perhaps the inverse of one of Planck's constants. — jgill

Now we're talking!

From theories of gravity, something which I'm more familiar with, I'd say that scientific theories seem to progress in such a way that the older ones are special cases of newer ones.

To illustrate, the calculation of relative velocity involves the use of the Lorentz factor, but at nonrelativistic speeds, it tends to zero and can be ignored completely.

Fun facts

1. Animals don't suicide no matter how extreme their suffering.

2. Humans suicide when extreme their suffering.

:ok: Danke.

Another thing:

How does the logic of biosignatures work?

Did the Mars rover "think"

1. If life then so and so biosignatures (scientific hypothesis i.e. amenable only to falsification)

OR

2. If so and so biosignatures then life (proof of life :snicker:)

OR

3. Both of the above

???

possible life-bearing planet — Wayfarer

Signatures, distinct signs, of life!

We all seem to have vague ideas about what light-spectral identifying features of life are. Details, anyone have 'em?

Infinities can appear at singularities — jgill

Yea, that much I know; fell in love with that word since I was, what?, 17!

Anyway is the $\infty$ in a singularity physics calculation $\aleph_0$?

So they measured the light of a star as it passed though the atmosphere of a planet 1,500 light years away, and by the absorption pattern they found, they can say that the planet's atmosphere contains steam. — Banno

Dude, they measured absorption lines in an atmosphere 1,500ly away. — Banno

The phenomenal power of logic! What scientists are able to do these days could've been easily mistaken for sorcery a few hundred years ago! 1,500 light years away? That's 1.42 × 10¹⁶ km!!! :scream: That there are that many km in the distance we're talking about is an indication of how small humans are, relatively speaking of course.

:up:

Yes, yes, and yes!

Hit the bullseye, you have! — Master Yoda

Space and time are properties. Missed that completely!

So, is for every predicate P if Px & also Py, x = y with especial care taken to include locus & tempus among the predicates.

What's your take on two cars of the same model? Would you still say identity of indiscernibles or would you switch to equivalence of indiscernibles?

Muchas gracias again for clearing up the matter for me! There's more to discuss but leave that for another day!

That is because reason cannot seem to abide its silent magnanimity, it is constantly nagging faith to go further and be rational. — Merkwurdichliebe

:grin: Which party has lost its patience, is annoyed, and is fuming with rage? Theists (faith) or Atheists (reason)?

All I can say is that given how a host of inexpensive contraceptives (for men & women) are available off-the-counter and in reproductive clinics, becoming pregnant with a child neither the man nor the woman involved wants is being irresponsible and callous, doubly so since abortion the inevitable aftermath is murder in the eyes of some folks. Would you, for instance, visit an Amazonian tribe and do something that could be (mis)construed as a heinous crime in that community?

Yeah, you can trust science/philosophy to mess up our crisp, sharply defined categories.

Before science/philosophy: A human was simply someone who had easily recognizable, relatable physical features, spoke a language, and could think reasonably well.

After science/philosophy: No such clarity or perhaps, more accurately, an exposé of our muddled, wooly thinking.

& @jgill

I wonder what Max Tegmark would've said about my query.

I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist so you'll have to cut me some slack here. Imsgine you're doing a calculation on black holes and you end with $\infty$ in your result.

Last I checked there are many infinities, each larger than the other. the "smallest" of them being the infinity of natural numbers viz. {1, 2, 3,...} aka $\aleph_0$. Are all the infinities that appear in physics calculations $\aleph_0$?

:ok:

In US, when a pregnant woman is murdered the defendant is usually charged with two counts. Seems like this is an implicit admission of the sovereignty of fetal life on the part of the state. — Merkwurdichliebe

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

So American law is internally inconsistent!

I suspect — 180 Proof

:fire:

If we construct a hypothetical scale for suffering then there's a point beyond which the sign flips and suffering goes from pro-life (for existence) to pro-death (against existence). Cancer pain seems to be one such point. It's a feature not a bug in my humble opinion but why it hasn't been installed so to speak in all living organisms is a mystery to me. If you torture a dog for example, the thought of suicide never crosses its minds.

Thanatos rules over animals (natalism). Algos over humans (antinatalism).

Something doesn't add up here!

This feels important: Apoptosis (cellular suicide). Hypothesis: Those who're suicidal are carrying a (microbial/meme) contagion of sorts and the only way to stop the spread is hara kiri. :chin:

Well, that went over my head, but what caught my eye is that what you seem to be saying is our options aren't $\infty$ i.e. we may restricted to finite mathematics, even if not all the time, some of the time.

all babies are born with a speckle of the divine — Michael McMahon

Minds are little gods — Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz

God has been attributed with omnipresence - that feels like a good place to start arguing for pantheism.

Your post has Martin Rees written all over it. A compliment, not a put-down. Mankind in particular, life in general, has been reinstated, put back on the pedestal we were so unceremoniously knocked down from.

:up:

The 4 cardinal virtues:

1. Sophia/Prudentia
2. Fortitudo
3. Iustitia
4. Temperantia

Are these 4 virtues internally consistent?

Pantheism is just an idea, it doesn't seem to be a hypothesis. What's divine about Hitler?

Merci beaucoup for the warning!

Graham's number appears in a mathematical proof but what about calculations that use actual measurements such as mass, velocity, charge and so on? Infinity appears in black hole calculations and once that happens, the results evoke the response nec caput nec pedes. I only wanted to explore the possibility of some kinda workaround to this rather lamentable state of affairs in the math of physics.

Initially I was of the opinion that infinity had to be replaced by an extreme number like Graham's number but the result $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} = -\frac{1}{12}$ (used in string theory) is evidence the number that we swap infinity with in a calculation, surprise, surprise, doesn't have to be large, a wannabe infinity; a small, nevertheless most special number like $-\frac{1}{12}$ will do just fine.

Bartricks' is sayin': ~◇(Materialism is true & True present is experienced).

Identity Equivalence of indiscernibles — Relativist

Words matter! Mass-Energy/Acceleration-Gravity identity equivalence!

Ever since Copernicus's heliocentric model (re: mediocrity principle). :smirk: — 180 Proof

Astronmers are there to put us in our place! :snicker:

The irony is that Copernicus was working for the Church, an organization that's all about how humans are sooo special. Laozi?

Amor intellectualis dei. — 180 Proof

:fire:

Holistic approach. There's an excellent reason why we can reason and emote. It's an old cliché that the former hasta be isolated and guarded against the latter. If the limbic system shuts down the prefrontal cortex, let it! If it got humans this far, it's a plus, not a minus, oui monsieur?

Antinatalism gives me AI vibes! It's the kinda solution to problems (herein suffering) an AI would come up with.

It also reminds me of Stalin (vide infra).

Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem. — Joseph Stalin

A quarrel, if allowed to, soon escalates into a death match! Once you kill your opponent, you feel like Andrew Wiles, they brilliant chap who proved Fermat's Last Theorem, who solved a 400 year-old mathematical problem! :snicker:

The problem with Penrose's hypothesis is that microtubles aren't restricted to brains, the purported thinking organ. It's a step backwards in that sense - he's chosen a cellular structure that's ubiquitous and for that simple reason he wouldn't be able to home in on a particular organ as the seat of consciousness.

The Cosmic Perspective! Our anthropocentric egos take serious hits from astronomers. More! At this rate we'll be humbled to death! :snicker:

Bactericidals: Antibiotics.

Bacteria: Single-celled organisms.

Zygote: Single-celled proto-human.

Homicidal = Murderous (women who abort).

:chin:

Morality is built around 2 concepts:

1. Algos (sorrow/joy)

2. Thanatos (death/life)

Pro-choicers may get themselves off the hook by saying the fetus feels no pain (1) when being aborted but they're still killing life and hence abortion is unethical (2).

deserve to die — Bartricks

Only the worst, the most diabolical, of criminals deserve to die! Draw your own conclusions about abortion/antinatalism.

Précisément! We're on the same page!

Is the ego really concerned with self-preservation?

Isn't it easy to come up with examples in which ego-driven behavior is self-destructive, and purpusefully so? — Tzeentch

Keep it comin'!!!

The idea of being in hell can hurt more when one thinks about the good of heaven ;) — DA671

If you ignore :point: :sad: then, all you have are guilty pleasures - the proverbial fly in the ointment, oui monsieur? The flags in the US & India of all places are flying at half-mast to mourn Shinzo Abe's death. — Agent Smith

So, happy folks are there to, inter alia, rub salt on sad folks' wounds, to intensify the suffering, to double the pain as it were. Are happy folks then really happy? :chin:

People are good more because they don't wanna end up in hell and less because they wanna be in heaven. Nothing motivates like hurt! :grin:

A more benign/less toxic meaning of ego then.

I dunno, the ego seems to straddle the worlds of the imaginary and real? Is the ego/self the brain/mind? If yes how do you explain the statements "My brain tells me..." or "I changed my mind". Is this an indication that we're confused or is it the plain truth about the ego/self? Perhaps it's got something to do with metacognition. Is it that we're dissatisfied and fearful/hopeful about our selves and hence feel the need to invent an I that isn't anything we could point to using our metaphysical fingers? The ego looks at itself from a 3^rd person point of view and as to why?, I haven't the foggiest.

I disagree. The fact that the "worst" isn't as likely along with the existence of ineffably beautiful experiences gives one a strong reason to not accept absolute antinatalism. — DA671

Suffering has more weightage than happiness - i.e. even if it's unlikely that I could go to hell, it's still a cause of much anxiety. I can't take any chances is what I mean.