Search results

well, what if you're wrong, and some states really are preferable to others? if you're right, it makes no difference how you view things, or act, anyway

if you're referring to the part I put in quotation marks, then that's a view that doesn't make sense to me either as I said: ' depending on how you interpret "relative" ' eg. definitions include - something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to...

I'll definitely start reading this soon, and I'll have a look into the other recommendations as well I read a book called 'Philosophy- Made Simple' a few years ago, which was pretty good, but nothing since

depending on how you interpret "relative", this is not necessarily the case. I view it as, rather than meaning "whatever someone says is wrong, is wrong. nothing is really more right or wrong thatn anything else", something similar to ad infinitum's description of "moral realism, i.e. here we...

If my model was a relative one (absolute = strict rules, then?), then yes, I accept ethics as being relative - but with 'relative' not implying that no action is better or worse than any other. Morals could then be considered like laws. Certain laws could be considered better than others, with...

What does whether or not we have free will imply, exactly? I think the concept (like any other) is flawed in the first place. Either way, understanding/being able to predict thoughts and behaviour to a fairly accurate degree would be pretty cool/useful.

wow :O I haven't read it, but it sounds like it's an excellent book, and worth the read. A review someone wrote: There is also a movie of it, which you could watch first, and read the book afterwards. I think I'll do this.

what do you mean by morals, and by universal/relative? I personally hold that happiness (as a generalised term for any 'positive' feeling we have) is the fundamental good (I cannot concieve of anything more fundamental that this). This idea naturally leads to utilitarianism (as I interpret the...

from wikipedia: "Creationism refers to the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity. However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural...

that graph shows the amount of carbon-14 remaining (note: the question asks for the amount of nitrogen-14) the carbon-14 decays into nitrogen 14, so the amount of nitrogen 14 is 100 - [amount of carbon-14] reading from the graph, we have 37g of carbon-14, so 100-37=63g of nitrogen-14

I haven't done anything else from the question, but for part ii) they give you Ar = < Br just use that in conjunction with the other 2 identities you have (part i) and the one they just gave you)

blasphemy!

same as any other polynomial division isn't it? like this sort of thing Bored of Studies - View Single Post - Quicker Method for Long Division of Polynomials that's how I did it anyway

congratulations then; you've captured his tone perfectly!

my gut says KILL

did you consider that maybe the answer they gave is incorrect?

why does studying one thing mean you have to not study another thing? you may as well learn to derive normal/tangential acceleration, even if only for interest

phys and chem are both pretty bad the bio i did was alright

no, why? (I think I might see where you're coming from - but there would be, for example, n ways to choose the (n-1) rooms to put the people in, and since this doesn't ensure that all the rooms will have at least one person in them, you will then be over counting many combinations)

should be (n-1)/(3n-1) x (n-2)/(3n-2) keep in mind that the different colour ball could be picked in any of the 3 draws (the wording is misleading), not just the last one, so you have to multiply this by 3, giving 1:2:6 for iv)