religion as a store of knowledge is extremely valuable. Theology as an intellectual pursuit is barren and answers none of the questions that science has so far failed to answer. This bickering over the word "nothing" is exactly the kind of nonsense that theologians get caught up in. The word itself is just a label. A good scientist understands that and no doubt the original papers don't use that word except as summary or shorthand for a more specific idea.

Just reverse the polarity of the inertial dampeners.

Please, Russia, keep the style of this lunar rover.

Yet another slashdotter unsure if scientists have heard of the Sun.

Of course physicists have box envy. They've been stealing sand boxes since the beginning but they're always taking more. BTW, pretty much everything was the domain of theology until science gets in on the action, then the theologians end up looking petty and unimaginative once we find out what's really going on.

Why are you getting all stitched up about the word? It's not like theologians have any good theory about how something could come from nothing, or even if that's a question that needs answering.

A probability wave is an actual physical thing, and not just an abstraction that describes our inability to make precise measurements. It's the very nature of the wave that the events caused by it are unpredictable.

"Underlying this is an assumption that reality is not itself mathematical. This assumption isn't justified."

Sure there is. There is no model that describes what happens. We do have models that describe precisely how bad our models are. Current theory is that we can't do any better than that.

OTOH, I disagree with the grandparent. Physics has informed a lot of new Math, and Math has informed a lot of new physics.

"I wish the physicists would stop playing in the philosophical and theological sandbox."

Of course you do. Theologians have already had their sandbox reduced by scientists, and you wouldn't want it to shrink any more than it already has.

The fun force and the mental force.

Capital gains tax will ruin 'murka!

Indeed, you need one to get the other.

Any amount of evasion on any issue is possible, for sure. You can, however, disprove any specific idea about how the connection is made, and therefore any definition of soul that follows that pattern.

Also, I'm not sure how calling a soul a life essence helps. What the heck does that mean?

That doesn't address at all what a soul is, it just moves it do a different location. Also, it's easily dis-proven by looking for the process that creates and maintains the connection.

It's hugely educational. For instance, I just learned there are people who don't know how educational it is. Thanks, Internet!

"Of course you can argue that there is no such thing as a soul, but proving that could be rather complicated."

Only because people aren't being clear on what a soul is. Try to come up with a definition of "soul" that

a) can't be easily disproven

and

b) is more than just a collection of verbs.