What is the origin of the concept?Details?
201015
It also refers to a situation where you have a choice to make, and in either case you win.
656631
It is a theory that the universe started from a "big bang."  This is considered by scientists as the earliest recorded history of the universe.  It is believed that the entire universe was so dense it was possible that it could have been the size of a planet or smaller.  All that density was too much and it exploded.  Everything back then was hydrogen.  The hydrogen formed into stars.  The stars created other elements because of the neclear reactions breaking up the hydrogen and connecting it together.  This led to planets.  Unfortionatly I would say there is too much info to share everything.  Try reading :\n"A Short History of the Universe"\nI did before I went into seminary.
354483
Origin of the first life.
563147
This sort of thinking should be based on observation. You can come up with any theory you like, but if it does not explain what is seen it is useless.\n\nOn this basis:\n\n1. the universe (and implcitly nature) had a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago\n2. that beginning did not require a creator (though you may choose to believe in one - you just won't find him experimentally)
627811
I can't remember exactly which of the theories it is (Young-Helmholtz trichromatic theory or the opponent-process theory), I believe it's the opponent-process theory that explains it though. I'd have to do some figuring to explain it further since that was in the beginning of my AP Psych course.
424160
Buddy, your query holds weight in all of its concern, yet to monotonous these days to my knowledge. Since I have soothed such a query in past, I am withdrawn to another fabrication. Yet my previous answers weaved in a way can subside your curiosity as well. Consume a chunk of your time reading it. It may also answer your other questions: -\n\nThe concept holds itself in such an abstruse enigma, that centuries have failed to decipher its existence in a logical form. Scores of fiction writers have sculpted sci-fi books upon the behavior of time. We all have speculated over the so-called ‘Time Travel’ and have rummaged over the numerous possibilities that it may offer.\n\nFor the sweet sake of knowledge, once in a while, just sit down and think over the existence of time. When one questions ‘What is life?’ one is indirectly doubting his flow in time. Sometimes, time bears mercy upon you and hastens up, yet at other times, bestows upon you the curse of its viscous flow.\n\nYet, in reality what WE call time, is nothing but a theoretical fabrication that we, humans have crafted so as to better understand this “Fourth Dimension”. We assume we recognize time and its workings, yet mark my letters, we know absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G. We mortals imprint everything that we perceive in our brain, and then we analyze over it, yet never in its crude form. We find ourselves confined to the rigid boundaries of our senses. We bear to our knowledge the sphere of our vision and touch.\n\nThe notion bears itself in utmost simplicity. We can only conclude on matters we are able perceive in a correct mannerism. We do not bear such a sense organ nor are we able to implement over 4% of our brain, so as to perceive the concept of time in a proper ideology. Therefore we cannot chisel a concept concrete enough to bear the yoke of our questions.\n\nWe foolish mortals don’t even have the ability to measure time in its proper state. The state of time is always subjected to our memory, thoughts, personality, the circumstances, and innumerable other factors. You can’t even correspond two events in the same mannerism! Fragments from your memory are always erased, resulting to the unjustifiable way in which we perceive time.\n\nYet we can ALWAYS speculate! And we HAVE speculated! In such speculations, we have come to many ways to understand time. Scientists were entangled in similar doubts, yet they fashioned a theory that best satisfied the debatable world of ‘Philosophical Physics’. The theory states that time is completely relative to the individual who experiences it and furthermore a relationship exists between the three basic dimensions of space and time, leading to the birth of the space-time ideology. (I swear they stole the idea from me!)\n\nAnother speculation (Fasten your seatbelts for a Psycho Ride!). Suppose time is a fabric. (A complete supposition) A vast expanse of infinite non-molecular material. This fabric is existent yet not perceivable by our limited senses. If we are to possess a way to make a ‘cut’ in this fabric, we CAN gain access to two different periods in time. But then again, that is theoretical, and humanly impossible. \n\nSo far we have considered time to be a concept in whose relation we all exist. But in technical truth, time is relative to every individual! What we consider time is the manufacture of us mortals. What if time exists independently for everyone? When one perishes, he actually repeats his so called 'life'. Perhaps the period from the Big Bang to the collapse of the universe has repeated itself millions of times already! There is no telling, for there is no concrete platform, to which we can relate existence. We just have to relate everything to everything else!\n\nNow those are speculations. No one can state them correct or incorrect, for one does not bear a perception that great. Perhaps we are just the play-stuff of a superior colossal existence. Then again, what is existence?
41457
I agree with (pregowtwins) up there and: God. (cheating) This explanation is what everyone eventually resorts to when the other answers fail. Now, before I go any further, I should make clear that I'm not talking about any of the gods defined in various religions. Throughout all of human history, we've been trying to explain existence. But nobody has ever succeeded. And it's likely that nobody ever will. So we create the concept of God, whose only necessary property is being "that which explains existence." \n\nThis doesn't tell us much about god, though. It doesn't mean that any particular religion is correct. It merely defines god as something which answers The Question, because we have not been able to.
299980
if your talking about the origin of the numbers we use:\n\nthey are the Arabic Numerals that were used way back during the time of early civilizations and trade routes.\n\nthorough the trade routes, their numbers spread, and were widely used\n\nthey also used the zero, which was created by either the romans or the Greeks\n\nWe dont have any idea as to who invented them, though. Our best idea is scholars or educators.
101220
Well the group theory actually came from Benjamin Franklin...many didn't know this.  And it's funny because it came from the process of cooling down the "Liberty Bell".  They were theorizing about formulas for the ideal cooling scenario for the Liberty Bell but against Ben's better judgement they opted for faster cooling process and packed the Liberty Bell with ice.  It cracked.  Ben's formula was correct and thus formed "Abstract Algebra".
31603
That's a philosophical question.  In fact, it's probably one of the top-ten fundamental questions of philosophy that people have been pondering for millenia.  \n\nMy take on it is, it's like asking if a story is a physical object.  The media that it is stored on is certainly physical (a book, a cd, a neural network in a storyteller's mind...) but the story ITSELF is an abstract noun; something much less tangible.  \n\nI would say the same of the mind.  The mind certainly exists on a physical media, but the term "mind" also implies the intangible aspects of a set of neural networks... what it represents and means to that person, and to other people.  Mind is to brain as story is to book.
175553
maybe it got coined from how wrenching it feels when one discovers they were irrefutably wrong.\n\nsorry, typo
391807
I was unaware of this.... How exactly did you come to know this?
38057
absoloutely not where did you get that idea?
460791
I believe that it came from the magazine Gentlemen's Quarterly (GQ), which was one of the first magazines for men's fashions.  It then became the "measuring stick" for men's fashion.
313251
We don't need to speculate on the history of religion in general, or Christianity in particular.  We have a pretty good grasp of how these ideas evolved over time already.\n\nReligion didn't start out as a way to explain the world, that came later, religion started out as a way of honoring the sun, which was viewed as the bringer of life.  It evolved from there to what we see today.\n\nThe ideas attributed to Jesus were not original even in Hellenistic Judaism.
405659
The best way for you to learn this is for you to learn to make use of resources that everyone else will probably quote from anyway.\n\nGo to www.dictionary.com or www.wikipedia.com and look it up!
442621
question (n.)  \nc.1300, from Anglo-Fr. questiun, O.Fr. question "legal inquest," from L. quæstionem (nom. quæstio) "a seeking, inquiry," from root of quærere (pp. quæsitus) "ask, seek." The verb is first recorded 1470, from O.Fr. questionner (13c.). Question mark is from 1869, earlier question stop (1862). Depreciatory sense of questionable is attested from 1806.