tom

All known physical laws, interpreted realistically are fully deterministic. Don't panic, there are subtleties.

It's a TOY problem, which is completely UNPHYSICAL concocted for PEDAGOGICAL reasons. There is no such thing as a 1-D particle on an infinite flat pot...

HUP is not an epistemological artifact, it is a feature of reality. The relativistic version is the Bekenstein Bound. The only existing explanatory in...

In that case there are only ~3 life forms - prions, viruses (based on RNA) and everything else (based on DNA).

How do you think knowledge gets into a mind? Take for example the knowledge that light is quantized. Each human (who is interested) creates that for h...

A primary function of a mind is to create knowledge - each mind has to do that for itself. Animals don't create knowledge.

OK, so the file is actually more brown and blue, which weirdly I am beginning to see. The image file contains binary data, so no, there is no sense da...

No it's not. The image file is black and blue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AskAQwOBvhc

The sense data is yours and not the dress's.

What colour is the dress? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/The_Dress_%28viral_phenomenon%29.png/220px-The_Dress_%28viral_phenomeno...

My argument is not with you. I'm sure you are quoting correctly. It just seems obviously wrong.

If animals can create knowledge of themselves, then what is to stop them creating knowledge of anything? Animals don't create knowledge.

That is precisely the opposite argument. The Principle of Mediocrity is as far from special-case-creation as you can get!

What are the gaping holes in the Principle of Mediocrity?

No idea how or why, but is the above correct? Shouldn't it be something like: X looks red to S = There is a class of red sense data that belongs to S ...

See what I mean? Bacon sandwich? Superiority? Classic! Are you going to give the cosmologists who rely on the Copernican Principle and anthropic reaso...

Your friend is right. Animals do not have minds. However, I don't think her argument is particularly convincing. Yet, similar arguments are used to su...

So, you think that electrons (a fermion) and photons (a boson) don't exist? Rather they are merely part of a "conceptual apparatus"?

Reductionist and emergentist accounts of the state of affairs must be compatible. The laws of physics are always obeyed.

Take as an example our theory of Life. It is a theory of replicators subject to variation and selection. The theory of life does not even mention anyt...

I've been trumpeting a similar view since joining these forums - but actually according to physics we can go even further. The following statement has...

Maybe you should read one of the most famous papers in the history of science. http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf

Not sure what point you are making here. Chaos is a fully deterministic feature of some time-reversible dynamical laws. You can't have chaos without e...

You are factually wrong on this. Einstein discovered entanglement by analysing Schrödinger's equation. But of course quantum mechanics is not the only...

You're the one claiming that there were "repetitious events" being "described". While entanglement was a particularly striking example of a feature of...

How many times did it repeat in the 50 years between its discovery and the first time it was observed?

The discovery of entanglement refutes your claim that "science depends on mathematical equations that describe repetitious events".

Schrödinger published his famous equation in 1926. In 1935 it was noticed by Einstein et al that his equation implied that pairs of particles prepared...

I think you might have gone a bit too far. Humans will try to explain Reality whether there are varying or non-varying laws. Science does not assume i...

Yes, a theoretical problem is discovered and solutions to the problem is sought. Just like general and special relativities. No observations were invo...

You could leave Neo-Darwinism out, so in terms of physical reality, it is a complete list. There are only two theories. The aim is for there to be onl...

The Standard Model of particle physics. You can take various restrictions of this - quantum field theory, non-relativistic quantum mechanics, in order...

What were the observations that led to that inductive conclusion?

, What observations? Are you claiming this is not true for Newton's Laws?

So, GR was not inferred from data. We know this to be historically true. Einstein worked out some crucial tests - the classical tests of relativity. P...

Whatever you call it, it's still supposed to be a method of inference: theories from data. Science on the other hand is problem solving, and there's n...

Maybe you'd care to give an example of it at work? How about a rough idea of how general relativity was induced? What we need are the repeated observa...

If inductive reasoning works, then why don't scientists use it? If you think that scientists use induction, perhaps you could give an example of a the...

Is it a true fact that the Sun appears the way it does because its interior is a giant fusion reactor? Is it a true fact that the grass is wet because...

So long as that's not naive falsificationism, because as Popper pointed out, falsification is logically possible either.

A life changing revelation indeed!

Including scientific theories?

But only if it's a holographic goat!

Exactly, it's for failed philosophers!

How can a wave BE a holographic pattern?

How can a wave have a holographic pattern inside it?

Is that David Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1739)?

I see, a pattern within universal waves that happens to be holographic defines existence. Where does one encounter these waves, and how does one tell ...

What do holograms have to do with whether something exists or not?

Well, you were asking about p(HE|B), which, as I said, I had already covered. The observation of a green apple, or a black raven - the corroborating e...