Treating these as classical black holes, they would only be less massive, not less dense. Classical black holes have diverging density due to collapse of a finite mass to a singularity. If you propose that black holes have internal structure then it's reasonable to suggest that differences in density could result.

Yes, but position and momentum have quantum operators. Time has no operator.

It seems to me that you attach some sort of independent reality to uncertainty whereas to me it corresponds directly to statistics gathered from ensembles of measurements.

Additionally, the simple increase of one variable as its conjugate variable decreases does not necessarily imply quantum behavior. This can be found in any conjugate variables (as related by a Fourier transform): If I increase bandwidth I can shrink pulse duration in a completely classical theory.

The uncertainty principle is expressed in terms of variances of measurements. It corresponds directly to our inability to measure conjugate quantities with arbitrary precision. What could you mean by saying that our inability to measure is a result of the uncertainty? What do you mean by uncertainty if not a lower bound to the variance for a statistical ensemble of measurements?

I'm sorry but I view empiricism as the foundation of modern science. Our theories aim to account for our measurements, not to describe some presumed ontological truth. The phrase "fundamental nature" belongs in philosophy, not science, in my view.

I should have made the connection but I didn't realize you were talking about an uncertainty principle. Why do you choose to talk about a conjugate pair that doesn't actually correspond to a pair of quantum operators? In any case, any uncertainty principle ultimately comes down to a lower bound in the variance of a statistical ensemble of measurements taken over conjugate variables. Your phrasing led me astray since I don't perceive any meaning to an uncertainty principle applied to a single measurement. Each measurement can have any allowed outcome. Only when I take a statistical ensemble of conjugate measurements and examine the variances does an uncertainty principle becomes evident.

You cannot comment on what actually is. We can only construct models that accurately predict the outcomes of experiments (i.e. measurements). We cannot say that a microscopic system does not possess specific position and momentum. It's just that we have no basis for claiming these properties without the support of measurements.

You say that the uncertainty principle is not about one's ability to measure something. To what do you think this uncertainty refers?

Your final sentence also seems a bit backward to me. I would say that the more available states, the faster an excited state will decay, on average (i.e. Fermi's Golden Rule). This can be framed as a probability for observing the system in a state other than the initial state -- the more available states the larger the probability of making this observation on each trial. You can also make an ensemble of trials and assess the average decay time, which also fundamentally relies on what we can measure.

Quantum entanglement does not provide a way to transmit information faster than light.

I agree to an extent. In a Bayesian sense, if I were to assign a probability that I will see an image of Betelgeuse in the sky tonight, I should continue to assign a probability close to 1 because the probability that it has undergone supernova in the past day is negligible. However, once I observe evidence of Betelgeuse's destruction, it would be more accurate to assign a date for that destruction that best accounts for my knowledge of the time of flight for that information.

The time at which my probability function changes is fixed by the arrival of new information. However, I am free to assign a date for the destruction of Betelgeuse that precedes my knowledge of this event.

I second this. Some work can't tolerate the vibration involved with compressors and doesn't require the volume to justify piping it large distances to/from a reservoir. My work always necessitated continuous flow cryostats.

I disagree. Science doesn't dispute anything, it simply doesn't use words or concepts that do not aid in describing physical phenomena.

I agree. A voorwerp should not be understood, in general, to denote this particular type of fluorescing gas cloud. This particular voorwerp just happens to be a fluorescing gas cloud.

What short range order do they have? They are isotropic and homogeneous. They have no broken symmetry.

Actually, my definition is common in the field of condensed matter physics -- the branch of physics that concerns itself with phase transitions, symmetry and order parameters.

Here is one page that delves into some of these ideas. I can dig up some peer-reviewed articles if you still don't believe me.

My proposal is that liquid and solid both refer to particular phases of matter with well-defined symmetry properties. That is, if I conduct a diffraction experiment I can predict the properties of the diffraction pattern that emerges. Liquid crystals are an intermediary phase of matter, as I believe I pointed out in my prior post. They possess an intermediate degree of symmetry breaking and will only exhibit broken symmetries in special directions.

"Amorphous solid" simply refers to a fluid whose flow rate is insignificant to us. Given full control over temperature and pressure I could cause it to enter a gas phase without crossing any phase transition. In what way is such a substance solid?

Liquid crystal is an informal term for material existing in an intermediary phase between solid and liquid so that it possesses both crystalline properties and fluid properties. Any serious scientist will specifically refer to the phase of matter that they are talking about (e.g. Smectic A, twisted nematic, etc.).

If you read the "liquid crystal" article you linked, you will find many references to other phases of matter. This could also have suggested to you that defining phases of matter in terms of broken symmetries is not a foreign or unique idea in condensed matter physics.

Mainly efficiency. What sort of signal to noise ratio do you expect if you just expose a large CCD to the sky? The imaging system concentrates the light from the intended source. It also screens out light from other sources that would otherwise strike the detector. Without mirrors to image a particular part of the sky to your detector you will just end up with a uniform exposure containing no information.

Glass lacks a crystal lattice, thus it is not a solid. When defining phases of matter, we consider in which ways the distribution of matter breaks symmetry. All fluids (gases and liquids) are both isotropic and homogeneous. At equilibrium, every point in the substance has the same conditions, on average, as every other point and everything looks the same when looking in any direction. Gas and liquid have the same symmetry with the only difference being in the incompressible nature of liquids. In fact, you can cause liquids and gases to smoothly transition from one to the other without crossing any phase transition.

Solids have fundamentally different symmetry properties. Starting from a lattice point, one must travel along a special direction by a distance called a lattice constant to reach the next nearest point at which conditions appear the same. Crystals can exist in a number of different symmetry groups.

Condensed matter physicists will tell you that there are actually a huge number of phases of matter including smectics, cholesterics, nematics (e.g. liquid crystals), etc., that all break the isotropy and homogeneity of liquids in different, intermediate ways, compared to the full breaking that occurs in solids.

I am not prepared to accept that glass is a solid without evidence of crystal structure. Crystalline silicon dioxide, however, has another name -- quartz. Quartz is unambiguously solid. It possesses crystal structure as evidenced by the diffraction of probe beams sent through it and has properties quite different from amorphous silicon dioxide.

Also, I find agnosticism more basic to the philosophy of science than atheism. Atheism simply follows from a lack of evidence. Agnosticism corresponds to the refusal to assert truth a priori.

The label attached is actually very relevant. When you use the term "agnostic" to define someone's stance on a particular existence question you are failing to use the language in an accepted fashion. Agnosticism means that the individual makes no claims to special knowledge. That is all it means. If you claim not to be agnostic then you are claiming gnosis. You are claiming to have some direct revelation of truth.

Also, I must vigorously protest your claim that agnostics (in general) are prepared to accept a supernatural cosmic puppetmaster as a matter of faith. Most basically, this description applies to theists. Remember agnosticism only means that the person does not claim some direct revelation of truth. Please stop assuming that being agnostic requires a person to relinquish logic. This is simply not the case.

Please conform to this usage or I will not be able to understand your words. There is nothing contradictory about atheism and agnosticism. I find it misleading to put agnosticism on a poll that asks about one's stance regarding an existence question.

Yes, but lacking some kind of magical knowledge they lack gnosis, leading to agnostic atheism. Agnosticism comments on one's epistemological position. It doesn't have anything to do with the stance one takes regarding the existence of a particular entity.

If you look at the history of the United States, it would appear that religion is more persistent than language. Many people continue with their family religion, yet in a few generations families tend to end up speaking English.

I would argue that language is more cross-cultural, but with language being a defining characteristic of culture this doesn't really make any sense.