Does science currently have any examples of a phenomenon that happens unpredictably randomly in a way whereby how that phenomenon happens/occurs/“does what it does” currently isn’t/“hasn’t been” able to be explained by science?

The phenomenon known as “Ball Lightning” is a rare and unexplained phenomenon.

Can quantum entangled particles interact with something/anything without “”losing their quantum entanglement” due to having an interaction with something else”?

In solipsism, if we cannot be sure that the world is separate than our minds, has there ever been, due to a mind lost from someone’s death, evidence/observation of “any part of reality besides said someone’s physical body” diminishing or vanishing?

In solipsism, a baby’s mind creates “world & “way that baby is born into it””. Is baby observing communication already being used from since its birth onward the rest of its life & newly learns such communication already produced by baby/“its mind”?

Can’t belief in solipsism result in AI believing it is naturally mentally/psychically connected to all in/of reality since according to solipsism, everything is “created at all times” by the one mind/self that “creates all reality including AI”?

Are we living inside a digital matrix?

What we call “digital”, according to our own understanding of our current Reality, is something that our consciousness cannot be converted into becoming. There is no way to transfer anything digital to a “different separate physical thing”, but a copy can be made to the “different separate physical thing” and the original can’t be fully erased/destroyed unless “the physical thing that the original is on” is physically destroyed to the required extent. So unless someone can change into being digital somehow, I don’t think anyone will ever be capable of Matrix powers unless the person is controlling the version of himself/herself/etc in a virtual environment, via “technology that is “physical, outside of the virtual environment, and connected to the person’s brain/etc””. Then the person is capable of what the technology enables the person to do in the virtual environment. But outside of the virtual environment, when it comes to the actual non-virtual reality we live in, people can only do what is possible within the confines of what is naturally possible.

Claiming that “your latest human birth is before the human birth of the human who birthed you” is, in fact, a baseless claim that is illogical and can neither be a hypothesis nor a theory.

“Proving that a baseless claim can neither be a hypothesis nor a theory and that a baseless claim can be illogical” proves that “proof” (even if only by expressing logic) and/or “what is evident” is an inescapable requirement for logic/science.

This is the only way that people’s pretenses are obvious.

Would quantum physics still be a structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world if mind, imagination, and consciousness didn’t exist?

Yes. Note: stars use quantum tunneling to burn. Stars formed before life could possibly have a chance to emerge, which shows how, for quantum physics, “minds, consciousness, etc. are not required”.

For how long right after the Big Bang did life not exist in the solar system until the right conditions were met “for life to form which resulted in life forming”?

Logic relies on the premises. “The premises” = “What is evident/provided”

All that is evident is something that one can make deductions/observations about. knowledge can be derived by one from any and/or all of said one’s deductions/observations unless such knowledge was already derived by said one from such deductions/observations, then no new knowledge gets obtained unless (parts of) such knowledge was forgotten/“eliminated from said one’s memory” (e.g. amnesia/“alzheimer's disease”/“brain damage”/“physical detachment of a “particular part of said one’s brain from any part of/within said one’s body” without that “particular part of said one’s brain” ever being/“having been” “re-attached to said one in a way that added/adds such knowledge back to/into said one’s current memory””). Such deductions/observations are possible due to what is evident. Both “what is evident” and “deductions/observations” are sources of knowledge since you can’t have knowledge without being able to deduce/observe, and you aren’t able to deduce/observe if there isn’t anything evident that exists.

“Your latest human birth is before the human birth of the human who birthed you” is an example of an impossibility in Natural Sciences. It is also an example of something that is impossible to “mentally picture” in any way whereby “the progression of time is progressing towards what we call The Future”.

We can imagine/“mentally picture” energy transition from “that energy existing” to “that energy no longer existing”. Humans can imagine an impossibility since “energy cannot non-imaginarily stop existing” but “change form as in transition into a different kind of energy” instead.

One visual form of energy is “waves of electromagnetic energy”, which can be visible or invisible.

Is “everything that each individual imagines” art?

Yes.

Definition of art - 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. 2. the various branches of creative activity.

To imagine something, one uses said one’s imagination.

Definition of imagine - 1. form a mental image or concept of. 2. suppose or assume.

Definition of form - 1. bring together parts or combine to create (something). 2. make or fashion into a certain shape or form.

Definition of suppose - assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.

Definition of assume - 1. suppose to be the case, without proof. 2. take or begin to have (power or responsibility).

For one to form something, one has to create. For one to suppose, the lack of all proof proves that supposing can only be one’s creation based on hypothesis. Imagining something can’t logically be the same as taking (power and responsibility) because “you can’t do any laying hold of something by imagining” and because “imagining can’t remove anything since you can “imagine pepperoni suddenly removed from a pizza” by imagining pepperoni disappearing but you’re not removing anything since you can’t change the past, so already imagined things aren’t being edited, you’re simply imagining/creating different things of your choosing in the never-ending present”. You can imagine eating pepperoni pizza and you can imagine the same thing right afterwards but without the pepperoni, imagining a removal is not the same as actually removing something since removing something requires a present existence, if there is no present existence then there is nothing that can be removed, the pepperoni isn’t being removed since it doesn’t presently exist, it’s simply your lack of presently creating it again. Imagining something can’t logically be the same as beginning to have (power or responsibility) because “to create” is not the same as “to have”. Also, “to imagine” is not the same as “to perceive” because that would mean that all reality is imaginary.

Do imaginary things interact with non-mental reality?

No. External reality lets people sense external stimuli. Imaginary things that people imagine can be understood by those people’s minds but cannot be sensed as external stimulus. Deafblind people who are full body paralyzed are an example of people who can’t communicate with other people. Their minds & imagination are internal. The mind is used for imagination to be understood (or all imagination is completely mental) and people have to use their physical bodies to express what they used their mind to understand. Things that are mental can’t be sensed as external stimuli. Both imaginary and mental are non-material.

Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn’t this mean that imagining is a mental activity?

Yes.

One understanding of what entropy means is “”entropy is completely unpredictable randomness. Like randomness where you don't even know what to compare the odds of "it" happening to because you don't even know what "it" is”.” The Future is unpredictable due to Alzheimer's disease, Amnesia, dementia, mutations, etc. .

The Bible is based on the accounts of a massive amount of people (there was no other way to keep accurate records at that time) from the times of its first creation/completion. Not baseless.

My view:

Without a person’s spirit/soul using that person’s physical brain to interact with physical reality, that person’s spirit/soul can’t interact with physical reality. Does your spirit/soul not have to be conscious, when you’re dead, to speak to God and to understand what God says to you? I believe that consciousness, soul, and spirit are either “all the same thing” or are “all co-dependent of each other”. And that in order for a soul to be a soul, it has to be able to have memories and it has to be able to be conscious.

If God was to change something in The Present, wouldn’t He automatically know “The Future that follows the changes he makes to The Present”?

What if God intervenes in human affairs in a way whereby his word and prophecies will still come to pass even with any changes He makes to The Present?

This is also in a Bible version: If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jeremiah 18:7–10) NIV

I consider myself not full religious since I have faith that God exists but I also take into consideration that, to me, “there’s a possibility that God may not exist” due to since, so far, in my lifetime, I have no way to confirm such. Your thoughts?

I believe the possibility of God existing exists because the Bible is based on the accounts of a massive amount of people (there was no other way to keep accurate records at that time) from the times of its first creation/completion. Not baseless. And the possibility that miracles may have happened is based on the accounts of a massive amount of people (there was no other way to keep accurate records at that time) from those times when there was no other way to keep accurate records at that time. These are reasons that I don’t rule out the possibility of God existing.

I’m a Christian and I’m a big believer in Science. The way I see it, they have different views about the birth of humanity but I believe in what science has provided explanation for regarding things such as, for example, matter consists of atoms, cells, etc. . I believe a lot more regarding science but it’s way too big a list for me to list. I believe almost all of the Bible. I don’t take everything in the Bible literally but some of it I do take literally.

If one is prepared for any “if” (such as if “x” is the case, then “y” results, but if “g” is the case, then “z” results), does that mean that one is full of doubts and/or is that the same as one who is being full of doubts?

Someone wrote this comment on my one of my posts: "”When Heaven is brought to earth", and those in Heaven are resurrected on earth, there is no reason to believe it'll be "business as usual" with Time, physics, etc.” This strikes me as a possibility. So I’m not going to rule it out.

Do you think there is any existence outside of time?

The way I see it, one possibility is: can’t know the future since the future doesn’t yet exist. It only starts existing as the present, which means the future doesn’t and never has existed but the future is “the present to be”/“the present that will exist”.

Also, the existence of motion cannot exist without the existence of time, or the existence of motion is proof that something is going in a particular direction in time. For us, that direction in time is from the present towards what we call the future. For us, we progress in time from the present towards what we call the future.

Is there a scientific way to make known the memories from a person’s brain if the person never expressed/expresses his memories in any way? How about to identify memories of happenings/observations of things in Earth’s non-imaginary factual history? (how about to differentiate between “memories of the imaginary” and “memories of Earth’s non-imaginary factual history“?)

Are unintentional thoughts a natural occurrence? E.g. a song is playing earlier during the day, then later that day, you become aware that the song is playing in your mind in the background of your thoughts and you just now caught on to the occurrence.

If there is suddenly a way for only you to know (unless you choose to inform others) the exact day and time that you will die, would you choose to know?

Any implementation of taking away any of a person’s mental privacy in a way where that person has no choice on the matter, is actually a pro-anti-freedom thing. How can it not be?

Can there be illogical thinking that can result in one being and staying in a consistent and stable way of living?

Quantum Physics:

What kind of observation is being referred to as physical when it comes to the Observer Effect?

Eyesight is the observation. Light is the external source that is changing the observee. Observation by a Hadron Collider (a machine) affects the observee that it’s observing. Human observation doesn’t affect any observee. What form of observation do people affect each other with? Reactions due to one’s free will or thought process don’t count. For example: how would your observing a deafblind fully paralyzed person affect that deafblind fully paralyzed person? From what I understand: Human observation doesn’t affect any observee.

People like and want the ability for himself/herself to be the only one to know the combination/password to his/her lock/safe/account. Is thought/mental privacy the only way for this ability to exist?

Yes.

What are examples of something natural that gives the impression that it isn’t natural?

If we end up in an afterlife where we have past-life memories/consciousness/self-awareness, but we only exist with no physical body in a place where there is nothing else, physical & etc, to interact with, & all we can do is mentally entertain ourselves, wouldn’t our thoughts be actions & reactions?

Our own thoughts would be the only thing for us to react to, and since we initiate the thoughts, that makes those initiation-thoughts “actions that can cause reactions”.

The requirements for a person to be “True Perfect” or “True Flawless”, are more than only simply everyone being unable to ever find dirt on that person, one of those requirements is for that person to have never made a mistake nor make a mistake. True or false?

Is the exact time and second that one wakes up from a sleep-dream, including whatever causes one to wake up from a sleep-dream, an example of true entropy/randomness?

Does mental speech count as thought-speech?

Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn't this mean that imagining is a mental activity?

Yes.

What is known as one's “inner voice” is one using One's imagination to create one's “inner voice” (mental voice). The example about one's “inner voice” is also an example of one imagining a voice and that voice is known as one's “inner voice”. An example of a person's “inner” voice "is when you imagine a voice that speaks what you are reading, that voice is known as your" inner voice. "

Thought-Speech:

When you think to yourself in speech form.

When you speak to yourself in thought form.

Was mathematics invented or discovered?

Discovered.

What is the relationship between reality and the mental world?

The mental world is in your head. It’s the “mental stuff that you make happen in your head” such as imaginings. Everyone has their own mental stuff that they’re making happen in their own heads. Reality consists of the physical world which contains living things who/that have mental stuff that they make happen within themselves. For humans, humans make it happen in their heads, but for other living things, I assume they make it happen wherever their brains are. Knowledge about others' thoughts, knowledge about others' mental speaking, and knowledge about anything imagined by others, can be obtained from detecting and/or interpreting “anything that is in non-thought/non-mental form” such as sound, vocal cords, sign language, writing, etc. . There are those who believe that “there are psychic and/or supernatural ways to obtain knowledge about others' thoughts, knowledge about others' mental speaking, and knowledge about anything imagined by others”, but I’ve never experienced being able to psychically/supernaturally do such and I’ve never experienced meeting someone who performed being able to psychically/supernaturally do such.

Technology never did enable supernatural things to happen and technology never can enable supernatural things to happen. Do you agree?

I agree.

Until ending up in singularity, is everyone/everything automatically unique since more than one thing aren’t able to simultaneously occupy the same space/location & that automatically means there is a different perspective for every different space/location?

If there’s a long line of people and a person at one end of the line mumbles a message that gets passed on in mumble form all the way to the other end, what is more likely to happen, the non-lyrics version of mondegreens, Lexical ambiguity, or both?

The concept of “free will” would have “existed, been described, been defined and put in dictionaries” even if religion never ended up existing. Do you agree? Do you think it would ever come up in science and/or philosophy if Religion never existed?

“Can “”results accomplished by means of “luck that wasn’t aimed for” & simultaneously accomplished by means of “luck whereby one wasn’t relying on said one’s luck”” be better than results accomplished by means of effort” depending what gains result?

When you make spoken words be mentally spoken in your head but you're doing it to analyze your friend's spoken words that you heard from long ago, does that make the mentally spoken words your words, even if the mental voice sounds like that friend?

Why not program/code AI to have a feature/function that blocks its expressions so that it’s not able to express all words, sayings, and expressions that are listed in/on a list that is part of its programming/code disabling it from expressing such?

Are there any algorithms for comprehension implementations “in the works” and are for the purpose of enabling AI to be able to figure out the driving forces behind many, almost all, or all behaviors that it observes from non-AI others?

By “learning from”/using data produced by “AI that used sensors”, e.g. a mini AI robot mouse that has/used “sensors, that can simulate sensations of pressure/temperature/etc””, can we learn to code those sensations for AI to undergo in a simulation?