tom

Of course, plant fertilization couldn't possibly be a good thing. Deserts disagree: http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-fr...

But we are certain of the economic benefits of increased atmospheric CO2. We can measure them in global greening, the sparing of land due to increased...

Well, there are benefits of climate change. The Earth has greened by 14% in the last 30 yrs and it now requires less land, less water and less fertili...

But you can't give a single example of either. Just to point out, you previously claimed testing of a theory was a deductive process. What changed you...

Sure, and no matter how many times I ask for an example of abduction or induction, I never get one. So, here are a few surprising facts (C) that have ...

OK, so the scientific method is new to you? Popper wrote the Logic of Scientific Discovery (LSD) first, in which he expounded the scientific method. O...

Both abduction and induction are supposed methods of inference from data to a theory. That doesn't happen, it's invalid, and is certainly not part of ...

How do you circumvent "the problem of abduction" - i.e. that it's just another name for induction, which never happens in reality, because it can't.

On the contrary, evidence suggests that Russellian Monism is enjoying a great deal of interest at the moment. There's even an upcoming international c...

My martial arts philosophy is to "get your retaliation in first". Seems to work.

This is quite funny. You are simply denying a mathematical result - a proof - based on QM given by two of the smartest mathematicians alive. Your appe...

It seems that you are advocating stochastic processes in Nature. There is no such thing!

Nope, the response of the particle - more precisely the Reality in the proximity of the particle - is not a function of the past. The particle is free...

Nope, the response of the particle is un-caused and randomness is insufficient to establish the theorem. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is false. ...

If it is as you claim, that "it all depends on what you mean by 'random' ", then why not explain what you mean.

What about it?

Any spin-1 boson will suffice. For details, consult the Free Will Theorem.

Maybe you are familiar with the philosophers Bertrand Russell and David Hume? They, and many philosophers have noticed that the fundamental physical l...

But spin 1 bosons, with no internal structure, exhibit uncaused interactions.

You claim that an abstract replicator will be reduced to the Standard Model, or perhaps String Theory given enough time. If that were possible in prin...

The Free Will Theorem falsifies the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The behaviour of the particles has no cause.

But I've just given an example of a fundamental theory, which is a theory of abstractions and emergence, that cannot be reduced - the hallmark of a FU...

Being uncaused means more than randomness. The Free Will Theorem goes into this in some detail, but basically Kochen and Conway demonstrate that rando...

This is simply not the case. Evolution is explained in terms of replicators undergoing variation and selection. Nowhere is a particular physical vehic...

What does the calculus of Evolution look like?

There are three unrelated derivations of the Born Rule that I'm aware of: Deutsch-Wallace, Zurek, Carrol and Sebens. But after checking Wallace's book...

Don't you find it bizarre that you can (supposedly) go from an ontic state in Reality, to an epistemic state in a mind, just by taking the modulus squ...

It does nothing of the sort. The ASSUMPTION is that humans have the property of being able to choose which button will be pressed.

That would be ridiculous! What the FWT demonstrates is that IF we possess free will, then fundamental particles possess a TINY amount of the same thin...

Google is a bit too hard for me, so if you don't mind, perhaps you could clarify a couple of questions: What does the Hamiltonian operator operate on?...

Really! You claim that Do these states affect each other? Seems to me a one word answer.

How do they affect each other?

So, the "Hamiltonian operator describes the system in terms of probabilities". How does it do that? Where in the Hamiltonian operator are the probabil...

What axiomatisation?

You claim that the Hamiltonian operator expresses the "probable locations of particles". What is the wavefunction for? If you "fire" a particle into a...

But as we learned from the video on probability, the exact same results are achieved - i.e. we obtain the same Value, without invoking the Born Rule o...

Personally, I find it easiest to visualise the negative inverse of the sum of all positive integers, when I think of 12.

Could you explain why probability is "inherent within the Hamiltonian? Could you explain how the initial measurement is made in say a two-slit experim...

Philosophers do seem uninterested in progress, so much so that, when they have the solution they prefer to ignore it. I suspect that part of this is t...

I realise that.

Sure, I figured that out long ago.

So mathematics is "observational", whatever that means. We are "observing our own (ideal constructions)" OK, so how did we manage to "observe our own ...

Maybe you could explain how the discovery of entanglement is a discovery in "(pure) mathematics" and not "physics" and why it therefore exist in the R...

I know coherence is not your strong point, but could you translate that into something less incoherent?

It's quite extraordinary. Everyone, both supporters and detractors of Instrumentalism know what it means, except supporters on this forum. Strangely e...

Because you are confused and wrong, let me spell it out: Scientific theories are expressed in mathematics because that is the means by which deduction...

Based on your ideas, how do you explain the discovery of quantum entanglement?

It's like the scientific method never happened! No instrumentalists regard equations as explanations. That is the entire point of their philosophy; th...

All is not what it seems! Nicolas Gisin performed the remarkable experiment, and yes Bohmians are full of claims, but none has ever made any progress ...

Actually, Darwin also believed in inheritance of acquired traits as well! He was a Lamarckian!