I don't use chapstick and I occasionally get chapped lips. Mainly after drinking alcohol or smoking.I buy this. I never use chapstick and I never get chapped lips.
I don't use chapstick and I occasionally get chapped lips. Mainly after drinking alcohol or smoking.I buy this. I never use chapstick and I never get chapped lips.
I believe in the current astrophysicist theory that our collective conscious (soul?) preceded the "Big Bang" and it created the 3D hologram image of the universe we live in.
That we only observe the reality of matter and gravity because we collectively believe it so.
The only reason our hands stop when we press them together rather than pass through each other because even though the particles that make up our hands are 99% empty space...is because we all believe that it makes up the solid matter that is our hands.
And that because the universe is just a "holographic" construct based on our collective conscious, there are probably an infinite amount of multiple universes that are offshoots depending on subtle differences occurring from slightly different perceptions of reality.
Man, do I miss number theory.Maths related, but there's quite a famous paper (or series of papers) by a mathematician named Mochizuki (which I believe surfaced in 2012) in which he details what he calls "Inter-Universal Teichmuller Theory" and, he claims, proves a very famous open mathematical problem called the "ABC Conjecture". The problem with his work is that it's incredibly technical, the notation is quite impenetrable (an infamous diagram is found on page 182 of the first paper to illustrate this point: https://i.imgur.com/gtZPXRc.png), and it requires a substantial background and time commitment to be able to read. Only a handful of mathematicians claim to fully understand the proof, and claim it's validity. Despite a number of distinguished mathematicians having tried to study the papers, and a handful of workshops on the papers, there has been little progress in the way of explaining the papers adequately or determining its validity. In particular, if I recall correctly one particular corollary in one of the papers (3.12) has been a sticking-point for a number of mathematicians, yet despite the concerns over this corollary little has been done to clarify the reasoning or sufficiently communicate the argument.
Although I cannot prove it, personally, I think the work will eventually be seen as either flawed, or insufficient as the proof of the ABC conjecture (for example, if at some point there's a jump in the argument made and this jump is not logically backed up and supported). Given the significance of the work, the length of time its been and the inability of the few who claim to fully understand it to more clearly explain some of the technical details to a wider audience, and the way the papers were allegedly written has me increasingly skeptical about its validity. The paper itself is far beyond me (especially given the time commitment to then actually learn and understand the technical details of it) so I certainly can't prove it, but I suspect it to be flawed.
Guilty of what specific crime? And what do you think the motive is?
animals have acute senses to predict earthquakes and natural disasters, humans have dreams to foretell a shitty day or a bad event
Free Will kind of does exist in a sense. You can make choices, but those choices aren't made in a vacuum free of influences, past experiences, environment, etc. if you roll a ball down a perfect hill, you can predict it's movements. If you add a bump or two, you can still measure where it is going to end up. The more complexities you add, you can still account for in this theoretical. However I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can measure the human mind in such a complex way.I don't believe we necessarily have free will. I believe we live in a largely deterministic reality and any illusions of choice are not more than the result of massive numbers of inputs, both internal and external, that we simply aren't aware of nor can we see the affects of. I believe a god would look at us like an unfathomably complex game of the Sims
I thought the animal thing was true, the dream thing I know is just a theory.
Mine: Auto-correct is getting worse.
I never had a problem before. It worked great. But more and more, it's auto-correcting to words I didn't even come close to texting. Often times, it'll correct to absolute nonsense words no one would intentionally type. I feel like it's getting worse with every new phone I get (Samsung Galaxy 3, 5, 6 and 8).
What about you?
yes, I meant the second part can not be proved. I also heard a story where a lady had a cat and after a time he used to hit her throat with his paw. As it turned out, she had cancer there. Apparently the animal noticed it with his acute smelling sense.
Also I've been saying Facebook is listening through your microphone, picking up key words for advertising, for a few years now. I believe it was "proved" awhile ago with some lines in the User Agreement.
Free Will kind of does exist in a sense. You can make choices, but those choices aren't made in a vacuum free of influences, past experiences, environment, etc. if you roll a ball down a perfect hill, you can predict it's movements. If you add a bump or two, you can still measure where it is going to end up. The more complexities you add, you can still account for in this theoretical. However I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can measure the human mind in such a complex way.
Free Will kind of does exist in a sense. You can make choices, but those choices aren't made in a vacuum free of influences, past experiences, environment, etc. if you roll a ball down a perfect hill, you can predict it's movements. If you add a bump or two, you can still measure where it is going to end up. The more complexities you add, you can still account for in this theoretical. However I don't think we will ever reach a point where we can measure the human mind in such a complex way.
i believe there's countless life forms in the universe. i believe there's a god.
that's about it, everything else is experiment bound. i use the feynman method, nothing else will do.
Thanks doc, I'll be sure to let my therapist know.
I'm not sure if you are expressing an issue with the moderation on the site with this post, but if so, please message any such concerns to our mod captains Selina or Rowlf . Either way, please don't make off-topic complaints about the site in inappropriate threads.That you can't discuss controversial topics on Era without the thread devolving into personal attacks and multiple mod warnings.
Oh, you meant things without evidence...
I thought his joke was pretty funny. Can't we have a little bit of irreverence every now and then?
This is not the place for frivolity, irreverence or fun of any kind. Please direct any concerns with site management to Rowlf.I thought his joke was pretty funny. Can't we have a little bit of irreverence every now and then?
Snapchat holds back views and will show them based on your app refreshing habits, to promote maximum use of time with app. The app will also keep track of your physical location so that if you're around another Snapchat user it'll ensure it displays the view on time correctly.
Also I've been saying Facebook is listening through your microphone, picking up key words for advertising, for a few years now. I believe it was "proved" awhile ago with some lines in the User Agreement.
Mine is controversial if you know the story (everyone in the UK will) :
The McCann's are guilty, something happened and they covered their tracks. They know more than they say.
I think Netflix is making a documentary about the case, and I'm hype as fuck for it.Mine is controversial if you know the story (everyone in the UK will) :
The McCann's are guilty, something happened and they covered their tracks. They know more than they say.
This is not the place for frivolity, irreverence or fun of any kind.
This is not the place for frivolity, irreverence or fun of any kind. Please direct any concerns with site management to Rowlf.
I don't believe we necessarily have free will. I believe we live in a largely deterministic reality and any illusions of choice are not more than the result of massive numbers of inputs, both internal and external, that we simply aren't aware of nor can we see the affects of. I believe a god would look at us like an unfathomably complex game of the Sims