tom

All of them. Relativity deserves special mention though, as I have repeatedly mentioned.

There's me hoping that you were going to argue that particles must be emotional because the Free Will theorem did not claim they were *not* emotional ...

What do you think photons are conscious of?

If relativistic spin 1 particles possess freedom, then consciousness is not required for freedom. It is that simple. Now, what do you think photons ar...

What do you think a relativistic spin 1 particle might be conscious of?

You don't need to assume a relativistic spin 1 particle does not possess consciousness.

If particles possess freedom, then consciousness is not required, or even possible in that case.

You mean despite the fact that the Free Will Theorem demonstrates that free will does not require consciousness?

Why do qualia have to be "fundamental", particularly as the human brain is the only object in the universe known to possess them? Your claim that qual...

We certainly don't! This is my favourite optical illusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

Only if you are a frog. Humans require several photons to stimulate a rod/cone. Have seen estimates from 3 to 7. But anyway, one is not enough.

And that is one of the reasons thermodynamics is *not* regarded as a fundamental theory. The fundamental theories *are* time reversible - both the cla...

Please provide the laws of physics that are non-determinisic.

Which laws of physics are not deterministic? Both General Relativity and the Standard Model are time-symmetric theories. At a less prosaic level, the ...

I agree that compatibilists define "choice" in a manner that is determined by conditions that obtain at distant times. For example, I choose tea now, ...

Do you think that a robot, programmed with all kinds of image recognition algorithms, sees anything?

I think people who claim they don't exist should be taken seriously.

Quite! I was hoping for at least an answer to the wave/particle question. Although that is already answered, it would be reassuring to discover what t...

This is what I don't get. Under determinism, what happens is a sensitive function of the initial conditions at the big bang, or if you prefer the cond...

So, "experiences are facts" but they need "interpretation"? You claim to be able to see light "as it really is". What is it, and how do you do that?

Are you sure? Compatibilism seems more like "a person is to blame for their choices, even though 'choice' doesn't exist". "Could have done otherwise" ...

Have you ever come across the phenomenon of an "optical illusion"? When the scientists experienced superluminal neutrinos recently, was that a fact?

I prefer this definition: "Fallibilism, the recognition that there are no authoritative sources of knowledge, nor any reliable means of justifying kno...

Consider a finite physical system. Due to the Bekenstein bound, any such system is a finite state machine - i.e. only a finite number of configuration...

The electron (and the photon) are particles according to the Standard Model. Anyway, the point is, what will happen is determined by the laws of physi...

When a photon travels towards a double-slit, is it logically possible that it goes through both slits?

Do you think there is a relationship between physical possibility and logical possibility? If so, what is it?

I would try to convince Leibniz that the notion of "logical possibility that I could have acted otherwise" is physically meaningless. I would convince...

This seems lie a balanced view: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.4551.pdf

Let me put it this way, according to Popper there is no such thing as an experimental test that can logically falsify a theory. He makes this point se...

Well, that is at least a bit of progress! Consider the Andromeda Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument According to r...

That is utterly incompatible with the assumption of the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, and what you were claiming about inducing THEORY from D...

So, you have completely abandoned the idea of explanation. That's a shame. UN is one of the fundamental misconceptions of inductivism. It is a princip...

General Relativity mandates a stationary space-time block. All general relativists admit this. Those who do not like it, for whatever reason, are enga...

The physicists, many of whom are prominent experts, who do not like the block-universe implication of Relativity, are doing the right thing - they are...

Try this http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf You are simply refusing to accept an inescapable consequence of our best theo...

But you claim to be interested in the meaning of "explanation" while promoting the compete absence of one! How does the "assumed uniformity of nature"...

Newton's gravity is incompatible with special relativity: it allows action at a distance and is not Lorentz invariant. Whatever you might want to cons...

You've just made Popper turn in his grave, and Deutsch has just banged his head on his desk. There is no assumed uniformity of nature! I'm trying to t...

What do you think of this explanation of "explanation"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A

Do I have to cut and paste the entire article, paragraph by paragraph? Einstein once described his friend Michele Besso as “the best sounding board in...

All of it. This is getting tedious by the way.

Knock yourself out: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160719-time-and-cosmology/

When you are defeated by a computer at chess, what has occurred is IDENTICAL with the physical processes that have taken place inside your laptop. Nev...

Not quite what I wrote, but anyway. I'd be surprised if anyone found anything non-standard, let alone contentious, in anything I wrote. Relativity man...

General relativity is isomorphic with the statement that Reality is a stationary block spacetime. The Wheeler-DeWitt synthesis of gravity and quantum ...

And, no one has put forward any argument to explain how, once "awareness" is attained, what exactly restricts its focus. If you are aware of something...

It's worse than that. Reality is a static space-time block.

No idea what could constitute "good evidence", but one assumes that Reality obeys the laws of physics, which are deterministic.

If by "subtle" you mean "assuming a cognitive ability in your reader", then perhaps. I'll try to be less subtle: The density parameter of the universe...