But should laws not refer to something? Law itself being nature sounds, for me at least, a bit inconceivable. — Pez

Nature refers to everything, everything is a part of nature. Have you ever seen a star doing something UNnatural?
Everything that happens naturally does so because nature is the rules. Even human intervention cannot cause things to happen unnaturally.

What makes nature comply to laws — Pez

Not sure if anyone has already answered this in the same way and I don't have time today to read the whole tread.

Nature does not comply to any laws, simply because nature is the laws.

what is Valentine’s Day? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately it is nothing more than a money grabbing event that people are dumb enough to follow the crowd and throw their cash away on things that last a few days at most, flowers and candy for the most part.

I don't think love and friendship need a special day, they are things that should be celebrated daily. And their should be no need to make people feel bad if they are not showing you with gifts in the name of love.

That remains to be seen. — Vera Mont

:lol: :rofl:

I have heard that there are good, honest politicians. — BC

Yes, I read the brothers Grimm as well when i was a kid.

So, like, they'll have to settle for John Oliver? I can live with that. — Vera Mont

You can maybe, but do you really think the politicians are going to be happy about it? He talks too straight for that job.

Run for president of the US. — Vera Mont

Not going to happen lady. They threw the English out once already and I am damn sure they would not want me as a president, not even in the past or future. :rofl:

OK, weird things are happening around here. I just opened the lounge and found that "The News Discussion" is at the top of the list. It is marked as unread but the last post was 10 months ago and I read it way back then.

Is someone practicing for April fools day?

The past is sealed. — Vera Mont

If that is true then there is a problem, I will have to pay my debts. Bugger.

Nobody seems interested in my 200 years-in-the-future trip — BC

Did you read Theory #2? It clearly explain how time travel works.

Some sort of life must exist out there somewhere, it is almost impossible that this is the only place that life exits.

But there are probably limited numbers with the compatibilities to travel here to visit or dominate us.

Theory #1
Time travel is impossible.
The universe might be infinite, but its content is finite. Removing content from today's universe and inserting into a past version would cause this universe to implode and the past to explode.

Theory #2
#1 Time travel is only possible through portals that are opened, using great amounts of energy, into the chosen moment in time. Then re-opened for e return passage. It is instantaneous and people can travel both ways. They retain their exact properties.

#2 Geographical locations are done by the control computer and the portal would let you see where you are going to end up so there is no danger of coming out of ii in a wall.

#3 You will always be you because you have just walked from the present to that time.

#4, As above but applied to the places.

#5 Yes,yes and no. You will not be alive here because you walked into the past and being dead there would prevent you from walking back.

#6 Whatever you knew when you went there.

#7 See #1

#8 See #1

#9 See #1

#10 No and no. so be bloody careful.

I don't know, do momentarily pleasures take away long term pleasures of life? — No One

I know lots of people that think a hot shower is a luxury, and a couple that think an indoor toilet is one as well. it is very subjective and relative to the "normal" of the person.

And there can be many happy moments that have absolutely no cost, so there is no real, hard correlation between happiness and luxuries.

There is extensive debate and literature about the nature of spacetime and whether it is a substance or not. Perhaps you enjoy this. — MoK

One view is that spacetime is a substance: a thing that exists independently of the processes occurring within it. This is spacetime substantivalism. The hole argument seeks to show that this viewpoint leads to unpalatable conclusions in a large class of spacetime theories. — The article you provided a llnk to:

Oh dear.

I studied this article a long time ago and had a hard time grasping all its content. — MoK

Yes, I can imagine.

None of this is new to me, but you have still failed to provide a link to backup your claim that spacetime is a substance. That is what I would like a link to.

Spacetime is a substance and has a curvature around massive objects. Spacetime can affect the motion of any other objects so in this sense it exists and has a property, its curvature. — MoK

Please provide a link to this information. As far as I know it is nothing but a concept used to refer to points in time in space. But I an interested in viewing anything you have to further my knowledge.

I defined time to a good extent in the previous comment. Please let me know if you need elaboration. — MoK

No, you said time is a substance. you were asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Time is defined as the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event.
Time if anything is a human construct used to understand the passage of events.

What I do not understand is the jar of strawberry jam in the first image.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I also don't understand the implication of this to the first premise as well.

P1) Time is needed for any change
— MoK

Time is not defined in the OP. It could be referring to anything.

Cool, so you agree with the second premise.

P2) Nothing to something is a change
— MoK

More or less, if you are saying what I thought you were saying.

Time is a substance that allows change. Therefore, this premise is also correct given the definition of time and nothing.

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

As I said, you gave no definition for time. But to claim that time is a substance would mean that it has some sort of physical presence, which is a long stretch of the imagination. Could you maybe explain that a bit better.

P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing. — Sir2u

I cannot understand how your conclusion follows from the premises. — MoK

My apologies,you are right there is a bit missing.

C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing in cubic volume A.

It looks pretty clean to me, maybe the only do it figuratively.



But it appears that they still leave love letters to them.

It must be true, I found it on the internet. :rofl:

No need to explain this one.

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

Time could be a trillionth of a second or even less, lots can happen in that time and we would not see it happen.

P2) Nothing to something is a change — MoK

If you mean that something existing where nothing existed before, then you might be right. A tree in your garden where there was none when you moved in 25 years ago does not mean that it came from nothing.
The idea that the universe came from nothing is in my opinion an unfounded statement, because they have no idea what exactly was there before. If the big bang theory is correct then there was something there before.

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

Time is attached to action, not objects.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — MoK

Yes maybe so, but not using your syllogism. Try this.

P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing.

I have multiple questions that need answering. — an-salad

Did you try google?

First, if there are infinite whole numbers, and there are infinite decimals between 0 and 1, and there are infinite decimals between 0.1 and 0.12, does that mean that infinity itself is infinitely infinite infinitely (etc.) ? — an-salad

There maybe an infinite number of answers to this question, but I don't know any of them.

Also, will there be a manned mission to m87 by 2030? What if u brought a talisman from Cambodia? — an-salad

I just asked NASA, they said no. They might get to Mars by then but it will be a couple of hundred years before they attempt any kind of inter-galactic flights. And as far as they are concerned they don't give a damn where you buy your talisman from.

Also, Ive never left Chicago in my life. How is it different out there? Is the sky purple? Are there dinosaurs? Are there three large moons? — an-salad

What do you mean by "out there"? We sometimes have almost purple sky, there are iguanas that get pretty big but we only have three moons after the second or third six pack.

Also he's at a podium so I assumed he was a teacher. Possibly an English professor. — TiredThinker

I assumed he was the preacher at a southern baptist church, and from what I remember some of them do need to be more pacific.

Yep that is a good definition, stupid people fail to use the intelligence and education they were given, regardless of the level they are at.

But the blame for stupidity cannot be laid upon the educational systems, when they fail to do their job properly the product is ignorant people.
Stupidity is a personal choice or habit disease picked up from other stupid members of society.

Point was more that if four people are interested, and 25 are not, perhaps 'the forum has spoken' and we must remain but abstract avatars to one another :) That said, I'm happy to just take the four and have the damn conference - if that's what you're getting at :) — AmadeusD

I am not sorry to say that I don't give a shit about the naysayers. If it is something that will not have any affect on them why should they waste their time trying to stop others doing it?

If they are not interested, they can either just ignore it or be polite and say no thanks.

Let us know the setup and I will see what I can do to join in.

Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.

— BR — Mikie

That would depend on the definition of stupid would it not.

According to some dictionaries:
Stupid, adj

• Lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity
• Lacking intelligence
• In a state of mental numbness especially as resulting from shock
• Devoid of good sense or judgment

Would you like to have The Philosophy Forum AVL conference? — AmadeusD

It might be an interesting thing to do, getting to talk to people from around the world face to face.

I think your mistake here was including the option for NO in the poll. If they are not interested why should they be allowed a say in the activities.

Basically a guy literally becoming more pacific-like when someone asks them to be more "pacific" as opposed to more "specific" which was likely what they meant. Is this racist? — TiredThinker

Or maybe he is just an angry guy and they were making fun of that.

Being as the joke itself has nothing to do with the color of the person it is aimed at, there can be no valid screams of racism. The truth is probably that someone in the congregation took the picture and did the art work, one of his brothers.

:up:

Minoan civilisation > Bronze Age > bronze > alloy > mixture > chemistry >science > scientific method

I really was not expecting this to work. Some sort of alchemy? — Lionino

It went a bit longer than normal but I got there. :wink:

Minoan civilisation > Bronze Age > bronze > alloy > mixture > chemistry > scientific > systematic > empirical > proposition > philosophy of language

Do you know more tricks? — javi2541997

:cry: Nope

So cool, why Honduras if you don't mind me asking? How does it differ from, say, Guatemala or Costa Rica? — Lionino

My father was a captain on a ship that ran between New Orleans and several other parts of the gulf coast to Honduras and other parts of Central America.
When I was a teenager I used to travel a lot with him and just loved this place. Later he moved down here and I followed a few years later.

Guatemala is a nice place, but back in the 60's and 70's it was not really pro British. They had a claim against England that British Honduras was theirs. It later became Belize and independent.

I know I do many weird things... — javi2541997

You have no idea how alike we are then. :wink:

Try this:
find any topic in Wikipedia, in English.
In the main article, click on the first link that is not Italic.
Do the same on the next articles.
By the time you have reached the seventh or eighth article you should be looking at something to do with philosophy.
It does not work for everything but it should for about 90%.

Supratrochelar. — javi2541997

Please explain your reasoning, under what circumstances, reasons, warped thinking does this qualify as a last word.

That is only about instantaneous speed. — Lionino

If the wheel has a circumference of 2 meters, the car will advance 2 meters for each rotation if there is no slippage. That is the rotational speed of the wheel in relation to linear velocity of the car. No part of the wheel can advance fast than the car. in fact at certain parts of the revolution all points around the circumference are traveling in the opposite direction to the car. Combining the speeds is not possible because they do not have the same vector.

Nothing you wrote in any way explains how any part of a wheel can travel faster than another part of it, which is what I asked you to explain.

If you are considering linear speed, yes. If you are considering instantaneous speed in relation to the floor. — Lionino

I was just stating that I can find no way to explain how it would be possible for one point on the wheel's circumference to to be traveling at a different speed to another point on the circumference. That just cannot happen.

At the same instance that the patch is in contact with the road the top part of the wheel also has a velocity of zero as does every equivalent area on the wheel.

Not only is there speed that comes from the cars movement, but from the tire going around itself. — Lionino

But we can always add to that the speed of rotation of the earth, the speed of orbit of the earth, the speed of the sun orbiting the Milky Way.
But that goes way beyond the point de Grasse is trying to make.

Now, which part of the wheel is moving twice the speed? I guess that would be the top of wheel. — Lionino

Nope, that would be science fiction, the part at the top travels at the same speed.

The problem here I think is one of "in relation to what is the velocity measured".

Lets try looking at this from a slightly different point of view.

You are walking or running down the road at a certain speed. each time your foot touches the road it stays there for a certain time while the rest of your body moves forward.

From this point of view, de Grasse is correct. In that instant your point of contact with the road is not moving hence a velocity of zero.

Currently living: Hobart, Tasmania — RobTAS

Have you met the devil yet? :wink:

I was born in England, lived in Canada, USA, Belize and have lived in Honduras since '75.