romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object that experiences no forces does not accelerate. In general relativity, an inertial frame of reference is one that is following a geodesic of space-time. An object that moves against a geodesic experiences a force. An object in free fall does not experience a force, because it is following a geodesic. An object standing on the earth, however, will experience a force, as it is being held against the geodesic by the surface of the planet. In light of this, the bucket of water rotating in empty space will experience a force because it rotates with respect to the geodesic. The water will become concave, not because it is rotating with respect to the distant stars, but because it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object without force does what?
A: does not accelerate', '
Q: What follows a geodesic of space-time?
A: an inertial frame of reference', '
Q: An object in free fall does not experience what?
A: force', '
Q: What holds an object standing on earth against the geodesic?
A: the surface of the planet', '
Q: Why will water become concave, according to the relativity theory?
A: it is rotating with respect to the geodesic.']
Einstein partially advocates Mach's principle in that distant stars explain inertia because they provide the gravitational field against which acceleration and inertia occur. But contrary to Leibniz's account, this warped space-time is as integral a part of an object as are its other defining characteristics, such as volume and mass. If one holds, contrary to idealist beliefs, that objects exist independently of the mind, it seems that relativistics commits them to also hold that space and temporality have exactly the same type of independent existence.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: How does Einstein advocate Mach's principle?
A: partially", "
Q: How Einstein's theory compared to Leibniz's?
A: contrary", '
Q: What is considered contrary to idealist beliefs in regards to space?
A: objects exist independently of the mind']
Coordinative definition has two major features. The first has to do with coordinating units of length with certain physical objects. This is motivated by the fact that we can never directly apprehend length. Instead we must choose some physical object, say the Standard Metre at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures), or the wavelength of cadmium to stand in as our unit of length. The second feature deals with separated objects. Although we can, presumably, directly test the equality of length of two measuring rods when they are next to one another, we can not find out as much for two rods distant from one another. Even supposing that two rods, whenever brought near to one another are seen to be equal in length, we are not justified in stating that they are always equal in length. This impossibility undermines our ability to decide the equality of length of two distant objects. Sameness of length, to the contrary, must be set by definition.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Coordinative definition has how many major features?
A: two', '
Q: The first feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
A: coordinating units of length with certain physical objects', '
Q: What is the first feature motivated by?
A: we can never directly apprehend length', '
Q: The second feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
A: separated objects', '
Q: Sameness of length must be set how?
A: by definition']
In the classical case, the invariance, or symmetry, group and the covariance group coincide, but, interestingly enough, they part ways in relativistic physics. The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes all differentiable transformations, i.e., all properties of an object are dynamical, in other words there are no absolute objects. The formulations of the general theory of relativity, unlike those of classical mechanics, do not share a standard, i.e., there is no single formulation paired with transformations. As such the covariance group of the general theory of relativity is just the covariance group of every theory.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes what?
A: all differentiable transformations', '
Q: What else besides  invariance, or symmetry and group part ways in relativistic physics?
A: the covariance group', '
Q: Which theory does the relativity depart from?
A: classical mechanics', '
Q: What are not pair with transformations in the theory of relativity?
A: single formulation', '
Q:  The covariance group of the general theory of relativity is the covariance group of how many theories?
A: every']
The problem of the direction of time arises directly from two contradictory facts. Firstly, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant; if a cinematographic film were taken of any process describable by means of the aforementioned laws and then played backwards, it would still portray a physically possible process. Secondly, our experience of time, at the macroscopic level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses can fall and break, but shards of glass cannot reassemble and fly up onto tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many contradictory facts does the problem of the direction of time arise from?
A: two', '
Q: What kind of physical laws are time-reversal invariant?
A: fundamental', '
Q: If if a cinematographic film were taken by means of physical  laws and then played backwards, it would still portray what?
A: physically possible process', '
Q: How is our experience of time at the macro level?
A: not time-reversal invariant', '
Q: What do we not have memories of?
A: the future']
But in statistical mechanics things get more complicated. On one hand, statistical mechanics is far superior to classical thermodynamics, in that thermodynamic behavior, such as glass breaking, can be explained by the fundamental laws of physics paired with a statistical postulate. But statistical mechanics, unlike classical thermodynamics, is time-reversal symmetric. The second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics, merely states that it is overwhelmingly likely that net entropy will increase, but it is not an absolute law.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How are things in statistical mechanics? 
A: complicated', '
Q: What are superior to classical thermodynamics?
A: statistical mechanics', '
Q: In order to explain glass breaking, Fundamental laws of physics can be paired with what? 
A: a statistical postulate', '
Q: Is statistical mechanics asymmetric or symmetric in regards to time-reversal?
A: symmetric', '
Q: What kind of law is the second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics?
A: not an absolute law']
A third type of solution to the problem of the direction of time, although much less represented, argues that the laws are not time-reversal symmetric. For example, certain processes in quantum mechanics, relating to the weak nuclear force, are not time-reversible, keeping in mind that when dealing with quantum mechanics time-reversibility comprises a more complex definition. But this type of solution is insufficient because 1) the time-asymmetric phenomena in quantum mechanics are too few to account for the uniformity of macroscopic time-asymmetry and 2) it relies on the assumption that quantum mechanics is the final or correct description of physical processes.[citation needed]

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does the third type of solution to the problem of the direction of time argue?
A: the laws are not time-reversal symmetric', '
Q: What is are kind of nuclear force is not time-reversibile?
A: weak nuclear force', '
Q: Time asymmetric phenomena in quantum mechanics are to few to account what kind of time-asymmetry?
A: macroscopic']
One recent proponent of the laws solution is Tim Maudlin who argues that the fundamental laws of physics are laws of temporal evolution (see Maudlin ). However, elsewhere Maudlin argues: "[the] passage of time is an intrinsic asymmetry in the temporal structure of the world... It is the asymmetry that grounds the distinction between sequences that runs from past to future and sequences which run from future to past" [ibid, 2010 edition, p. 108]. Thus it is arguably difficult to assess whether Maudlin is suggesting that the direction of time is a consequence of the laws or is itself primitive.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who argues that the fundamental laws of physics are laws of temporal evolution?
A: Tim Maudlin', '
Q: Maudlin argues that the passage of time is what kind of asymmetry?
A: intrinsic', '
Q: What grounds the distinction between sequences?
A: asymmetry', '
Q: Whose suggestion is difficult to assess in regards to the direction of time?
A: Maudlin']
The problem of the flow of time, as it has been treated in analytic philosophy, owes its beginning to a paper written by J. M. E. McTaggart. In this paper McTaggart proposes two "temporal series". The first series, which means to account for our intuitions about temporal becoming, or the moving Now, is called the A-series. The A-series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future, simpliciter and in comparison to each other. The B-series eliminates all reference to the present, and the associated temporal modalities of past and future, and orders all events by the temporal relations earlier than and later than.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who started the discussion within analytic philosophy on the problem of the flow of time?
A: J. M. E. McTaggart', '
Q: How many "temporal series" did McTaggart propose?
A: two', "
Q: What was McTaggart's first series called?
A: the A-series", '
Q: The A-Series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future and in comparison to what else?
A: each other', "
Q: What is McTaggart's second series called?
A: The B-series"]
According to Presentism, time is an ordering of various realities. At a certain time some things exist and others do not. This is the only reality we can deal with and we cannot for example say that Homer exists because at the present time he does not. An Eternalist, on the other hand, holds that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions, and hence that all things—past, present, and future—can be said to be just as real as things in the present. According to this theory, then, Homer really does exist, though we must still use special language when talking about somebody who exists at a distant time—just as we would use special language when talking about something far away (the very words near, far, above, below, and such are directly comparable to phrases such as in the past, a minute ago, and so on).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: According to what theory is time an ordering of various realities?
A: Presentism', '
Q: Presentism states that at a certain time some things do what?
A: exist', '
Q: Who believes that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions
A: Eternalist', '
Q: According to an Eternalist, what can be said to be just as real as things in the present?
A: all things—past, present, and future', '
Q: According to the Eternalist theory, what must we use to describe Homer?
A: special language']
The positions on the persistence of objects are somewhat similar. An endurantist holds that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times (each instance of existence we can regard as somehow separate from previous and future instances, though still numerically identical with them). A perdurantist on the other hand holds that for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality, and that when we consider the thing as a whole we must consider an aggregate of all its "temporal parts" or instances of existing. Endurantism is seen as the conventional view and flows out of our pre-philosophical ideas (when I talk to somebody I think I am talking to that person as a complete object, and not just a part of a cross-temporal being), but perdurantists have attacked this position. (An example of a perdurantist is David Lewis.) One argument perdurantists use to state the superiority of their view is that perdurantism is able to take account of change in objects.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How similar are the positions on the persistence of objects?
A: somewhat similar', '
Q: Who holds  that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times?
A: endurantist', '
Q: Who holds for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality?
A: perdurantist', '
Q: Which view is seen as conventional?
A: Endurantism', '
Q: Who is an example of a perdurantist?
A: David Lewis']
However, asymmetry of causation can be observed in a non-arbitrary way which is not metaphysical in the case of a human hand dropping a cup of water which smashes into fragments on a hard floor, spilling the liquid. In this order, the causes of the resultant pattern of cup fragments and water spill is easily attributable in terms of the trajectory of the cup, irregularities in its structure, angle of its impact on the floor, etc. However, applying the same event in reverse, it is difficult to explain why the various pieces of the cup should fly up into the human hand and reassemble precisely into the shape of a cup, or why the water should position itself entirely within the cup. The causes of the resultant structure and shape of the cup and the encapsulation of the water by the hand within the cup are not easily attributable, as neither hand nor floor can achieve such formations of the cup or water. This asymmetry is perceivable on account of two features: i) the relationship between the agent capacities of the human hand (i.e., what it is and is not capable of and what it is for) and non-animal agency (i.e., what floors are and are not capable of and what they are for) and ii) that the pieces of cup came to possess exactly the nature and number of those of a cup before assembling. In short, such asymmetry is attributable to the relationship between temporal direction on the one hand and the implications of form and functional capacity on the other.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How can asymmetry of causation be observed?
A: in a non-arbitrary way', '
Q: How many features of asymmetry in the cup example can be viewed?
A: two', '
Q: Asymmetry is attributable to a relation of what kind of direction?
A: temporal', '
Q: What else, besides direction, is asymmetry attributable to?
A: implications of form and functional capacity']
Traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age, the Neolithic followed the terminal Holocene Epipaleolithic period and commenced with the beginning of farming, which produced the "Neolithic Revolution". It ended when metal tools became widespread (in the Copper Age or Bronze Age; or, in some geographical regions, in the Iron Age). The Neolithic is a progression of behavioral and cultural characteristics and changes, including the use of wild and domestic crops and of domesticated animals.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What era is commonly known as the final phase of the Stone Age?
A: the Neolithic', '
Q: What era preceded the Neolithic?
A: Holocene Epipaleolithic period', '
Q: What event is associated with the start of farming?
A: Neolithic Revolution', '
Q: What era saw an increase in metal tool use?
A: Copper Age']
The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufian period was between 12,000 and 10,200 BC, and the so-called "proto-Neolithic" is now included in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNA) between 10,200 and 8,800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What time period marks the start of Neolithic culture?
A: 10,200 – 8,800 BC', '
Q: Where did the Neolithic culture begin?
A: Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank)', '
Q: What food item was the key to the evolution of farming?
A: wild cereals', '
Q: What era lasted between 12,000 and 10,200 BC?
A: The Natufian period']
Not all of these cultural elements characteristic of the Neolithic appeared everywhere in the same order: the earliest farming societies in the Near East did not use pottery. In other parts of the world, such as Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, independent domestication events led to their own regionally distinctive Neolithic cultures that arose completely independent of those in Europe and Southwest Asia. Early Japanese societies and other East Asian cultures used pottery before developing agriculture.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What objects were not used by early farm societies in the Near East ?
A: pottery', '
Q: What did the use of pottery help early Japanese societies develop?
A: agriculture', '
Q: What trend led to parts of the world developing their own local Neolithic cultures?
A: independent domestication events']
The Neolithic 1 (PPNA) period began roughly 10,000 years ago in the Levant. A temple area in southeastern Turkey at Göbekli Tepe dated around 9,500 BC may be regarded as the beginning of the period. This site was developed by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes, evidenced by the lack of permanent housing in the vicinity and may be the oldest known human-made place of worship. At least seven stone circles, covering 25 acres (10 ha), contain limestone pillars carved with animals, insects, and birds. Stone tools were used by perhaps as many as hundreds of people to create the pillars, which might have supported roofs. Other early PPNA sites dating to around 9,500 to 9,000 BCE have been found in Jericho, Israel (notably Ain Mallaha, Nahal Oren, and Kfar HaHoresh), Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, and Byblos, Lebanon. The start of Neolithic 1 overlaps the Tahunian and Heavy Neolithic periods to some degree.[citation needed]

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the The Neolithic 1 (PPNA) period start?
A: roughly 10,000 years ago', '
Q: Where is the Göbekli Tepe temple located?
A: Turkey', '
Q: Who built the Göbekli Tepe temple?
A: nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes', '
Q: What is the name of earliest man made place of worship?
A: Göbekli Tepe']
The Neolithic 2 (PPNB) began around 8,800 BCE according to the ASPRO chronology in the Levant (Jericho, Israel). As with the PPNA dates, there are two versions from the same laboratories noted above. This system of terminology, however, is not convenient for southeast Anatolia and settlements of the middle Anatolia basin. This era was before the Mesolithic era.[citation needed] A settlement of 3,000 inhabitants was found in the outskirts of Amman, Jordan. Considered to be one of the largest prehistoric settlements in the Near East, called 'Ain Ghazal, it was continuously inhabited from approximately 7,250 – 5,000 B.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the The Neolithic 2 (PPNB) era start?
A: around 8,800 BCE', '
Q: What era followed the  The Neolithic 2 (PPNB) era?
A: the Mesolithic era', '
Q: How many settlers were found in Jordan?
A: 3,000 inhabitants', '
Q: What is the name of one of the biggest prehistoric settlements in the Near East?
A: Ain Ghazal']
Around 10,200 BC the first fully developed Neolithic cultures belonging to the phase Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) appeared in the fertile crescent. Around 10,700 to 9,400 BC a settlement was established in Tell Qaramel, 10 miles north of Aleppo. The settlement included 2 temples dating back to 9,650. Around 9000 BC during the PPNA, one of the world's first towns, Jericho, appeared in the Levant. It was surrounded by a stone and marble wall and contained a population of 2000–3000 people and a massive stone tower. Around 6,400 BC the Halaf culture appeared in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia and subsisted on dryland agriculture.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)  phase start?
A: Around 10,200 BC', '
Q: When was a settlement developed in Tell Qaramel?
A: Around 10,700 to 9,400 BC', '
Q: How many temples were built in Tell Qaramel?
A: 2', '
Q: What was the name of the town that first appeared during the PPNA?
A: Jericho', '
Q: What materials were used to build the wall around Jericho?
A: stone and marble']
In 1981 a team of researchers from the Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée, including Jacques Cauvin and Oliver Aurenche divided Near East neolithic chronology into ten periods (0 to 9) based on social, economic and cultural characteristics. In 2002 Danielle Stordeur and Frédéric Abbès advanced this system with a division into five periods. Natufian (1) between 12,000 and 10,200 BC, Khiamian (2) between 10,200-8,800 BC, PPNA: Sultanian (Jericho), Mureybetian, early PPNB (PPNB ancien) (3) between 8,800-7,600 BC, middle PPNB (PPNB moyen) 7,600-6,900 BC, late PPNB (PPNB récent) (4) between 7,500 and 7,000 BC and a PPNB (sometimes called PPNC) transitional stage (PPNB final) (5) where Halaf and dark faced burnished ware begin to emerge between 6,900-6,400 BC. They also advanced the idea of a transitional stage between the PPNA and PPNB between 8,800 and 8,600 BC at sites like Jerf el Ahmar and Tell Aswad.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What are the names of two researchers who divided neolithic chronology into ten periods?
A: Jacques Cauvin and Oliver Aurenche', '
Q: What traits did researchers use to divide the ten periods?
A: social, economic and cultural characteristics', '
Q: When was the original division of 10 advanced to a division of 5?
A: 2002', '
Q: What are the names of two researchers who divided neolithic chronology into five periods?
A: Danielle Stordeur and Frédéric Abbès']
Domestication of sheep and goats reached Egypt from the Near East possibly as early as 6,000 BC. Graeme Barker states "The first indisputable evidence for domestic plants and animals in the Nile valley is not until the early fifth millennium bc in northern Egypt and a thousand years later further south, in both cases as part of strategies that still relied heavily on fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild plants" and suggests that these subsistence changes were not due to farmers migrating from the Near East but was an indigenous development, with cereals either indigenous or obtained through exchange. Other scholars argue that the primary stimulus for agriculture and domesticated animals (as well as mud-brick architecture and other Neolithic cultural features) in Egypt was from the Middle East.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did the domestication of sheep first appear in Egypt?
A: 6,000 BC', '
Q: How did Egyptians gather food before raising livestock?
A: fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild plants', "
Q: What region do some scholars see as the source for Egypt's start in agriculture?
A: the Middle East"]