Take two completely disconnected observers monitoring the same system. Given the layered nature of observations, one observer (A) sees X and measures Y, but the other observer (B) sees X and W so measures Z. The current definitions I see flying around would suggest that observer A can correctly conclude that W doesn't exist because they measured Y. However, observer B can correctly conclude that W and X exist because they measured Z.
How can we suggest that time doesn't exist outside entangled entities?
Apologies for the Reddit reference, but if you could explain it like I'm 5, then I'd be grateful.
Robbing from the bank is illegal and they'll hunt you down for it. BUT, robbing from their robbing - now if we do that, they can't go and whine to the feds about us. Huh!
Anybody want to join me in setting up an APT against a major bank's shadow transactions? You'll get wealthy, filthy wealthy. Even better - lets do the whole robin hood thing...
To bring it back to the point:
It will then need at least 5 but generally 9 months of full life support before it has any chance to survive as a separate individual.
A newborn child still has no chance to survive as a separate individual . You've attempted to distinguish a child in the womb as unable to survive independently and a newborn child as able to survive independently. This is patently untrue.
I assume your reasoning is that this affords those willing to extinguish the life of an unborn child the mentality that it is just a 'parasite' - an attempt to cloud judgement on the core issue.
Putting that aside, it does not diminish my point at all. A newborn child outside the womb is arguably just as dependent on a parent as inside the womb. Any perceived independence is merely nominal in nature.
...does a woman have an obligation to make sure each ovum is fertilized? It is, after all a human cell that will naturally develop if only that minimal support is given to it.
No, that makes no sense. An ovum is one part of the puzzle needed before a life can grow. An ovum by itself will never turn into a growing human. Not difficult to conceptualize, it's not a growing human before fertilization.
And therein lies the point. Once fertilized, there is no denying that the "collection of cells" (which I reiterate, we all are) will become an adult human.
Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but it sounds like you do believe you should impose this upon others (take a stand).
You're use of the word impose seems like an attempt to sully my position on this - especially given your past arguments, but yes - just like we 'force' people against their will to murder others in the street, I believe we should do the same for the innocent, defenceless, unborn child.
Turn the tables a bit. Given your thoughts on the subject, it seems that you would believe that it is fine to kill unborn children?
I most certainly wasn't quoting it without comprehending it. From the Wikipedia article:
There can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.
It's worth noting that until you've covered all contributing variables and factors to a problem domain you cannot with certainty draw causation from correlation; something that this article (and sensationalised headline) lacks. That is the point.
I'm here until Thursday. Be sure to try the parma with chips.
I happen to use LibreOffice every day at work without issue.