Search the Community

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/plus/timeless.cfm Thread needs an intro, as per past, lost of new questions about time, quantum space-time, and resolution (the process that converts events in the quantum space-time to classical spacetime) have been placed in other threads. Physically this now appears to be a hot topic so I created a special thread and issues regarding time may be placed here. The first entry is a comparison of philosophical questions of time and comparing them to the quantum/classical conundrum that time creates.

According to me, this is the entire Mirror Mirror ethics or lack of it is more better than regular universe. For whole life i was honest aspie boy but maybe it's better to be like Lorca Mirror Maybe i try to be pilot, lie on medical, than lie all my career

Let's say you step into a cloning chamber. You push the button, and out you walk with your new clone! Wait a minute... i came out of the wrong pod?!?! If you go into a cloning chamber (you know, the cheesy soft scifi ones that instantly make a perfect copy of yourself with no loss of information or anything to build you out of), how do you know it's you that's going to walk out and not your clone? Will you be the original, or the clone? If you have the exact memories, exact appearance, exact mind, how could you tell if you were always the original you or if you're just a clone with you creator's memories?

OK, this is just a random thought, but what if the Kraken is benevolent? What if it has the best interests of kerbals at hand? These are my examples of Kraken 'Attacks', and why they are not as they seem - When a kerbal hits the ground at incredible speeds: This can make the Kraken strike, sending the kerbal out of the Kerbolar System at FTL Speeds. This is because the Kraken is saving the Kerbal, and giving them the chance to come to terms with their death before their oxygen runs out - EVA on reentry: The Kraken giving the Kerbal a quick death rather than letting them burn to death in the atmosphere - Large rockets: The Kraken knows huge rockets tend to not end well for the Kerbals, and mercifully kills them beforehand - Bop: Does this look like an evil organism? The beak isn't even sharp. There are no hooks or suckers. The eyes are not red. It's just a cute little space watermelon.

I was thinking recently if certain animals (Bottlenose Dolphins, Elephants, Crows) try to think of an explanation for their existence (religion), or not. Please give your own feedback about what you think.

I'm a curious fellow. Another topic here on the forums or rather a detour in this topic (the metric vs imperial topic, to be exact) stirred up that curiosity. What is mathematics anyway? So, I began looking around. First stop was ye ol' Wikipedia. Now Wikipedia can be a great source of information but it can be a wild ride sometimes (too often, in fact). Here is what is driving me up the walls (from Wikipedia's article on mathematical structure): "In mathematics, a structure on a set, or more generally a type, consists of additional mathematical objects that..:" So, to understand structure, I should know what a set is but wait no, a set apparently is only part of something bigger, a type so I should look that up first, or should I look at mathematical objects first, to understand better what a type is? So what I did was, as soon as I came across anything to the likes of "based on [new concept here]", or "a sub-set of [new concept here]" etc, I followed those links hoping to get to an even more fundamental er, fundament that would explain a certain idea or term. Soon I came across the article on mathematical objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object Now we are rushing towards the realm of philosophy. Still I feel there are even more fundamental terms I should understand before really understanding mathematical objects. Looking around, it is true that often you will find say an explaination of A that requires a prior explaination of B, which itself refers to A for prior explaination, or to C which in turn refers back to A. Circular explainations are tricky. Most of the time, it seems, they ultimately fail to explain but one can not rule out that at the very base, there are in fact some A that can only exist if B exists and vice versa, the two are not the same but one can not exist without the other, and together they do form a unit (in lack of a better word) of foundation which all other ideas rest upon. If anyone here have ever dived into the depth of mathematics, here's a question: Where would one want to start to learn about mathematics in it's purest form if one wants to start at the very start, where the foundations have no further foundations underneath?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/ This particular article uses string theory as an example of great chasm can grow between experimental and theoretical phyicist, calling in scienc philosophers to modulate. The problem with theorectical physics is observations set boundaries, that either have to be obeyed or observationally explained. Once niether of these can be done tolerances in application can result in a variety of possibilites, as has been suggested by multiverse opponents, there could be universe with laws different from our own. Occamic reasoning applies to limit unneccesary complexity in theories, and only observations can ultimately found a basis for more complexity.