Holy shit

Particles just appear???? Wait are you sure? Wouldn't that require creating more mass and energy from nothing?

Is the emptiest space still full of matter? That doesn't sound right, could you elaborate?

Also, if it is emergent then it would indeed be "nothing" by itself, only existing when occupied.

How does spacetime as an emergent property explain gravity?

Ah, then I may be incorrect. Does space have mass or energy by itself? Not IN IT, by itself.

I know for a fact there is space with no mass. Most of it has no mass. I am pretty sure no mass nor energy should be possible simultaneously, what am I missing?

I was not scientifically labelling space as nothing, only explaining why it is hard to think about space, which has no mass or energy by itself, expanding.

I then elaborated on why I called it nothing. Mentioning that, by itself, it does not have anything, and space itself is the deepest form of absence of things possible and therefore the most nothing thing to exist. If you open an empty box, it still has air, maybe a wave, some form of energy, radiation, etc. These are all things that occupy space, not inherently needed for space to come to be. If inside the box there were empty space, just space with none of those things, then you could truthfully say there is nothing in the box.

It is like saying humans are a smart ape and you going "scientists have a specific name for humans you are wrong"

I feel like you are just hanged on the word rather than its meaning.

It is though, there isn't anything else that is less something than the void of space. It is not mass, just reality itself.

It is the most nothing thing there is.

It just happens that even the most nothing thing there is has some interesting properties, and since time and space are two parts of the same (time is also a nothing as it is part of the nothing) it just shapes reality in an interesting way. (Mass bends space, time existing thorugh bent space gives us gravity)

Its perfectly fine, it just isn't intuitive. Space at a large scale is a void, it is nothing, the absence of matter. The thought of more NOTHING just coming into existence is really hard to grasp.

Is the title a pun for "los pechos" ?????

That is a part of it but a very small one compared to other aspects. For the most part is it because languages mix a bit when moving.

The people occupying america before the british got there spoke different languages, and a lot of the people that moved there during the colonies and helped shape the region also spoke other languages. The people growing up in these areas heard different pronunciations and for whatever reason some stuck and some didn't. Rich and poor people do sound different, but that is just part of the local differences, and it is mostly because of the people who surround you rather than anything else.

Australian accent is very rooted in the older british accent because they were a colony, but they also had some mixing and ended up with some different consonants. American accent also rooted in british but also affected by french phonemes and in some areas even phonemes from italian and spanish.

You can also notice scottish and Irish accents have very noticeable phonetics because the original people of those regions spoke languages that used very different phonemes than the rest of western europe, their accents are remnants of their origins.

Regional accents within countries also exist, and are usually traceable to immigration or foreign cultural bubbles. Think new york accent being influenced by italians, or how we use different language words for live animals and their meat.

This is only when you are conflating blood relation with family.

That sounds lovely, I am very happy you have that bond; sadly for many of us being flirted with by a stranger does not lead to feelings of safety and bonding :c

There are a lot more notes than c d e f g a b, they all have sharps (bit higher) and flats (bit lower)

When a song is in a key, we mean that it has a specific note as its base, and the other notes follow that notes scale.

A scale is a sequence of note distances, so no matter what note you play, the next note in a scale will always be the same distance. Think of it as a staircase that has a sound for each of its steps and when climbed up it always follows the same sound pattern.

A C major scale is played with all of the white tiles of the piano, from C to the next C. A song in C major will use those notes. Another scale, like G major, will need to use one black tile in order to keep the same pattern.

Basically, a scale is a pattern of sounds, and the key is just which note is being used as the first note in the pattern.

I think for docs it is mostly storage space, I think they are pretty tame in what they charge too, at least compared to other industry standard programs in their own fields.

Kind of. The market is not really there at the consumer level, google known no single person will pay for these features when free options are available. So they make their options free and as good as they can be so we rely on them. This makes the workforce have experience with their tools over others, so when a company needs to use something, they will prefer google services. Only a company needs to scale up, and so they pay for whatever they have to. It is cheaper to pay up whatever google asks than to train your workers on a different toolset every few years.

Can I be fully honest with you? You don't want to stay friends with her. Being friends with an ex only works once feelings are gone. You are in the hook, suffering, for nothing. Cut or greatly reduce contact, get over her, then do whatever you want.

We are not though. No one out us here, we are just chemistry replicating itself in more and more complex ways as time goes on. The universe does not care about you, in fact it doesn't care about anything. If everything dissapears tomorrow, nothing would remain and no one would care. But you do, we do. Go make your own purpose, and for the sake or practicality, pursue your own purposes in ways that don't stop others from pursuing theirs. Cooperation is a good tool even if your only goal were to be your own happiness.

So find something that feels good. Something fulfulling, maybe something to sustain yourself while you pursue other sources of fulfillment, do whatever.

When you die, you won't care. You only care while you live, so make of life what you want from it.

I don't really find much value in anything metaphysical or spiritual. Growing up surrounded by it as well as religion it has become incredibly apparent that it is all made up. I understand the desire to imagine there is something more to us than matter being funny, but everything we know suggests we are only matter.

I think we have free will and intelligence as an emergent quality of the biochemical processes that we are formed by, conciousness may indeed be more than the sum of its parts. Perhaps conciousness is the result of the quantum superposition of what happens in our brain, but I do not think it is reasonable to entertain the concept of some unmaterial soul, some entity that exists beyond the body and brain. All of our best evidence tells us the only logical conclusion is that there is no afterlife, or karma, or reincarnation. It really is not logical to believe in anything else when we can be pretty certain we already know nothing happens.

People still believe in other things, of course, or they at least entertain some ideas related to spiritualism. That is ok, belief is natural. I personally feel like truth is more important, and I am simply not convinced by "no one can truly know". Just because something can not be proven false does not mean it is possible. I know there is no afterlife and consider that a fact, because that is the only possible option.

Regarding god, if there were a being that created the universe, I would expect something to suggest that, which is not the case. Furthermore, even if we entertained the idea of a creator it would not be one that stuck around. It is abundantly clesr that the universe has ran itself since its inception, whether that inception was some concious entity's design is interesting, but ultimately unlikely and makes no difference to reality.

The idea of a creator being needed is a human construct, it follows our instinct, nothing else in reality suggests the need for a creator.

I think any theistic model immediately crumbles upon any sort of scrutiny. Sure, a deity itself can not be disproven; but we can explain why religions exists, we can track their origins, their evolutionary value, and on an individual level all major theistic belief systems are full of contradiction. Couple that with a complete lack of evidence that any theistic interpretation of the world could be righr, and that is enough for me to completely disregard any theistic perspective from consideration.

I can't know if there are any reasons quantum mechanics are as they are any more than the reason a photon spins left or right. It just does!

I do not believe we are in a simulation, but I also like the thought experiment of how a simulated universe would need to work, and I like the idea that, in a simulated universe, superposition (light behaving as a wave when the precision of a particle is not needed) is a computational trick to save resources. Like a videogame engine showing you an approximate idea of what a tree looks like from far away, but showing you a fully detailed model of a tree if you get closer and start inspecting it.

This ties everything up in a neat little package that makes sense, that is why it is tempting to believe in it. But making intuitive sense to a human is not required for an aspect of reality to be true, so likely not in a simulation.

To explain, quantum mechanics refer to the behaviors of particles, which work differently than large scale physics predicts. The most important aspect to this discussion is particles behaving differently when measured vs not measured. Light for example is a wave when not measured, and a particle when measured. The photons, before being measured, act as a wave becaue their values are not defined before measurement (or observation). This is the source of true randomness in the universe. Theoretically, you could predict the behaviors of anything in large scale physics by having the starting conditions. Quantum mechanics do not allow you to predict the future even with the starting conditions.

Since our brains are essentially quantum computers, it can not be claimed that our choices are pre-determined. This does not prove free will beyond a reasonable doubt, (randomness being involved in our decision does not entirely disprove the notion that our decision is just a mechanical process) but it is a very strong argument for free will because it at least contradicts the notion that everything that we choose is pre-determined by the starting conditions in a system.

Quantum mechanics point toward determinism not being possible. Not just that, but local realism is false; which means that either reality can travel faster than light,(locality is false) or that particles definitely do not have set values before observation (realism is false)

I personally suspect both to be false, but I am a geek and not an expert so don't take that as more than a hunch. But even if only realism turns out to be false, that is enough to dismantle determinism and, in my eyes, a strong case in favor of free will.

I do not think free will and predictability are contradictory. Free will posts that we can make choices and that they are not just pre-determined. Those choices are going to be strongly influenced by our experiences and preferences, but they are still our choices.

Free will allows to make choices even if the majority of them will be predictable.

I think free will simply has to exist because decision making happens in a complex system, brains, which runs on electficity and is affected by quantum states and mechanics. I believe this mechanical fact is what separates us from a purely mechanical system. Even on a very simple level, I believe that quantum mechanics are how we get true randomness into the universe, and even if we spend our wholo lives making the most predictable choices, we made them out of free will because the particle proterties involved in reality and our brains can not physically have been pre-determined.

It is a slightly flawed interpretation of reality, not a guess. And we use the scientifc method to measure things, even obvious ones, to better understand the world. Our perspective is not limited at all, illusions are fun and they show our brains can be tricked, but we are still pretty damn good at experiencing the world.

No, I am not conflating anything. I am just saying that such a ridoculous idea does not require evidence in order to be discarded.

Example: You can't prove I am not actually a raccoon pretending to be a woman online, but the idea is so silly it does not deserve serious consideration.