Make sure you know how to bail on a benchpress, roll down to hips. Alternatively as other posters have said dont put the clamps on so you can tilt to the side. If you're lifting around 100lbs you dont have to worry about destroying your ribs (unless you drop the bar on your ribs). You have some time, so learn how to bail before you go back to benchpressing solo.

I dont...

Whatever I could think up would be wrong, hence its an exercise in futility. if I postulate that there is a fluffy land with unicorns running around in it, thats just as likely to be correct as some old father-like dude watching us from his seat in some mythical kingdom, nothingness, some weird 9-dimensional spacetime etc etc. Its all just arbitrary guesswork with no frame of reference. So you can make up whatever story you like and be content that its just as likely as whatever other story you've heard.

Maybe the Christian God did it, but then again, maybe I made it all. And seeing as how you're actually talking to me right now, then im probably more likely to have made the universe than the Christian God, because at least you have evidence that I exist.

LOL! I know what you mean, ive seen some crazy explanations for quantum phenomena and some of them are pretty nuts. The issue isnt quantum mechanics, its the interpretations of it.

Essentially what physics has done is observe a bunch of stuff, and then see if its possible to get maths to fit the observations. In some cases the maths is elegant, in other cases its crazy and messy.

The issue is it seems to work. Here's the important part. We don't know Why it works, we just know it does. We know it does, because we have observed and tested it - loads, but the why of it eludes physicists. The reason why some of the explanations (quite a lot of them) appear nonsensical is because when you take the maths, and try and turn it into physical reality its just... weird. The problem is, unless your a physicist people want examples, they want a demonstration, an analogy, and there just isn't a very good one, because its so weird. As such you end up with this often talked about, but little understood topic. This is especially common when people talk about anything to do with superposition, collapsing a wavefunction, observers etc and leads to crazy analogies like disappearing moons and cats which are neither alive nor dead etc.

I will try and clarify most of this stuff in a small example. If I give you $5 and $10 and ask you for the total. You will answer $15. This is a mathematical expression to which you have a numeric answer.If I am about to roll a dice and ask you which number will it land on, in that scenario your answer will be "I dont know". Now you could absolutely give me a probability - you could say "its a 1/6 chance of landing on a number between 1-6". Essentially rather than give me a numerical answer, you have to give me a function as an answer, and as this function will give you a probability we call it a probability function.So there is no way to know which number the dice will land on, but you do know the probability function of the dice and you can tell me there's a 1/6 chance of it landing on any of its sides.So now we roll the dice, once its stopped rolling and we then look at the dice, you can now tell me the numbers its on! You no longer have a probability function anymore because you can now observe the actual value.

This is in essence what most of the misunderstanding of quantum physics is about. We have observed that the probability function of a lot of quantum events happens to be in the form of a wave. So while the quantum event is happening the prediction of its position, or momentum, or energy etc is a probability function. We dont know what the number is, but we know the likelihood of it being certain values. Then when we observe the event, its like looking at the dice after its finished rolling, now we have a specific value. In physics this is given the fancy sounding term of "wavefunction collapse".

So when you come across the nonsense descriptions they're normally trying to say that until you "measure" or "observe" the quantum object, it will be in a "superposition of states" and is in neither one state nor another. (essentially while the dice is rolling its value is not a 2 or a 4 yet, its a probability function). Once you measure or observe it, then the wavefunction collapses and then you can observe its state. (once the dice stops rolling you'll have an actual value rather than a probability)
Hence the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box, the moon isnt there until you observe it etc etc. Its just people taking the maths probability stuff in a literal sense and applying it to absurd examples.

you've just hit the nail on the head. 2+3 can absolutely equal 4 outside the universe. *Obviously we have defined the axioms that make this work so if our definitions hold then no, but barring semantics and all that rubbish aside, thats the exact point.

You have no idea what 2+3 equals outside our universe because we come up with all these logic rules through observation. Macro level observation at that, the quantum world works completely differently. There you can get very strange results like 2=4=5 for fractions of a second, before it then becomes 2+3=5.

So no, logic is defined on the actions of the observable universe and are thus an assumption you are applying to outside of the universe. You have no idea of the ruleset outside the universe, so you cannot apply any "logic" to it.

non philosopher here, wtf is post-analytic philosophy. It sounds like a terrible name.

Those are all very different questions.

What makes a human? Well homo sapiens, the primate species. if you have the requisite genetic structure, DNA and chromosomes etc... Then you're a human.

A cloned neanderthal would not be a human... It would be a neanderthal.

You mention humanity... Now that is far more subjective, and more to do with the difference between how you socially treat a human vs an animal. Hence if you were treating someone inhumanely, you would be treating them in a manner equivalent to (or less than) an animal. This of course exists because most humans elevate their importance above all other animal and plant life.

Sentience is a very tricky thing to define, and is normally defined as awareness and the ability to experience feelings or sensations.

Of course this definition came about back in the 1600s, feelings and sensations are just a bunch of electrical impulses interpreted by your brain in order to try and get the human to act in a specific manner because at some point historically, acting in said manner would have increased the odds of survival. So does it apply to an android? Depends whether you insist on keeping the words "feeling" and "sensations" in the definition...

I personally wouldnt justify keeping a gorilla as a slave (assuming it wouldnt just tear my arms off) so I certainly wouldnt justify neanderthal slaves.

This can be applied to the modern day. Do you think that the great apes deserve "right to life". If so, what other animals would you extend that to?

As someone with a background in physics who every now and then browses this thread. I agree with you completely. My biggest gripe with metaphysics isnt the logical process. Its that for some unknown reasons philosophers in the realm seem to assume that observations made at their (macro) level apply to all scales and scenarios.

I dont agree that "something" must have always existed, I also dont agree that everything couldn't have come from nothing. I just came across this and I dont know the first thing about philosophy. Im a physicist.

Time is a function of our universe. That is to say that time is not linear. It does not pass at a constant rate. It appears to for us as humans. However, we know that time infact changes depending on relative speed. This is a known fact (time dilation, special relativity)

There are objects inside our own universe where the fundamental rules of the universe (time, matter, 3 spatial dimensions etc etc) seem to break down e.g a black hole.

Why is this relevant? Its because you are applying the ruleset of our universe - time, causality, matter, energy etc to a scenario outside of our universe. Essentially, your entire premise requires this assumption to work.

So you say "What happens before the big bang? There must be something? There must be a cause? We cant come from nothing" - Why? All those are rules OF our universe. It is a assumption to assume that any of that ruleset would exist outside of our universe. If there is no time, what do the words before, after, begin and end even mean anyway?

So thus God cannot be the logical outcome. If you need to make a string of assumptions in order to reach your logical conclusion... then its probably not a logical conclusion.

EDIT: your point on freewill in of itself is an entire assumption. You have no idea whether brownian motion or quantum phenomena are truly random, or whether the same answer would repeat if you were to go back in time and observe the event again. Using the current model for quantum theory if you went back in time and observed a quantum event again, it could change. However, there is no way to know as it cannot be tested.