And then my brain exploded.

[Solaris]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/18/BUHE1A4NJB.DTL&type=science

So apparently, they think the discovery of these Higgs boson particles is so abhorrent to nature that time and space warp to undo their discovery. Superstition, or mad science?

[Hazkali]

I think they were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Whilst it's a plausible theory, at the moment it's not falsifiable so it's beyond the realm of science, and these guys know that.

[Solaris]

Not thoroughly provable, no, but just because someone's a man of science doesn't mean they can't be superstitious.

[charl]

It makes so little sense it has to be true! :smallbiggrin:

Or maybe it's just coincidence. As far as I know the existence of the particle hasn't even been proven in the first place.

[Solaris]

Hush, you, we've never let reality get in the way of scientific pursuit.

[SurlySeraph]

I'm not a physicist, so I'm thoroughly unqualified to remark on this, but the concept of the Higgs Boson has always struck me as kind of silly. A particle that makes other particles have mass? Why is that necessary? And the notion that efforts to discover said particle are failing because the universe doesn't want it to be discovered is an extremely silly defense. Silliness has its place in physics - witness Richard Feynman - but this is really a bit much.

[Solaris]

I'm no physicist myself, but I assume it rather operates like it's the building-block of other particles, much like protons/neutrons/electrons are the building-blocks of atoms.

[Cubey]

Not thoroughly provable, no, but just because someone's a man of science doesn't mean they can't be superstitious.

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. If you really call yourself a scientist, you should apply scientific principles in your life.

[Solaris]

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. If you really call yourself a scientist, you should apply scientific principles in your life.

That's kind of like saying a scientist must be atheist.

[charl]

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. If you really call yourself a scientist, you should apply scientific principles in your life.

No. There are many respectable and good scientists throughout history who have been religious and superstitious. Things like that are outside of science, which really is more concerned about how things work rather than why.

[Solaris]

No. There are many respectable and good scientists throughout history who have been religious and superstitious. Things like that are outside of science, which really is more concerned about how things work rather than why.

Precisely. If it can't be scientifically proven or disproven, then it's not at all science.

[golentan]

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. If you really call yourself a scientist, you should apply scientific principles in your life.

Eh. The physicists at my school were the most superstitious lot of us. Knocking on wood, tossing salt over their shoulder, holding prayer meetings more than any other group, and never letting anyone finish the phrase "What could go wr..."

A scientist is one who applies the scientific method to experiments, research, and work. That's all it is. In the absence of a rigorous experiment about tempting fate, why tempt fate?

[pendell]

Quite. No one remembers John Dee, Royal Astronomer and Occultist? The inventor of the Enochian magic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enochian)?

I reference everyone to Godel, Esher and Bach's Eternal Golden Braid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach) and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem).

The thesis, in brief, is that the number of provable true facts is but a subset of the total true facts. IMO, this thesis is self proving. In order to logically prove B, you must first have A to prove B from. All logic systems require axioms to function at all, and those axioms are by their nature unprovable. They're simply taken as self-evidently true.

Thus, the scientific method is not an all-encompassing worldview; it is a tool. A tool that is wonderfully applicable to a subset of problems (falsifiable, observable, repeatable by experiment) but breaks down when used outside that domain.

As a result, I believe you will find the truly great scientists (Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, Aristotle, Pythagoras) believed some truly weird things along with their scientific acheivements. Because the scientific method was their tool, not their mental prison. Being open-minded means being open to the possibility that something unconventional might be true -- and being mature means not accepting this claim uncritically, but putting it to whatever tests are possible. Thus, I'll wager you will find that although these scientists were often men of "faith" as well as men of science, often they were men of *reasoned* faith rather than gullible, uncritical faith. "Faith" much like a gambler's belief in the cards he's dealt -- by no means are the cards a guaranteed win, but a good gambler recognizes the probabilities well enough to know when a hand is worth betting money on.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Pyrian]

...but the concept of the Higgs Boson has always struck me as kind of silly. A particle that makes other particles have mass? Why is that necessary?A "particle" in particle physics is really little more than "an effect that can be assigned a location in space". If it has a location in space - and mass does - they will assign it a particle on general principle.

[Jokasti]

Dan Brown can answer all of these questions and more.
Just pick up all his books at your local bookstore and start worshiping them.
On a more serious note, I think that ^ makes sense.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Pyrian, Stop Making Sense.

I think that if Higg's Boson turns up, it would be sorta cool. I wonder what it looks like.

5 dollars says it's purplish and jelly-bean shaped.

The betting rings at CERN must be fun.

[Quincunx]

Eh. The physicists at my school were the most superstitious lot of us. Knocking on wood,
Superstition.


tossing salt over their shoulder,
Superstition!


holding prayer meetings more than any other group,
Superstition! (in context of previous superstitions)


and never letting anyone finish the phrase "What could go wr..."
Rock-solid belief in the principles of Looney Tunes and all of them secretly viewing themselves as Wile E. Coyote reincarnated. Tell me, were any of them particularly furry, for a human? :smallwink:

[golentan]

Rock-solid belief in the principles of Looney Tunes and all of them secretly viewing themselves as Wile E. Coyote reincarnated. Tell me, were any of them particularly furry, for a human? :smallwink:

Some of them, but the ones I was most fond of were notably short on the hair department (guy going bald at 18 and a girl who only left enough hair to keep her head slightly insulated).

[Emperor Ing]

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.


:smallconfused: Are we the only smart ones here?

[kamikasei]

A particle that makes other particles have mass? Why is that necessary?

Because without it, particles don't have mass. Getting other particles to have mass under our current models requires a field that they interact with, massy particles more than light ones, and that is the Higgs field. It has a corresponding particle, because that's how physics works.

Also, I'm amused by the responses to "superstition" by appealing to a "more things in heaven and earth..." approach. Whatever you might want to say about the limits of human knowledge and rational inquiry, superstition is bunk by nature. It's an artefact of how our brains are put together and some fallacies and biases deeply rooted in our wiring - magical thinking, poor statistical reasoning, a survival-oriented tendency to err on the side of seeing things that aren't there rather than missing things that are. Cubey is correct that any reasonable person should try to recognize, correct for, and eliminate their own superstitions simply because they're reasonable people; he's incorrect that all reasonable people are necessarily free of superstition because of this; but the idea that "well, we can't ever know everything, therefore post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't a fallacy at all" is a non sequitur.

[Zeb The Troll]

"post hoc ergo propter hoc"Um, bless you.
*hands tissue*

:smallcool:

[Astrella]

Because without it, particles don't have mass. Getting other particles to have mass under our current models requires a field that they interact with, massy particles more than light ones, and that is the Higgs field. It has a corresponding particle, because that's how physics works.


But doesn't the Higgs boson only make up 2% of an an atom's mass? With the rest being the potential energy contained in the atom. (electromagnetic forces between protons, strong forces between the particles in the core, etc.)

Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that the Higgs-boson's existence has to do with a certain symmetry rather then just mass. (Sadly I don't remember much about that article.)

[kamikasei]

Ah, apparently it's not mass in general that it's needed to explain but the fact that some force carriers (for the weak force) have mass despite all force carriers being described by equations that should have them massless like the photon.

[V'icternus]

Now, I promised myself I would ignore this, but I just want to make it clear right now that something affecting the past to prevent it's own creation is both terrible science and painful to listen to.

[Quincunx]

Anthropomorphization of the particle as it approaches nirvana, perhaps?
(Note to self: read up on current theories of time and travel therein. Still under impression that time is one-way-only.)


. . .Also, I'm amused by the responses to "superstition" by appealing to a "more things in heaven and earth..." approach. . .

The listeners' amusement is the hoped-for result of a joke, yes.

@V: Were you anticipating an emoticon per line?

[kamikasei]

The listeners' amusement is the hoped-for result of a joke, yes.

I see no indications anyone was joking.

[Cubey]

A scientist is one who applies the scientific method to experiments, research, and work. That's all it is.

My life is my experiment!

[charl]

Also, I'm amused by the responses to "superstition" by appealing to a "more things in heaven and earth..." approach. Whatever you might want to say about the limits of human knowledge and rational inquiry, superstition is bunk by nature. It's an artefact of how our brains are put together and some fallacies and biases deeply rooted in our wiring - magical thinking, poor statistical reasoning, a survival-oriented tendency to err on the side of seeing things that aren't there rather than missing things that are. Cubey is correct that any reasonable person should try to recognize, correct for, and eliminate their own superstitions simply because they're reasonable people; he's incorrect that all reasonable people are necessarily free of superstition because of this; but the idea that "well, we can't ever know everything, therefore post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't a fallacy at all" is a non sequitur.

But superstition has nothing to do with nature or the physical world. It's all about your own mental landscape and for lack of a better word spirituality. Of course you could treat everything around you like a function of mathematics and live as a for lack of a better word with only reason in your life. But what is the fun in that? Since the way you experience the world depends on your own perception of it anyway you get to chose your own reality, and by looking at patterns that may or may not actually for lack of a better word exist you can interpret them as whatever you want, be it divine influence, arcane mysteries or whatever you want. And that interpretation and whatever spiritual conclusions you draw from it is outside the purview of science not because science has yet to understand it, but because it is not a scientific question to begin with.

Science only explains how the world works, it has never claimed to try and explain why it does so. Science ultimately couldn't tell you why we are here, but it can explain how we came to be here. And that is fine, because science wasn't made to answer existential or philosophical questions, only to explain how the world works in the most practical sense. It is not a substitute for religion or superstition.

[kamikasei]

That's not what superstition is. That was rather my point.

[charl]

That's not what superstition is. That was rather my point.

Maybe I'm not translating the word right, or there's some nuance that doesn't translate well, but doesn't it basically mean "belief in something unexplained for personal reasons"?

[kamikasei]

I've been trying to type up a good response but I keep running up against the real-world religion problem (since, after all, superstition is often used as a label for religious beliefs you don't share yourself). So I'll say only: I'm probably defining superstition a little too narrowly, or if you prefer, catching more things under the label than most would be comfortable with; but you seem to be saying that any unproven belief or thinking about "why"s is superstition, which I would say is overreaching.

[hamishspence]

I think some superstitions are really truncated versions of rituals.

Such as touching wood, or throwing salt over the shoulder, to avoid bad luck.

"This is lucky" "this is unlucky" are among the more common phrases used.

Along with forms of divination "If the woodchuck goes straight back in his hole after seeing his shadow, its going to be a long, cold winter"

Superstition might be called a remnant of "magic".

[charl]

I've been trying to type up a good response but I keep running up against the real-world religion problem (since, after all, superstition is often used as a label for religious beliefs you don't share yourself). So I'll say only: I'm probably defining superstition a little too narrowly, or if you prefer, catching more things under the label than most would be comfortable with; but you seem to be saying that any unproven belief or thinking about "why"s is superstition, which I would say is overreaching.

Well, that would be a discussion about semantics which is not really what I am interested in. What I mean to say is that science can't explain everything because it isn't supposed to explain everything, but for areas it is designed to work within it is really the only option.

[kamikasei]

Superstition might be called a remnant of "magic".

Or vice versa - magic is just elaborations around magical thinking, which is part and parcel of superstition.

The classic illustration of superstition as a mental phenomenon is Skinner's experiments with pigeons, where he had a pigeon in a cage with a lever/button and a food dispenser. Even if the arrival of food was totally random and had nothing to do with the use of the button, the pigeon would work out some scheme to interpret how its actions were causing the food to show up and would adopt even such odd behaviours as doing little dances or performing head movements because they had happened to do them when the food first arrived and thus falsely concluded that they were causing the food to show up.

This sort of thing is all over human thinking and it's something that messes with our decision making in a host of ways. We confuse causal relationships, see patterns in randomness, etc.

Most widespread superstitions could probably be safely called degenerations of articulated beliefs which themselves originated in failures of reason like the above.

(Also, while I was looking for that, this is awesome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BF_Skinner#Pigeon_Guided_Missile).)

[Solaris]

But superstition has nothing to do with nature or the physical world. It's all about your own mental landscape and for lack of a better word spirituality. Of course you could treat everything around you like a function of mathematics and live as a for lack of a better word with only reason in your life. But what is the fun in that?

I agree. I reject the common reality and substitute one of my choosing. It's just more fun that way.


Maybe I'm not translating the word right, or there's some nuance that doesn't translate well, but doesn't it basically mean "belief in something unexplained for personal reasons"?

Pretty much, yes. I wasn't talking hadn't meant to talk about superstition so much as I was the supernatural.
...
It would've been really handy if I hadn't edited that part out of my earlier post. I've always thought there were things that science was not yet capable of sciencing (high school grad here, people, work with me), and were thus described as being supernatural. I'm not saying all myths are true, but I'm saying there's more to the more common ones (particularly ghosts) than can be easily dismissed. Of course, if someone comes up with proof, they'd probably be shot down on account of going against the tenet of the scientific community... but that's another discussion entirely.

[pendell]

The classic illustration of superstition as a mental phenomenon is Skinner's experiments with pigeons, where he had a pigeon in a cage with a lever/button and a food dispenser. Even if the arrival of food was totally random and had nothing to do with the use of the button, the pigeon would work out some scheme to interpret how its actions were causing the food to show up and would adopt even such odd behaviours as doing little dances or performing head movements because they had happened to do them when the food first arrived and thus falsely concluded that they were causing the food to show up.


I'm not sure that's superstition; that looks to me like the pigeon is making an attempt at pattern recognition.

All humans, and many animals, use pattern recognition to identify helpful behaviors to perform and harmful behaviors to avoid. Since humans aren't stupid, they are often quite successful in this.

Of course, mixed up with the useful features are useless or harmful ones as well. It is the job of Science to sift them, to separate out the truly beneficial from the silly. For example: We go to the rain forest and view a shaman treating his patients. He does a dance, he wears a mask, he gives them a potion of some kind.

Does this potion contain something like cinchona root or something like? I'm sure that's probably how we discovered quinine. If so, maybe we don't need all the ingredients in the potion, but identifying the 'active ingredient' could be very useful.

And are we certain that the dance is completely useless? Perhaps it gives the patient a psychological boost and helps heal via placebo effect. Does doing the dance under controlled conditions actually result in a higher rate of cures than otherwise?

After all, it's been proven that Singing To Plants (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5602419/Womens-voices-make-plants-grow-faster-finds-Royal-Horticultural-Society.html#) makes them grow faster -- but before the studies were done, the idea was mere 'superstition'.

So I would argue that 'superstition' is 'pre-science'. Someone notices that performing a certain action produces a given result. They continue to do it. That is 'superstition' based on pattern recognition.

It becomes 'science' after we do a full-blown study and rigorously prove that there really is a measurable response based on that action. And of course we will disprove a lot of theories as well.

So science and superstition are not enemies; rather, science is the process by which we sift superstitions to identify those that are demonstrably true by the scientific method.

Of course, this assumes that we have the technology to perform the test in the first place. IIRC, there was a time in world history when washing hands was considered a superstition -- it was a religious practice long before it was a scientific one -- and 'atomic theory' was considered almost pseudoscience a distinct second-rate contender as a theory of physics, ignored in favor of Hippocrates' elements for more than a thousand years.

The point of all this is: Just because something is a superstition doesn't mean it is false. It only means it has not been rigorously proven true by the scientific method. Some superstitions have a grain of truth, and some ideas we once laughed at need to be revisited when new data comes in. It's only a hundred years ago we completely re-wrote our entire understanding of physics (from Newtonian to Einsteinian) based on new data.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Pyrian]

The point of all this is: Just because something is a superstition doesn't mean it is false. It only means it has not been rigorously proven true by the scientific method.I really don't think that's an adequate definition of superstition. From what I've seen of the usage of the term, we only call it a superstition if we have pretty good reasons to think it's not true. Most of them we don't even bother to study, although I'm vaguely curious if Mythbusters ever did an episode where they gambled for a day, broke a mirror, then gambled again, and compared results.

[chiasaur11]

Now, I promised myself I would ignore this, but I just want to make it clear right now that something affecting the past to prevent it's own creation is both terrible science and painful to listen to.

Maybe it's trying to kill Sarah Conner.

[V'icternus]

Then tell me this: If it did kill Sarah Conner, then she'd be dead, right? And she would never have had a son. That's their goal.

What happens if they complete the goal?
No more reistance, they win, they kill everyone...

But do they still send someone back in time to kill a dead lady?

Now, assuming time travel is possible, just for the sake of argument, something going back in time to do anything is stupid.

If you complete your mission, then you never wanted to complete the mission because the problem was solved already.

For instance, you go back in time and release a bunch of prisoners from a prisoner of war camp.
Now, would you have gone back in time to do that if it happened? That'd be like going back in time to make sure someone who became the president of the united states became the president of the united states. There's no point. You wouldn't do it.

And, if you didn't do it, and the only reason it happened was because you did it, then it wouldn't happen, so, once again, you'd want to do it.

I could go on and explain the infinite loop that would be created by this, and how, by going back in time to do something, you've effectively destroyed the universe, but I'll just end with a warning...

Do NOT go back in time to do anything. It is a bad idea.

[golentan]

And, if you didn't do it, and the only reason it happened was because you did it, then it wouldn't happen, so, once again, you'd want to do it.

Unless you leave notifications for yourself that you did do it and thus must do it next time, Q.E.D.

I actually have a series of passwords and drop points so that if I ever find myself at any point in the past to perform a task, I can notify myself of the fact and reveal anything required to allow the time travel in the first place. Depending on whether you changed something or caused something to remain the same, the loop stabilizes instantly or after the first cycle (assuming it's possible to have unstable time loops in the first place).

(And yes, I actually have these passwords. Time travel is but one of the many circumstances I am prepared for, others including but not limited too: Nuclear War; Zombies; Gray Goo; Alien invasions; Human invasions; Complete Planar Breaches in 3 categories; Reincarnation; Physical Reformation; Cancer; Assault with a deadly weapon; Religious Apocalypses (7 categories); and the possibility the whole world is all just an attempt to hack my mind. Speaking of which, it's been a week since I checked any of my drop points. I should go do that)

[Solaris]

Then tell me this: If it did kill Sarah Conner, then she'd be dead, right? And she would never have had a son. That's their goal.

What happens if they complete the goal?
No more reistance, they win, they kill everyone...

But do they still send someone back in time to kill a dead lady?

Now, assuming time travel is possible, just for the sake of argument, something going back in time to do anything is stupid.

If you complete your mission, then you never wanted to complete the mission because the problem was solved already.

For instance, you go back in time and release a bunch of prisoners from a prisoner of war camp.
Now, would you have gone back in time to do that if it happened? That'd be like going back in time to make sure someone who became the president of the united states became the president of the united states. There's no point. You wouldn't do it.

And, if you didn't do it, and the only reason it happened was because you did it, then it wouldn't happen, so, once again, you'd want to do it.

I could go on and explain the infinite loop that would be created by this, and how, by going back in time to do something, you've effectively destroyed the universe, but I'll just end with a warning...

Do NOT go back in time to do anything. It is a bad idea.

Assuming there is only one universe, and the time travel is what produced the 'you' in the past timeframe.

[zippomage]

Actually, that's pretty much what it means. If you really call yourself a scientist, you should apply scientific principles in your life.

I believe the spirit of Cubey's statement aligns itself with Pendell's statement


Thus, I'll wager you will find that although these scientists were often men of "faith" as well as men of science, often they were men of *reasoned* faith rather than gullible, uncritical faith.

That scientists should think critically about aspects of their life outside of those moments in the lab. I would even fog this down to "think reasonably", since critical thinking escapes me in some aspects.

[zippomage]

I'm not sure that's superstition; that looks to me like the pigeon is making an attempt at pattern recognition.

All humans, and many animals, use pattern recognition to identify helpful behaviors to perform and harmful behaviors to avoid. Since humans aren't stupid, they are often quite successful in this.

Of course, mixed up with the useful features are useless or harmful ones as well. It is the job of Science to sift them, to separate out the truly beneficial from the silly. For example: We go to the rain forest and view a shaman treating his patients. He does a dance, he wears a mask, he gives them a potion of some kind.

Does this potion contain something like cinchona root or something like? I'm sure that's probably how we discovered quinine. If so, maybe we don't need all the ingredients in the potion, but identifying the 'active ingredient' could be very useful.

And are we certain that the dance is completely useless? Perhaps it gives the patient a psychological boost and helps heal via placebo effect. Does doing the dance under controlled conditions actually result in a higher rate of cures than otherwise?

After all, it's been proven that Singing To Plants (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5602419/Womens-voices-make-plants-grow-faster-finds-Royal-Horticultural-Society.html#) makes them grow faster -- but before the studies were done, the idea was mere 'superstition'.

So I would argue that 'superstition' is 'pre-science'. Someone notices that performing a certain action produces a given result. They continue to do it. That is 'superstition' based on pattern recognition.

It becomes 'science' after we do a full-blown study and rigorously prove that there really is a measurable response based on that action. And of course we will disprove a lot of theories as well.

So science and superstition are not enemies; rather, science is the process by which we sift superstitions to identify those that are demonstrably true by the scientific method.

Of course, this assumes that we have the technology to perform the test in the first place. IIRC, there was a time in world history when washing hands was considered a superstition -- it was a religious practice long before it was a scientific one -- and 'atomic theory' was considered almost pseudoscience a distinct second-rate contender as a theory of physics, ignored in favor of Hippocrates' elements for more than a thousand years.

The point of all this is: Just because something is a superstition doesn't mean it is false. It only means it has not been rigorously proven true by the scientific method. Some superstitions have a grain of truth, and some ideas we once laughed at need to be revisited when new data comes in. It's only a hundred years ago we completely re-wrote our entire understanding of physics (from Newtonian to Einsteinian) based on new data.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Pendell, that's exactly what superstition is, finding "patterns/meaning" in unconnected or random events.

[GoC]

Being open-minded means being open to the possibility that something unconventional might be true -- and being mature means not accepting this claim uncritically, but putting it to whatever tests are possible. Thus, I'll wager you will find that although these scientists were often men of "faith" as well as men of science, often they were men of *reasoned* faith rather than gullible, uncritical faith. "Faith" much like a gambler's belief in the cards he's dealt -- by no means are the cards a guaranteed win, but a good gambler recognizes the probabilities well enough to know when a hand is worth betting money on.
Ugh.
I know this is very very wrong (the clauses are correct, the message conveyed is not) but the refutation would run into thousands of words and I don't have that kind of time...:smallannoyed:

Sadly, the only place I know of that explains this are Eliezer Yudkowsky's articles on lesswrong.com (spread across hundreds of articles). Anyone know a more concise collection?

And Charl, could you kindly explain to me the why/how distinction?

[Delwugor]

The only thing that God hates more than the Higg's Boson is an Anthropic principle.

These time travel arguments make the assumption that time actually does exist instead of being an infinite collection of states. And it also assumes there is a direction instead of combination of states being invariant.
What this means is that when driving through Virginia the Appalachian Mountains will look the same as driving through Colorado and looking at the Rocky Mountains.

:smallbiggrin:

[charl]

And Charl, could you kindly explain to me the why/how distinction?

Science is concerned with documenting things in order to understand them. It looks at a raincloud and asks "how does it do that?" Belief on the other hand looks at something, say the same cloud, and wonders "why a cloud?" In other words science answers concrete practical questions (even if they don't always seem that way). It does not answer or even ask philosophical or spiritual questions.

[pendell]

Correct; Science can tell us that the world came about in a certain way -- gas cloud separating into bodies, creatures crawling out of the sea.

But then you ask those questions like, 'so *why* did this happen? Did it all happen by chance? Or is there some greater purpose, some greater reason? Was it done by someone or someones? If so, why? What do they intend for humans? And what do we do about it?"

This is the kind of question best contemplated with plenty of alcohol.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Worira]

(And yes, I actually have these passwords. Time travel is but one of the many circumstances I am prepared for, others including but not limited too: Nuclear War; Zombies; Gray Goo; Alien invasions; Human invasions; Complete Planar Breaches in 3 categories; Reincarnation; Physical Reformation; Cancer; Assault with a deadly weapon; Religious Apocalypses (7 categories); and the possibility the whole world is all just an attempt to hack my mind. Speaking of which, it's been a week since I checked any of my drop points. I should go do that)



I can't help but notice that paranoid schizophrenia isn't on that list of circumstances.