Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the ethical implications of ignorance, particularly in relation to science and personal beliefs. It questions whether individuals who prioritize their happiness over factual reality, especially in scientific contexts, are acting unethically. The conversation highlights how people often distort scientific principles to fit their arguments, leading to a form of willful ignorance. This is exemplified through the lens of religion, where differing interpretations of texts can result in radically different beliefs, illustrating the human tendency to seek confirmation of pre-existing views. The challenge for scientists is to combat biases and educate the public, particularly when misinformation is perpetuated by media. The dialogue also touches on the broader societal impact of such ignorance, suggesting that it can hinder progress in areas like climate change. Ultimately, the discussion raises questions about the balance between personal belief systems and the pursuit of collective knowledge and truth.
  • #61


DaveC426913 said:
If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?

"What you're doing there is wrong in my opinion."
"It is not wrong in my opinion."
"You win. Your logic is inescapable."

Well ok, I'm going to go a bit extreme as an example, but here goes:

Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong. However, based on what you are saying, providing I decide it to be ethically right, whether in the case of a doctor and terminal patient or me taking revenge on someone who has wronged me, and accept that as it is only subjectively wrong, does that actually make it ethical, should I be allowed to do it purely because I don't judge it wrong?

Subjective views by the majority, form what we consider ethics. Therefore, if subjective things can be unethical.

Here are two articles I pulled with a quick google search:
http://artistthinker.wordpress.com/2006/02/21/gray-world/"

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=819274"

They both discuss why murder is wrong, socially and philosphically.

Jared
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


Proton Soup said:
do you know what ignorance is ?

In this case, I believe Sorry! is reffering to ignorance in the sense of a person dismissing facts without justification purely to benefit themselves.

E.g. An oil company making billions of pounds a day selling a product which, not matter how it is used, produces pollution on a massive scale. Is going to be reluctant to accept that its product is a direct cause of global warming:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html"

In such a case, the company (or I should say directors/upper level staff) will ignore the evidence presented and only accept hypothesis/theories which support their point of view. Maintaining their own happiness and justifying their cause.

I know that is a company not a person, but it is the same principle.

Jared
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63


Sorry! said:
I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL.

Just a quick note here, I will agree with this statement, as I understand it.
For myself, if a person is provided the facts of an argument, what ever it may be, and they actively dismiss them in favour of their own beliefs even if the facts are incontrovertible, then they are being ignorant. This, especially in the context of defining laws can prove to be dangerous.

"Ethics are considered the moral standards by which people judge behavior."

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy? Is it unethical that the against crowd are ignorant to this evidence and danger and want to force her, by passing a law against abortion, to continue the pregnancy, ultimately endangering two lives?
At least with the pro law allowing abortion it becomes the mothers choice.

For people to force a law against abortion based on their own bias, means everyone is affected and could possibly endanger a number of mothers where they have HAD to continue with the pregnancy. You remove the freedom people have over their own bodies and force them to accept a death sentence if anything goes wrong. Whereas, a law allowing abortion gives everyone a choice, allows them to exercise their own bias towards the subject and decide what they want to do. If you are against, don't do it, if you are for, then it' up to you.

Ethics are subjective, for the against crowd it is unethical to kill an unborn. For the pro crowd it is unethical to risk a mothers life/force a baby they cannot provide for. You could argue the against movement are judging a mothers life less worthy than the childs (seems a dull argument given the prolife matter at hand), or that they judge the death of a mother to save an unborn ethical. Also, you can look at it from the other point of view, the pro abortion group are saying the death of an unborn is ethical (depends on when you consider the foetus to be a 'sentient being'). You decide.

In either case and regardless of what you are arguing, ignoring incontrovertible evidence seems ignorant to myself.

Jared
 
  • #64


jarednjames said:
Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong.
I put to you that murder is not subjectively wrong.

It is not simply "the majority of people" deciding murder is unethical, it is society that has enacted this as law (the fact that it's a majority vote is not the issue. A law is a law, and is abided by all.)

These laws are agreed to by every citizen of the country. It is this agreement (or the decision to emmigrate) that infers that the person in question has stated that murder is unethical.
 
  • #65


jarednjames said:
Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy?
As a complete aside, I find it interesting that, in your estimation, the Pro-choice stance has to be artificially exaggerated to a 90% risk in order to be obviously comparable to the pro-life stance, which does not need exaggeration. Not a comment on you, just an observation. :smile:
 
  • #66


DaveC426913 said:
As a complete aside, I find it interesting that, in your estimation, the Pro-choice stance has to be artificially exaggerated to a 90% risk in order to be obviously comparable to the pro-life stance, which does not need exaggeration. Not a comment on you, just an observation. :smile:

Just a quick one for this, I only used 90% as an extreme example, although for you to say artificially exaggerated implies it never occurs when it does. However, the statement made regardless of the risk to a mother stands. I used the figure to make a point, that even when the odds are that a mother will die (loss of life) the pro life people want the pregnancy to go ahead (to create a life). which from a mathematical point of view leaves us with zero gain, plus it completely destroys the pro life argument of every life being valued.

Jared
 
Last edited:
  • #67


Well firstly you contradict yourself:

DaveC426913 said:
It is not simply "the majority of people" deciding murder is unethical,
DaveC426913 said:
society[/I] that has enacted this as law (the fact that it's a majority vote

First you say it isn't the majority of people deciding, then you say it is. That alone discredits your own argument from my point of view. But everyone has their off days so I'll allow this, for now.

Firstly, a law isn't agreed to by every person in a country. I was born in the UK, I have been here all my life, I DO NOT agree to every law here and when you consider the fact that many were made before I was born or at voting age, I had no say in them and so by extension you could say that I am currently 'accepting' them for lack of a better alternative, or by lack of ability (I am a student) to move elsewhere.

Another example, the UK immigration laws. I assume you've heard of the BNP? Well they certainly don't agree with them.
The laws made in the European Courts, we have little say in and yet are imposed on us because the majority of people voted for them.

I agree, murder is socially wrong, but only a few hundred years ago, it was not looked at quite as strongly as it is today. A king could simply order someone to be killed and it would be so. However you look at it, its only when a law is enacted that something becomes socially wrong. Then again, it's illegal to speed and yet people find it socially acceptable to do so. You say that you either agree with the laws or emmigrate to another country, ok but what if you are not able to emmigrate (as I stated above)? Or what if for the most part you accept the laws and there is only a few you disagree with?

Jared
 
  • #68


I would just like to say that this thread has gone way off topic and as such (despite it not being mine) would like to request it either return to original topic or we consider it closed.

Jared
 
  • #69


jarednjames said:
Well firstly you contradict yourself:

First you say it isn't the majority of people deciding, then you say it is. That alone discredits your own argument from my point of view. But everyone has their off days so I'll allow this, for now.
Thanks for "allowing" it. :-p

It's not a contradiction.

If 5 out of 9 of people on a team decide that Biff should be in charge, that does not automatically oblige everyone else on the team to defer to Biff as the leader (they will contest the manner in which the leader was picked). If however, everyone on the team agrees beforehand that a vote will decide who is the leader, and then the 5 out of 9 members votes Biff in, that does oblige everyone else to agree.

See the difference?


The original statement was "Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong."

I'm pointing out that it's stronger than simply "the majority" agreeing. Everyone has agreed to the process by which the decision has been made for everyone.

jarednjames said:
Firstly, a law isn't agreed to by every person in a country.

I was born in the UK, I have been here all my life, I DO NOT agree to every law here and when you consider the fact that many were made before I was born or at voting age, I had no say in them and so by extension you could say that I am currently 'accepting' them for lack of a better alternative, or by lack of ability (I am a student) to move elsewhere.
Tough. Like em or leave. The third option is to try to change em - but that still doesn't mean you get to only abide by the ones you like.

By staying in the country, you are agreeing to abide by its laws.

The fact that you don't want to stay or it is very inconvenient for you to leave does not absolve you from agreeing to abide by em.


jarednjames said:
I agree, murder is socially wrong, but only a few hundred years ago, it was not looked at quite as strongly as it is today. A king could simply order someone to be killed and it would be so.
It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king.

jarednjames said:
Then again, it's illegal to speed and yet people find it socially acceptable to do so. You say that you either agree with the laws or emmigrate to another country, ok but what if you are not able to emmigrate (as I stated above)?
You are able to. It may just be very inconvenient. You have made a decision that abiding by the laws of the UK are less troublesome than hoofing it into a new country with only what you carry on your back. While I grant this is not practical, nobody is literally putting a gun to your head.

jarednjames said:
Or what if for the most part you accept the laws and there is only a few you disagree with?
So, you only abide by the ones you agree with? Tell that to your local constabulary.
 
Last edited:
  • #70


"It's not a contradiction.

If 5 out of 9 of people on a team decide that Biff should be in charge, that does not automatically oblige everyone else on the team to defer to Biff as the leader (they will contest the manner in which the leader was picked). If however, everyone on the team agrees beforehand that a vote will decide who is the leader, and then the 5 out of 9 members votes Biff in, that does oblige everyone else to agree.

See the difference?"

So basically, 5 out of 9 say Biff is leader, the other 4 contest it. Ok, but then they all agree to accept the groups decision, 5 out of 9 will still vote Biff in and we're back at square one. Contesting the original decision has simply delayed things (sounds very much like our government). I understand what you mean in that everybody agrees to accept the view of the majority, but it hasn't changed the fact that it is a majority decision. And given we don't live in a perfect world and not everybody chooses to vote, we end up with only the determined ones providing a vote and this can lead to a decision/law/election which is not based on a true majority vote. And if the majority of the people who turn out to vote are extremists, we could end up with an extreme poll result. (Imagine if the BNP got into parliament because the only people who went out to vote were those truly dedicated to their cause). Did the WHOLE population of the UK (or whichever country) accept that the majority vote would be final? Or did a MAJORITY of the citizens accept that the decision is final?

"It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king."

And that makes it not murder in what way? Murder is murder, whether it is decreed by a king or committed by a peasant. Just because they claim it isn't doesn't make it so.

At no point did I say I didn't abide by the laws, I do, the point I was trying to make was that since I was born here, and have no where else to go, I don't have a choice and simply agree to the laws as they are.

One last question, given you have to pay for all forms of photo ID out there, how would you go about emigrating? I have no money to pay for a passport or a drivers license (my passport runs out in august and I lost my license last saturday).

Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.
 
Last edited:
  • #71


jarednjames said:
Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.
OK, at least skip to the end of this post then where I address this.

jarednjames said:
So basically, 5 out of 9 say Biff is leader, the other 4 contest it. Ok, but then they all agree to accept the groups decision, 5 out of 9 will still vote Biff in and we're back at square one. Contesting the original decision has simply delayed things (sounds very much like our government). I understand what you mean in that everybody agrees to accept the view of the majority, but it hasn't changed the fact that it is a majority decision.
It's very different.

It's not simply contesting it (that was just an example) it was never condoned. The 4 people have every right to start bashing heads (figuratively speaking). They may feel that drawing lots is more fair. Or they may feel that the vote must be unanimous.

But once they've agreed to a majority vote, then they have no recourse. Any complaint would be met with "You agreed to this. This is your rule as much as mine."

jarednjames said:
And given we don't live in a perfect world and not everybody chooses to vote, we end up with only the determined ones providing a vote and this can lead to a decision/law/election which is not based on a true majority vote. And if the majority of the people who turn out to vote are extremists, we could end up with an extreme poll result. (Imagine if the BNP got into parliament because the only people who went out to vote were those truly dedicated to their cause).
All beside the point. We agree, or we change the system, or we leave.



jarednjames said:
"It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king."

And that makes it not murder in what way? Murder is murder, whether it is decreed by a king or committed by a peasant. Just because they claim it isn't doesn't make it so.
No. Look up "murder".


jarednjames said:
At no point did I say I didn't abide by the laws, I do, the point I was trying to make was that since I was born here, and have no where else to go, I don't have a choice and simply agree to the laws as they are.
You do have a choice. You choose the (granted, much) lesser of your choices.


jarednjames said:
One last question, given you have to pay for all forms of photo ID out there, how would you go about emigrating?

I have no money to pay for a passport or a drivers license (my passport runs out in august and I lost my license last saturday).
You do not need ID to leave a country.

Regardless, "I can't afford to leave" doesn't translate into "therefore I don't agree to abide by the laws of this country".
But "I stay" does translate into "I agree to abide by the laws of the country."

jarednjames said:
Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.
I'm not sure how this is off-topic. We were talking about subjectivity of unethical acts. We can't really move forward without agreeing on the subjectivity of the acts themselves.

I believe I hit the nail on the head OP-wise in post 60: "If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?" and this is what we are currently discussing.

I'm happy to entertain an alternate example of a subjective act though.
 
Last edited:
  • #72


The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.

"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting into another country without it?
 
  • #73


oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.
 
  • #74


jarednjames said:
The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.
Fair enough.

jarednjames said:
"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting into another country without it?
Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.
 
  • #75


DaveC426913 said:
Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

Exactly
 
  • #76


jarednjames said:
Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy?

That's a good point which I had never considered. Of course, 90% is not an average, but one could easily imagine certain individuals with other conditions who are informed by their doctors that they personally have a higher than 90% chance of death if they continue with the pregnancy. If abortion were made illegal, then this would be effectively giving a death sentence to those women. One can take this example further -- what if your doctor tells you that you have a 95% chance that both you and your baby will die during childbirth? Would pro-life advocates force you, by law, to murder yourself for only the 5% chance of having a motherless baby?

If you look at the overall average maternity related deaths, the historical level is something like 1% death. Currently in the US, it's only 0.01%. However, that risk is something like 5 times higher for women over 40.
 
  • #77


Exactly junglebeast, I do understand the prolife argument to some extent. But my problem Firstly is where do you consider a foetus a child/sentient being? and Secondly, if a law does say NO ABORTIONS, you are sentencing these mothers to death.
This is what bugs me, a law saying yes to abortions would give everyone a choice. You decide if you want one or not. Full stop. I cannot stand people who try to force their views one me, which is what a law against it would be. I bash religious types enough about it but in this case it is no different.

These pro-life people are ignorant to the health of the mother (and to some extent the father WRT mental anguish if both child and mother were to die). Simple.

Jared
 
  • #78


jarednjames said:
In this case, I believe Sorry! is reffering to ignorance in the sense of a person dismissing facts without justification purely to benefit themselves.

E.g. An oil company making billions of pounds a day selling a product which, not matter how it is used, produces pollution on a massive scale. Is going to be reluctant to accept that its product is a direct cause of global warming:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html"

In such a case, the company (or I should say directors/upper level staff) will ignore the evidence presented and only accept hypothesis/theories which support their point of view. Maintaining their own happiness and justifying their cause.

I know that is a company not a person, but it is the same principle.

Jared

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on anyone subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79


jarednjames said:
oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.
What? It most certainly does! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.
 
  • #80


DaveC426913 said:
What? It most certainly does! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?

To kill another person is to murder them. Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.
 
  • #81


Proton Soup said:
this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on anyone subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared
 
  • #82


jarednjames said:
Yes, but its still murder isn't it?
No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.
jarednjames said:
To kill another person is to murder them.
You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.[/QUOTE]What do you mean "isn't viewed as"? Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.
 
  • #83


DaveC426913 said:
No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..
 
  • #84


junglebeast said:
I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law. There was no recourse to the king breaking them because any person going against the king would find their head on a spike sharing the view with person A.
 
  • #85


jarednjames said:
This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

well i don't know what he believes, which is why i asked. maybe he should choose better examples. even then, I'm not sure i'd call it ignorance. I'm not sure i would even classify it as http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance" if i understand you correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86


Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.
 
  • #87


jarednjames said:
Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

yes, but again, he should use a better example, like say F=m*a. global warming is a socioeconomic, political and religious issue.
 
  • #88


yes, i do agree there.
 
  • #89


jarednjames said:
Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law.
A King's decree is the change in the law.

There is no "lag between the King commanding something and that something being a law that the King is somehow breaking".
 
  • #90
OK, I've done some research and here goes:

The definition of murder as I pointed out is -"The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse."
Now I said, "just because a king says it isn't murder, doesn't make it so." And your answer to which was along the lines of "Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.".

Now I would like to point out here that unlawful has a number of definitions, and DOES NOT solely mean against the law. One of the definitions under it is as follows - " not morally right or permissible; ". Thus, just because the king kills someone does not make it lawful, and as such it is murder.

Here is a definition of lawful and legal - "Lawful means conformable to the principle, spirit, or essence of the law, and is applicable to moral as well as juridical law. Legal means conformable to the letter or rules of the law as it is administered in the courts; conformable to juridical law."
As you can see above, lawful applies to both moral AND juridical law. As such you can classify the king killing someone as morally wrong and hence murder. Legal on the other hand specifically applies to juridical law and to say the kings decree to kill is legal would be correct. However, the definition of murder specifically points to unlawful, not legal.

For legal/lawful see useage section:
http://define.com/lawful

For unlawful definitions:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unlawful
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlawfully
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Examining Semantics in Physics Discussions
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Different conceptions of pop physics
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Discussion on the science-literature relationship and more
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Intro Physics What Book Helps Understand Electromagnetism and Quantum Physics Concepts?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Why Popsci is Essential for a Well-Rounded Physics Education
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
I Relational QM question from Rovelli's book Helgoland
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
I Help please -- Seeking clear definition of fundamental terms
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Is the fork in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen argument correct?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
How Do Our Brains Process Tasks Differently?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
I What is the Definition of Quantum Physics?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K