1

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Can A Cuttlefish Act As A Video display ?

« on: 02/04/2022 16:03:26 »

I think he already is one. Like his squiddity relatives, he can put on a video of his background for camouflage, put on a scary show for what's considering him for lunch, or maybe a sexy vid to get the ladies (like he needs that... already cute enough to want anybody to cuddle a cuttlefish). Only trick left is to pick up the wifi so he can stream netflix or something.

2

The Environment / Re: Does Earth Lose Water ?

« on: 06/11/2021 20:09:03 »

I know this isn't very nice, but I have to ask, why is it that in all of your posts you talk like an idiot?

When you take the viewpoint of an "outsider" (in this case, a sheep), you can point out humorous aspects of things that we all take for granted (or, perhaps in this case, for granite).

3

The Environment / Re: Does Earth Lose Water ?

« on: 06/11/2021 19:08:58 »

I know this isn't very nice, but I have to ask, why is it that in all of your posts you talk like an idiot?

Because he's a sheep.
(and sheep are allowed to ask silly questions)

4

The Environment / Re: Does Earth Lose Water ?

« on: 06/11/2021 14:13:54 »

New research from the Center for Earth Evolution and Dynamics at the University of Oslo (Norway) shows that our planet's deep water cycle is clearly unbalanced: the earth is always "eating away" a little water, hide them deep inside the planet and never return them to the earth. This has to push the earth to millions of years of extreme dehydration.

5

New Theories / Puppypower's assertions on brains

« on: 15/09/2021 13:45:22 »

The brain has software, hardware and firmware. Placing a probe in the hardware of the brain will  not give you all the needed information to determine choice and determinism. The analogy is placing a probe inside a computer's hardware, while various software is running. What is going to happen depends on the software.There is more going on in the brain than what the hardware does. Consciousness is closer to software, albeit assisted by hardware via firmware.

For example, pain level is not an easy thing for doctors to determine in terms of their patients. This causes problems in terms of prescribing drugs for pain. Pain can be different in different people under the same circumstances. It can also be faked by some for free drugs.

A probe into hardware of the body, where the pain appears to originate, cannot tell us pain level. The nuance of pain level requires the consciousness of the patient, telling the doctor  what they feel, from the inside. Consciousness is like a probe to the software. There is inside data being generated in the brain that cannot be seen from the outside. This data is real, but the doctor cannot always verify it from the outside. The philosophy of science breaks down when it comes to consciousness, since third person data alone is not complete.

Say you were a scientist, who has volunteered to be brain hardware probed, to see where in the brain and body the pain is centered. The other scientists in this study, will follow the philosophy of science and look at your brain hardware response, in the third person, detached from any pain. You as the test subject will be inflected with various types of pain; drill a tooth. You as the test subject will get to experience pain from the inside your own body. Your job is to relate the software and firmware extrapolations, on your mind and body, in the first person.

You may see lots of data processing occurring from the direction of nerve pulses to memories of the past. If the pain is too severe, you may not be able remain fully objective and do you job. This is why doctors are not allowed to operate on themselves. It is different from the inside. The first person data is not the same as the third person data and can impact the focus of consciousness since consciousness may have to process too much data. 

There is more going besides what the third person science hardware probe will see. However, inside data; first hand software and firmware data, is not exactly reproducible. In the case of pain, different test subjects will see it differently. This data is objective to each person but it is subjective as a group; both objective and subjective. However, this type of data is also needed to make the analysis complete, even though this first hand firmware and software data does not fully obey the philosophy of science. There is no machine or fellow human who can verify you and reproduce your exact results. Hardware science of the brain is half baked at best, and should be understood as only part of the data needed to fully define the phenomena of consciousness. Third hand data approach of science is good for looking at a rock, since a rock does not think.

The two centers of consciousness may not be easily seen with only a hardware approach. These are not localized affects, but are wired throughout the brain to allow the integrated affects that we attribute to consciousness; firmware. However, they do appear to come to a focus at the level of firmware and software. This inference requires inside data from the first person since software is not the same as hardware, and needs a software approach to see it. 

If I was to guess, the inner self would be wired into the center of the brain; thalamus region. The thalamus is the most wired part of the brain. It is the central switching station and it merges input and output from all parts of the brain. Making use of the most wired  part of the brain would make most sense in terms of natural selection; inner self consciousness. This would allow the inner self to have its finger in all pies; firmware on top of hardware.

The ego center appears to be more located in the cerebral matter. The inner self is firmware while the learned knowledge of the ego, implies that the ego is partial firmware but also software based. Both centers can be active and integrated at the same time, via input and output loops from the thalamus. With the thalamus as the central switching station, software command lines from the ego; walk, will go to the thalamus, where long term natural wiring patterns allow the body to integrate the walk, with little ego support needed, besides steering.

6

New Theories / Re: Does Free-Will Exist ? (Lightweight topic......... lol)

« on: 10/09/2021 17:05:58 »

They timed signals accordingly.
1) When a Decision is Made.(mind)
2) When it is Acted upon.(body)

Those fellas found body signals & movement coming in first, and the decision signal later.

They concluded, Action superseded Decision.

If this is actually what they reported, then it sounds like the signal they're labelling the 'decision signal' is actually some kind of reaction and not the making of the decision at all. They need to move their probe to the actual place where the decision is made, or make it sensitive to whatever changes when you go from undecided to decided.

7

New Theories / Re: Does Free-Will Exist ? (Lightweight topic......... lol)

« on: 10/09/2021 16:00:03 »

I read this in some neuroscience article waay back.

Some researchers were tryin to map, record n catch n time signals within the brain.

It was sumthin to do with alpha, gamma n such spikes.

Well, all i remember...

They timed signals accordingly.
1) When a Decision is Made.(mind)
2) When it is Acted upon.(body)

Those fellas found body signals & movement coming in first, and the decision signal later.

They concluded, Action superseded Decision.

Weird Right!

Ps - i might have read it wrong, or misunderstood or all logic must have been lost in translation & time lapse.
Sorry.
✌️

8

General Science / Re: Will Ice Melt In A Completely Sealed Chamber ?

« on: 10/09/2021 00:23:34 »

Perhaps the other way around, keep ice from freezing.

9

New Theories / Re: Does Free-Will Exist ? (Lightweight topic......... lol)

« on: 09/09/2021 22:06:42 »

Hi everyone.

  For whatever it's worth, it seems Halc is covering the topic adequately.
Many people would suggest that "Free Will" does exist   - but it may not be what you thought it was.

I guess my definition of free will is my making choices based on my own way of making them. Completely independent of any subconscious , back-of-house programming that I do not have control of.

    You already have some direct experience of this.   You cannot keep your eyes open when an object (like someones finger) is coming toward your eyes.  There's an autonomic response that will close your eyelids.
    So you can "choose" to keep your eyes open but it doesn't matter, you can't make it happen.  There is some "back-of-house programming" that will take over.
    However, I shouldn't worry about it.   You can "choose" that tomorrow will be a nice sunny day but you can't make that happen either.  We don't assume that the weather was anything we should have had some control over.  Our inability to choose the weather does not cause us to think we don't have free will.    So,  the autonomic closing of your eyelids and 99% of everything your body does can easily be put in the same category.
    So, we can see that "Free Will" already means less than we might have hoped for.  There isn't much that we actually have conscious control over.

Best Wishes.

Late editing:   Hi evan_au,     if you had got your post up earlier I would have included you in my reply.  Anyway, it seems sensible.

10

New Theories / Re: Does Free-Will Exist ? (Lightweight topic......... lol)

« on: 09/09/2021 22:05:23 »

This discussion is often debated in the context of a "Block Universe" hypothesis: If you could imagine someone outside our spacetime, they would be able to see the:
- The past and future trajectory of the Earth around the Sun
- Your past and future trajectory on the Earth (do I go to Edinburgh or Paris for my vacation?)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

At the other extreme, the "Many Worlds" hypothesis suggests that maybe one version of you goes to Edinburgh while another version of you goes to Paris.

What makes these pure philosophy is that they assume things that are untesteable by us:
- We are locked inside our space time, so we can't see a block universe
- We are locked inside one world, and we cannot see many worlds.

11

The Environment / Re: Does Earth Lose Water ?

« on: 09/09/2021 21:16:14 »

So, how much water do we lose a day ?

Hard to say. Much of the water simply becomes other things and new water is constantly created (by sheep metabolism for instance). Free oxygen ends up in wood and rocks and whatnot. Free hydrogen leaks to space faster than does water molecules, but about a liter every 3 seconds seems to be the rate at which water leaks directly to space. That's slower than your sheep watering trough tap running at full tilt, but not slower than a kitchen faucet left open.

12

General Science / Re: Will Ice Melt In A Completely Sealed Chamber ?

« on: 09/09/2021 21:01:27 »

Say ewe had a box and ewe filled it with water then froze it then shaved off the surplus that had expanded then sealed the box so that every single side of the ice was airtight sealed and in contact with the sides of the box and then ewe seal the box and vacuumise it too !!

Can't vacuumise it if there's no air left to pump out.
OK, ice in a perfect box, which you then heat.

Would the ice melt ?

Any melting would reduce the volume, so it would be at lower than normal pressure. At the lower pressure, the water can't exist, so some of it goes straight to gas until the pressure equalizes. At the end, there's mostly water and some water vapor under sufficient pressure to keep the bulk of it liquid.

if it were impossible for the volume to be reduced

I can't think of how you'd prevent a thing from fitting in less space. If it actually did that, there would just be not-water where it wasn't. For instance, Earth fits just fine in a cube of space much larger than Earth. It doesn't bother Earth that it's in a volume too big for it.

13

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Do Identical Twins Have The Same Handwriting ?

« on: 09/09/2021 18:05:10 »

If you look close at the picture, they're actually mirror images and their handwriting is different because one is forced to write with their non-preferred hand.

14

New Theories / Re: Does Free-Will Exist ? (Lightweight topic......... lol)

« on: 09/09/2021 18:03:32 »

This is a philosophical topic best posted

This morning 3am, I was listening to Talk Heathen podcast and the topic of free-will  and determinism came up.
I can't decide, I'd like to think that Free-Will does exist else what's the point ?

It very much depends on your definition of free will.
I might define it as my actions being due to my own will and not that of another (possession by demon for instance).
Another might define it quite the opposite: that my actions are due to outside (supernatural) will and are not from natural physics.
A third one relates to determinism: One's future is not written in stone from the very beginning, which would contradict determinism which is that two systems in identical state must evolve identically. To me this has little to do with free will since both identical people would will the same choices and thus their will is not being thwarted by determinism, merely being implemented by it.

I asked wifey about Free-Will

If you have a wifey, you probably don't have free will.

15

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Do Identical Twins Have The Same Handwriting ?

« on: 09/09/2021 17:58:35 »

Do Identical Twins Have the Same Handwriting ?

No.

and if not..........why not ?

They are different people.

16

The Environment / Re: Does Earth Lose Water ?

« on: 09/09/2021 17:53:12 »

Is Earthy losing water ? Does any of the water in the atmosphere leak into spacey-wacey ?

It does. It's expected to all be gone in about a billion years, so drink up while it's there.

Water jettisoned from ships in space mostly tends not to immediately find its way to Earth for the same reason the thing squirting it out tends not to immediately find its way to Earth. Getting something out of anything but the lowest orbits takes effort.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement Means Same-Moment Delivery Yes ? How ?

« on: 14/08/2021 11:53:10 »

  More interestingly, the entangled properties were not determined until after measurement (which could have been done at either location).

That is true even of unentangled properties, we don’t know the state until measured. However, we did know about the correlation and did put the particles into a prepared state.

  Sadly it doesn't really allow communication instantaneously        

not so sure about the sadly bit, it could cause a lot of problems if it were true.

 

We could re-define what it means for two objects to be entangled as follows:  Two objects are entangled    if and only if    The correlation between some of their properties is stronger than would be possible for non-quantum macroscopic objects.

I prefer definition used by @ halc

All that entanglement means is that if they both measure their entangled things in the same way at any time, the results will be found to be correlated.

The correlation does not have to be stronger than for non-quantum (see the eg given by @evan which could be set up classically), although in some circumstances it is. I think you are meaning the eg of the 2 qubits in the Bell theorem, where there is a significant difference between classical and quantum probability and that’s where it gets really interesting.

Coherence is rarely used as a term in quantum mechanics.

Used a surprising amount in working physics. Quantum coherence is responsible for all quantum interference phenomena and is important feature of the laser and superconductivity. I think it’s also a feature of superfluidity, but not an area I’ve looked into.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement Means Same-Moment Delivery Yes ? How ?

« on: 13/08/2021 11:59:11 »

An equally important question is why more objects aren't linked or entangled in this way

Sean Carrol (Mindscape Podcast) is fond of describing any interaction between two objects as entangling their quantum states - when you take a measurement, the state of the measurement system is entangled with the state of the object measured (and vice-versa)...

It's just that the complex quantum state of the universe is unknowable, so if something (eg the spin of an electron) becomes entangled with the universe, the state of the electron also becomes unknowable.

The surprising thing is that we can manage to go through a sequence of steps that will put some object into a known quantum state - and then entangle it with another object. That's why quantum computing is so hard - things get too easily entangled with the universe, and that's what's holding us back...
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement Means Same-Moment Delivery Yes ? How ?

« on: 12/08/2021 21:48:43 »

Hi Mr. Sheepy,  hope you are well today.

    Non-locality is where you should have gone with this.  Entanglement causes concerns about locality and the nature of reality.   Some of Nathan's properties aren't just local to Nathan or in some cases aren't local to Nathan at all.  Some of Nathan's properties can be measured over at Boris' location if you want to, which is reasonably interesting.  More interestingly, the entangled properties were not determined until after measurement (which could have been done at either location).
    Sadly it doesn't really allow communication instantaneously        If we start deliberately changing something about Nathan over at Nathan's location then Boris is under no obligation to undergo the same change.

and what is it that is linking them together ?

    They are quantum mechanical objects.  We could re-define what it means for two objects to be entangled as follows:  Two objects are entangled    if and only if    The correlation between some of their properties is stronger than would be possible for non-quantum macroscopic objects.
    There isn't necessarily any substance linking the two objects together.  Explaining "why" they seem to be linked depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics.  I'll skip all of that since it's probably in many other threads and popular science articles already.   An equally important question is why more objects aren't linked or entangled in this way - this seems to be a consequence of coherence (*see note below).  Another topic that will fill many Pop Sci articles.

Here's a short YT video featuring Sabine Hossenfelder who says most of this stuff more eloquently than I could (takes about 7 minutes):

Best Wishes.
[Seems that someone else has posted something while I was writing this].

*LATE EDITING:   I meant decoherence but ended up writing coherence.  Coherence is rarely used as a term in quantum mechanics.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement Means Same-Moment Delivery Yes ? How ?

« on: 12/08/2021 21:30:19 »

As I understand it, if two photons are entangled, their state is linked. There are devices that can produce (a small fraction of) entangled photons.

A typical quantum state that is entangled is their polarisation: say Vertical (V) or Horizontal (H, like the pupil of a sheep's eye).
- So if one sheep sees a H photon, the other sheep (potentially an alien sheep in a paddock on the other side of the galaxy) will also see a H photon.
- But there is a 50% random chance that it could be H or V, so that conveys no information to our very observant sheep
- But let's say our fancy photon factory is on Earth, and we want to send entangled photons to Jupiter.
      - A sheep on Earth could observe one of the entangled photons and declare it H (within 20ms)
      - The sheep near Jupiter would observe the other photon about 43 minutes later (ie not simultaneous), and also declare it H
      - But the sheep on Earth can't take advantage of that fact (eg for secret sheepie communications) unless he encrypts his message with the observed H/V, and sends the encrypted message to the other sheep. And the fastest way to send a message (as far as we know) is by light, which will arrive at Jupiter about 43 minutes later.

So:
1) The entangled photons don't have to be detected simultaneously (but they could be detected simultaneously if the photon factory was set up exactly half-way between Boris and Nathan)
2) The entangled photons themselves can't be used to send information faster than light, because the H or V state of any photon is completely random
3) To use entangled photons for communications, you need to send extra information via another channel, which (as far as we know) can't travel faster than light.