I am mostly for whatever allows the most people to practice whatever they themselves believe, regardless of who it is.

I think people absolutely have the right to protest, but the question is to what extent can those rights infringe on the well-being of others.

Or even the convenience of others.

Evidently, a fun little fact, the 1st Amendment only protects citizens from discrimination of the Federal Government, not of the State Governments. That loop-hole wasn't fully solved until the 14th Amendment.

Sure, for sake of argument if you infringe an Ambulance from going through, you are infringing on someone else's rights.

So I can see a valid argument for that.

It is, more than anything, a postulate.

To play a bit of a Devil's Advocate, should an Omnipotent God stop murders? And if so...why?

There are a lot of religious and non-religious.

Evidently, the question of religion really isn't one of Science, due to the lack of a provable or disprovable method about it. So what happens by accordance to Scientific Protocol is it is actually classified as Philosophy.

If you are curious, the same thing happened early on in Quantum Mechanics

Or entirely different social standards, in some cases.

Moral good and evil are not as black and white as we'd like to say...

And who is to say that our understanding of good and evil are objective at all?

Sure...but whose to say that *isn't* free will?

Free doesn't always require the same connotation.

Evidently, many arguments stem out of a disagreement on definition.

IMO Free Will isn't whether choices stem from a collective functioning of one's self, but rather if one can act against a particular stimuli at a particular time, regardless of what it may be.

Oh man, one of my favorite concepts...

Psychohistory

Isaac Asimov wrote about it as a fundamental premise to his Sci-Fi series

Very good books

Psychohistory, if you are curious, is this idea that while individuals themselves are quite complex and intricate beings, a 'mob' of people become infinitely more predictable and patternistic in their behavior. Meaning that within a certain margin of error, you can calculate probabilities of eventual outcomes by deducing the actions of a mass.

The one caveat being, that if an individual has enough tenacity to dramatically alter history, they can throw off the balance of said calculations.

And that is the fundamental story idea in the Foundation Trilogy

Evidently, Schrodinger's Cat isn't exactly random either.

Nor is it prior

It exists as a Superposition of two eventualities

Where, the deduction and measurement of those forces the collision of one or the other.

And it is still enacted upon my a compressive, and consistent, force.

Well, a certain degree of randomness

More of a range of possibility

Or of potential outcomes

The range of solutions to a superposition

As it must be, otherwise it really doesn't work.

Well, what keeps a brick in contact with a steel plate?

Different densities should mean that one is not forced into the other, and can freely roam around.

So...you're arguing Relative Density?

They are. And even if we have a fluid on-top of the steel plate, it is still compressed into it.

Which doesn't concur with this theory of it only being density.

As under that postulate, most matter would be ejected off the surface of the earth.

We can pretty easily prove gravity. It just depends if you want to accept it or not.

As for warped space time, I'd answer with the relativistic motion of high-velocity matter.

We actually have pretty solid equations for that.

Let me find one.

Ah, right, cannot post it.

They'd probably argue that he's a liar.

Or some variation thereof.

They argue those are balloons.

And are also fake.

I told you, it doesn't have to make sense.

They just need *some* kind of explanation.

And cognitive dissonance can do the rest.

Don't.

They may want a free ticket.

Save them for family, friends...

For a while there were those who doubted that humans could live 1,000 feet off the ground, and insisted that pilots, balloonists or anything similar faked it all.

Well, there is observable proof of this, but the problem they have is that it comes from sources they deem unreputable.

Well, there is...

*But*

You need to put down some money to do it.

Less of an appeal to authority, but a close tangential all the same.

Sure.

They can put something on a moving satellite, yes.

Or on a sub-orbital rocket.

If they build a device to do it for them...yes.

Or some kind of mechanism to calculate it.

Then, of course...

You'd have to trust their word.

Yes, they would.

You can also, at that point, see plenty of other indicators of the form of the Earth.

Not just relativistic motion.

Well...

Realistically, I *have* tested it.

You could very realistically test it too, just book the next flight with a 2U payload.

Well, it is all conjecture at some degree.

The importance is, after enough redundancy, it ceases being a fallacy.

Well...name one thing that is definitively substantiated without requiring conjecture or some kind of appeal to authority.

But...are you not appealing to the authority of the program itself?

That's the thing, if we deny any authority whatsoever, we throw out anything that is provable by those more informed than us and regulate ourselves to doing only the most basic of 'provable' functions.

which, themselves, are not even fully provable.

I think the question there is, however...

To what degree is it acceptable to appeal to authority?

Eh, nitpicking is my specialty, as in this case I think it holds valid meaning.

If we refuse appeals to authority of any magnitude, we refuse everything.

Well, if you could fly out there and see one...you're probably already in it.

And seeing would be rather hard.

Plenty do.

But, most of them are asleep right now.

Well, it doesn't really change much though if it is true or not.

Yes.

Check above.

I'm not sure I'd say most, but the most public ones, I'd agree.

They argue it is density.

Ask the Flat Earthers, not me.

Well, you know what the more scientific term for Relative Density is, right?

Also, of note, Buoyancy and Relative Density are two entirely different things.

Yep.

Relative Density doesn't even have units

Because it is a ratio