stromgo

Maybe it helps to consider all 4 possibilities for the sign of the gravitational mass of antimatter, and the sign of the inertial mass of antimatter?

(-,-): antimatter would fall down, but we could break conservation laws with a mechanism.

(+,-): antimatter would fall up, but we could break conservation laws with a mechanism using electrically charged particles.

(-,+): antimatter would fall up, but ruled out by the experiment.

So what remains is (+,+)?

We do know that the real world is richer than the simulated world, since it holds a computer that runs the simulated world. Therefore if you exist, then it's more likely that you're the result of evolution in the real world than the result of evolution in the simulated world.

Imagine the warehouse-size computer that is needed to simulate a bacterium here on Earth. Computers are dusty, and dust contains bacteria, so if you're a bacterium, then it's more likely that you're one of the billions of bacteria in the dust on the computer, than the bacterium being simulated by the computer. The same reasoning should hold for other worlds.

When you said

> With consciousness, the emergentists are not capable of pointing at the first principle, or building block.

...it sounded like there were no plausible candidates. If computation is a candidate, then it's certainly something they can point at (with the caveat that it's only a candidate and not currently testable). I think if instead you had written something along those lines and avoided the words "not capable of", then hoseja and I wouldn't have reacted.

Consciousness is a computation, and neurons are certainly capable of elementary computation.

So the building block has been pointed at (neurons), and its property given (computation). Is the problem that you don't believe that consciousness can emerge from elementary computation, or you believe that it is possible but we have no proof of it?

Sorry, I reformulated the findings for easy consumption. Why is it confusing and not an improvement? Ask 10 people what speed is 89% slower than 100 mph. See how many give the article's intended answer (53 mph).

The paper Mind the Gap: Analyzing the Performance of WebAssembly vs. Native Code reports that, on average, WebAssembly is running at 67% of native speed in Firefox and 53% of native speed in Chrome (called 50% slower and 89% slower in the paper). Whether 67% can be called "near" 100% or not is subjective.

I'm not sure what you computed. The interesting question is to pick a recessive trait from one of the parents and ask for the chance of it being passed on. The probability that it's being passed on from the parent who has it is 1/2. The probability that it's being passed on from the other parent is (1/2)*(1/128). The combined probability is 1/512, not 1/65,536.

Indeed. Subway cars move forward without any horse pulling them, how is this miracle possible? What turned out to work was the steam engine, and now electromagnetism, explained by science. What didn't turn out to work was an elite team of people praying for the train to move.

The qualifier "dwarf" doesn't mean that the celestial body is too small to be considered a planet, it means that it hasn't cleared the neighborhood around its orbit. (Blame the IAU if you find this counterintuitive). This means that your conclusion is wrong: the asteroid belt actually has enough mass to be a planet.

Did you interpret the table backwards? Swiss French is considered simpler:

  1. (most complex)
  19. French
  33. Swiss French
  69. (simplest)

Your easy proof is completely wrong. There's discrimination against white men if the hiring bar is higher for them. To check this using workforce statistics you'd need to compare the fraction of white men in the workforce to what it would be with the same hiring bar for everyone. Comparing the fraction to the magic number 50% is irrelevant.

I'm sorry I still don't see it. Your linked article says at the very top "There is as yet no unambiguous detection of an IMBH". Concerning gravitational waves, reference [7] says "We show that space based detectors such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna are likely to detect several of these sources". Reference [8] says "gravitational-wave observations could be used to accurately measure masses of black holes in merging binaries and probe the existence of intermediate-mass black holes". So no discovery yet, just theoretical work on what the signal would look like.