Strange

Of course. That is why I said "well established" because we are talking about science and so "proven" is irrelevant. Apart from the fact it is contradicted by evidence. That is how science works: form a hypothesis; test it against the evidence; reject the hypothesis if the evidence does not support it. When there is new evidence that electrons are infinitely variable then come back and present it. Only if you choose to ignore the evidence. As well as being wrong, this is irrelevant: wishful thinking and made-up "stuff" are not valid evidence.

I think you miss the point: the twins are complex organisms whose outcomes are determined partly by the DNA (itself a comnplex structure), partly by changes to that DNA and partly by environment. On the other hand, an electron is fundamental particle fully defined by a small number of parameters. So, apart from the possibility of being in (a finite number of) different states, they are all identical. I can't imagine why, as it is very obviously wrong.

The only reason is: there is no evidence for it. You can support any proposition at all if you invent the evidence. That isn't allowed in a court of law and it isn't allowed in science. Does it? Citation needed. GOTO #2 (We appear to be stuck in an infinite loop.)

But you admit you don't know anything about the science, so what are your "opinions" based on? And why should anyone (including you) take them seriously?

I have no idea. But in a discussion about God it seems bizarre to ask how human activity relates to God. It is a bit like asking how driving cares relates to Ford. (Well, apart from the fact that Ford exists.)

Fascinating. Thanks.

Then you need to define what you mean by consciousness. I would like to see some evidence of that (for dogs, especially). I suspect they might follow a gesture that looks a bit like throwing but ends up pointing. But just static pointing? I'm not convinced.

What evidence is there that the universe is a dimensionless multiverse? And what does "dimensionless" mean? Maybe he didn't know it. After all, there seems to be little evidence for it.

We seem to be the only animals that have a theory of mind. Apparently we are the only animal that understands pointing; maybe that is significant? Do other primates have mirror nuerons?

This would be a good question to submit to Randall Munroe's What If site: https://whatif.xkcd.com/

Googling this shows that there are lots of mad hobbyists trying this sort of thing as well...

I am not that familiar with the history (or even implementation) of these interfaces but most of the choiuces in interconnects are driven by technology. When IDE was developed, the fastest way of transferring data was in parallel over a number of data signals. More recently, serial interfaces have got faster and more reliable (partly because electronic components have got faster and also because new encoding schemes have been developed to exploit that) so that many interfaces and busses that were parallel previously have become serial. Serial means fewer wires which means lower cost and lower power. Found a brief history of IDE here: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/over-c.html

Simplifying Sensei's point, the current you can get out will be less than 24/90ths of the input curernt (a lot less, I suspect). I don't understand this, what does the 14V refer to? You would be better off just taking the supply from your batteries rather than all the losses in your generator and inverter.

No. But I could. It would still be useless without some explanation which is why I won't.

And there are bitfields: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/bit_field Only really useful for programming hardware, though.

Speak for yourself! That I can agree with.

How does he define "violence". I guess this is going to be yet another thread where nobox says something obviously wrong ("but it's out of the box so it must be insightful") and then refuses to justify or explain it.

Storytelling is as old as humanity too.

This ad-hoc cherry picking and excuse-making is diagnostic of numerology. I wasn't sure until now, so thanks for confirming it.

Sorry, not a mind-reader. When you say "spacetime value=0" or "Empty spacetime = 0" then I have to assume you mean "spacetime [value]=0". Because if you had meant energy = 0 then I assume you would have written "energy = 0". I beg to differ. If you are unclear or ambiguous, then it is your fault, not ours.

I don't know what it means to give space-time "a value". Can you give the tin in your example "a value"? No, you can describe its shape, volume, colour of the label, etc. You can say the contents are zero beans (but the volume is still not zero). I'm not sure if you are just expressing yourself in a fuzzy way, or if you haven't got your idea clear in your head ... (the two often go hand in hand, in my experience)

You are trying to understand something that I think requires several years of postgraduate study. Asking ad-hoc questions on a forum and reading a few articles is not going to get you up to speed quickly. This is just what we learn in school: 3 different dimensions at right angles to each other - space divided up into cubic grid.

How so? What do you mean by "violence"?

That is so obviously not true you need to provide some justification rather than making these assertions. Gravity was not a significant force when the universe consisted of a hot dense quark-gluon plasma.

So you need to explain what a "virtual rational value" is. it is not a term I am familiar with.