romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
Leibniz describes a space that exists only as a relation between objects, and which has no existence apart from the existence of those objects. Motion exists only as a relation between those objects. Newtonian space provided the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion. In Newton's system, the frame of reference exists independently of the objects contained within it. These objects can be described as moving in relation to space itself. For many centuries, the evidence of a concave water surface held authority.

Q1: Leibniz describes space as existing only as a relation between what?
A1: objects
Q2: According to Leibniz, what has no existence apart from the existence of objections?
A2: space
Q3: What provides the absolute frame of reference within which objects can have motion?
A3: Newtonian space
Q4: In Newton's system, how does the frame of reference exist between objects within it?
A4: independently
Q5: For how long did the evidence of a concave water surface hold authority in reference to space?
A5: many centuries
Mach suggested that thought experiments like the bucket argument are problematic. If we were to imagine a universe that only contains a bucket, on Newton's account, this bucket could be set to spin relative to absolute space, and the water it contained would form the characteristic concave surface. But in the absence of anything else in the universe, it would be difficult to confirm that the bucket was indeed spinning. It seems equally possible that the surface of the water in the bucket would remain flat.

Q1: How did Mach describe thought experiments like the bucket argument?
A1: problematic
Q2: What is difficult to confirm about the bucket in the absence of anything else in the universe?
A2: that the bucket was indeed spinning
Q3: What was equally possible about the surface of the water in the bucket?
A3: would remain flat.
Mach argued that, in effect, the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe would remain flat. But if another object were introduced into this universe, perhaps a distant star, there would now be something relative to which the bucket could be seen as rotating. The water inside the bucket could possibly have a slight curve. To account for the curve that we observe, an increase in the number of objects in the universe also increases the curvature in the water. Mach argued that the momentum of an object, whether angular or linear, exists as a result of the sum of the effects of other objects in the universe (Mach's Principle).

Q1: What did Mach argue about the water experiment in an otherwise empty universe?
A1: would remain flat
Q2: What did Mach argue would happen if another object were introduce in the bucket's universe?
A2: the bucket could be seen as rotating
Q3: What does the increase in the number of objects in the universe do to the curvature of the water?
A3: increases the curvature
Q4: The Mach argument is called what?
A4: Mach's Principle
Q5: Mach argued that the momentum of an object exists as a result of the sum of the effects of what?
A5: effects of other objects in the universe
Albert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on the principle of relativity. This principle holds that the rules of physics must be the same for all observers, regardless of the frame of reference that is used, and that light propagates at the same speed in all reference frames. This theory was motivated by Maxwell's equations, which show that electromagnetic waves propagate in a vacuum at the speed of light. However, Maxwell's equations give no indication of what this speed is relative to. Prior to Einstein, it was thought that this speed was relative to a fixed medium, called the luminiferous ether. In contrast, the theory of special relativity postulates that light propagates at the speed of light in all inertial frames, and examines the implications of this postulate.

Q1: lbert Einstein proposed that the laws of physics should be based on what principle?
A1: relativity
Q2: The principle of relativity holds that the rules of physics must be the same for who?
A2: all observers
Q3: In all reference frames, how is the the speed of light?
A3: the same
Q4: Einstein's theory was motivated by who?
A4: Maxwell
Q5: Before Einstein, speed was though to be relative to what?
A5: the luminiferous ether
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.

Q1: In classical physics, an inertial reference frame is one in which an object without force does what?
A1: does not accelerate
Q2: What follows a geodesic of space-time?
A2: an inertial frame of reference
Q3: An object in free fall does not experience what?
A3: force
Q4: What holds an object standing on earth against the geodesic?
A4: the surface of the planet
Q5: Why will water become concave, according to the relativity theory?
A5: 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.

Q1: How does Einstein advocate Mach's principle?
A1: partially
Q2: How Einstein's theory compared to Leibniz's?
A2: contrary
Q3: What is considered contrary to idealist beliefs in regards to space?
A3: 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.

Q1: Coordinative definition has how many major features?
A1: two
Q2: The first feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
A2: coordinating units of length with certain physical objects
Q3: What is the first feature motivated by?
A3: we can never directly apprehend length
Q4: The second feature of Coordinative definition involves what?
A4: separated objects
Q5: Sameness of length must be set how?
A5: 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.

Q1: The symmetry group of the general theory of relativity includes what?
A1: all differentiable transformations
Q2: What else besides  invariance, or symmetry and group part ways in relativistic physics?
A2: the covariance group
Q3: Which theory does the relativity depart from?
A3: classical mechanics
Q4: What are not pair with transformations in the theory of relativity?
A4: single formulation
Q5:  The covariance group of the general theory of relativity is the covariance group of how many theories?
A5: 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.

Q1: How many contradictory facts does the problem of the direction of time arise from?
A1: two
Q2: What kind of physical laws are time-reversal invariant?
A2: fundamental
Q3: If if a cinematographic film were taken by means of physical  laws and then played backwards, it would still portray what?
A3: physically possible process
Q4: How is our experience of time at the macro level?
A4: not time-reversal invariant
Q5: What do we not have memories of?
A5: 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.

Q1: How are things in statistical mechanics?
A1: complicated
Q2: What are superior to classical thermodynamics?
A2: statistical mechanics
Q3: In order to explain glass breaking, Fundamental laws of physics can be paired with what?
A3: a statistical postulate
Q4: Is statistical mechanics asymmetric or symmetric in regards to time-reversal?
A4: symmetric
Q5: What kind of law is the second law of thermodynamics, as it arises in statistical mechanics?
A5: 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]

Q1: What does the third type of solution to the problem of the direction of time argue?
A1: the laws are not time-reversal symmetric
Q2: What is are kind of nuclear force is not time-reversibile?
A2: weak nuclear force
Q3: Time asymmetric phenomena in quantum mechanics are to few to account what kind of time-asymmetry?
A3: 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.

Q1: Who argues that the fundamental laws of physics are laws of temporal evolution?
A1: Tim Maudlin
Q2: Maudlin argues that the passage of time is what kind of asymmetry?
A2: intrinsic
Q3: What grounds the distinction between sequences?
A3: asymmetry
Q4: Whose suggestion is difficult to assess in regards to the direction of time?
A4: 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.

Q1: Who started the discussion within analytic philosophy on the problem of the flow of time?
A1: J. M. E. McTaggart
Q2: How many "temporal series" did McTaggart propose?
A2: two
Q3: What was McTaggart's first series called?
A3: the A-series
Q4: The A-Series orders events according to their being in the past, present or future and in comparison to what else?
A4: each other
Q5: What is McTaggart's second series called?
A5: 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).

Q1: According to what theory is time an ordering of various realities?
A1: Presentism
Q2: Presentism states that at a certain time some things do what?
A2: exist
Q3: Who believes that time is a dimension of reality on a par with the three spatial dimensions
A3: Eternalist
Q4: According to an Eternalist, what can be said to be just as real as things in the present?
A4: all things—past, present, and future
Q5: According to the Eternalist theory, what must we use to describe Homer?
A5: 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.

Q1: How similar are the positions on the persistence of objects?
A1: somewhat similar
Q2: Who holds  that for an object to persist through time is for it to exist completely at different times?
A2: endurantist
Q3: Who holds for a thing to exist through time is for it to exist as a continuous reality?
A3: perdurantist
Q4: Which view is seen as conventional?
A4: Endurantism
Q5: Who is an example of a perdurantist?
A5: 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.

Q1: How can asymmetry of causation be observed?
A1: in a non-arbitrary way
Q2: How many features of asymmetry in the cup example can be viewed?
A2: two
Q3: Asymmetry is attributable to a relation of what kind of direction?
A3: temporal
Q4: What else, besides direction, is asymmetry attributable to?
A4: 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.

Q1: What era is commonly known as the final phase of the Stone Age?
A1: the Neolithic
Q2: What era preceded the Neolithic?
A2: Holocene Epipaleolithic period
Q3: What event is associated with the start of farming?
A3: Neolithic Revolution
Q4: What era saw an increase in metal tool use?
A4: 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.

Q1: What time period marks the start of Neolithic culture?
A1: 10,200 – 8,800 BC
Q2: Where did the Neolithic culture begin?
A2: Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank)
Q3: What food item was the key to the evolution of farming?
A3: wild cereals
Q4: What era lasted between 12,000 and 10,200 BC?
A4: 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.

Q1: What objects were not used by early farm societies in the Near East ?
A1: pottery
Q2: What did the use of pottery help early Japanese societies develop?
A2: agriculture
Q3: What trend led to parts of the world developing their own local Neolithic cultures?
A3: 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]

Q1: When did the The Neolithic 1 (PPNA) period start?
A1: roughly 10,000 years ago
Q2: Where is the Göbekli Tepe temple located?
A2: Turkey
Q3: Who built the Göbekli Tepe temple?
A3: nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes
Q4: What is the name of earliest man made place of worship?
A4: 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.

Q1: When did the The Neolithic 2 (PPNB) era start?
A1: around 8,800 BCE
Q2: What era followed the  The Neolithic 2 (PPNB) era?
A2: the Mesolithic era
Q3: How many settlers were found in Jordan?
A3: 3,000 inhabitants
Q4: What is the name of one of the biggest prehistoric settlements in the Near East?
A4: Ain Ghazal