Your personality is never about "them" or theirparts of personality, this is only a small part, but you can never (nearly) be or understand anybody because what he thinks is from his personality makred by nature, conditions, obligations, rights........which specialise in his own analize of...
IF when you say "us" you mean humanity, then my answer to the question title is yes and no.
yes because science (including physics) is something we invented, although it is to understand other things (= in the case of physics in particluar) it is of us.
no because it is not a fisical property.
You can't measure infinites. I like your speech. I'm only posting a conversation from about 200 years ago, adn that's all because I think it says everything I need/think:
Napoleon-I have heard that you haven't included god, in your explenation about the universe?
Laplace-No; I didn't...
For the second question, they aren't mutually esclusive. (I was trying to speek about atheism not about scinece, but it was him that used the rational thinking (=scientists)).
For the first question, not all theists spend their time trying to convert people, I mean that they have spend the...
just that it's dificult to get: well, with a calculator it's easy, but you still have to multiply by tewo so many times, the numbr must be enormous. I just want to know it and knwo if there is someone that is so board that he has nothing better to do than this.
Higgs, dark energy.......he tolled me that when asked him two days later about how I could lift it. I have know thought about an answer: in water (for ex: in a pool), I would be able of being on a stone and lifting it-lifting me.
this kind of posts are what push people out of here: ok, be religious, be theist, stick to your position, we atheists and scientific people (rational-logical) aren't like yours that try to convert us, we do leave you do think like that.
About the topic of the thread, good prove, I think...
When I first read what you wrote I thought it would be easy to say the colour and not the word, but it isn't tso much.
It's quite hard: specially when I've had the inverse (example: blue colour green writen-greene colour blue written).
I guess most of you have come to this problem sometime, but this is my modern adaptation of it:
A member of physics forums bets with a moderator that he (the moderator) won't be able of multiplying his number of posts by two in the number of posts he (the normal member) has.
haha, good one.
Let me tell you something...............He doesn't! He is in fact, your parents!
Amazing news, when I got to know about it, it was the time I felt wiser in my life (you usually feel like that when you learn something really big). even more than when I asked my father: why...
ahhahah......I was jsut kidding: I do take showers; all days.
I just can't live dirty: its very irritating and detesting being muhc time without cleaning (the maximum I've been was three weeks and it was a singularity: I was 7 years old and find out that Santa didn't exist; this is a very...
good point, simetry is very important.
I my self, devide beauty in two parts: natural beauty and relative beauty.
What I call relative beauty may be what others call "artificial" beauty. But the problem is that I think that everything artificial is natural.
Well, natural beauty is...
If I were her father I would kill here: of course, with a gas or something that doesn't make you suffer.
I fit's about what the parens should do, it is what they think.
Maybe what I would do (kill her) isn't ethical, moral, or logical, but I just think that living like that isn't living...
the post above gave a good definition of morals.
for question 2, my answer is that moral and ethical laws shouldn't exist: they are completely relative. But we, humans, are too stupid to live without laws (in strong-extremist-anarchism), for the moment......
I wrote that post so that people didn't cary on believing I was extremist in this subject. I'm so anti-extremism that when I'm too extremist about being anti-extremist I stop being it for being against it. :biggrin:
In reallty I think like you.
good we agree.
If someone says time can't be "real" or fisically exists, then I have two answers:
1) define what "fisically exist" means for him/her.
2) look at your clock/whatch. is the arrow moving second to second? then, yes. time exists. you are whatching time fisically.
philosophy is a very big subject now. If not, look at the news, for example, politics (at least theoretical politics) is a branch of philosophy. Many times they talk about ethical and moral problems/dillema. Many other examples exist.
1905-2005 a hundred years for The Theory of Special Relativity of Albert Einstein. This theory unified time with the other spacial dimensions. time is the fourty diension. If not, fo rexample, how do you explain the curvature of time and space in a a proportional and regular way between both...
no: each of the three in a row can see the other two people and thus, their hats.
I'm not saying more because I want to see what is the answer of each, and how s/he got it.
This is actually an easier problem than the normal one (with three people: each whashing the other two's hats)...