say in what the regs are. Luckily, in Europe we can have some say in what standards and regulations are in force. Oh ...