I need to study it more to give my opinion on it, but some general comments:
a) I expect the mainstream physics community will reject it. As a start I
noticed Sabine Hossenfelder retweeted a "bullshit"-tweet about it.
b) I'm a big fan of Stephen Wolfram and in general have confidence in his
-- Forwarded message -
From: Ramayya Krishnan
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:32 PM
Subject: FW: Webinar: Ed Felten – COVID-19, Technology, Privacy and Civil
Liberties | Center for Information Technology Policy
To: heinz-all-facu...@lists.andrew.cmu.edu <
Nick -
> S, Steve. What IS the role of philosophy in physics?
>
> N
Bait taken...
There is plenty to say about that, plenty more than I knew to ask/answer
in that essay which is long gone both on paper and in my mind.
I think I rambled on here for a dozen posts on this topic some nearly
Sorry. Here's the Google translate:
Guatemala: 75% of a flight of deportees tested positive for coronavirus
This Tuesday, April 14, the Guatemalan Minister of Health, Hugo Monroy,
assured a group of journalists that between 50 and 75 percent of the people
deported from the United States had
I don't see English there. I'll translate it if requested and I can find
relief from childcare for a short time.
Frank
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 4:55 PM Tom Johnson wrote:
> This sure seems like a high
This sure seems like a high number, but who knows.
I do trust this publication.
Here's the English link:
https://elfaro.net/es/202004/centroamerica/24287/Guatemala-75-de-un-vuelo-de-deportados-dio-positivo-a-coronavirus.htm
Guatemala: 75% de un vuelo de deportados dio positivo a coronavirus
Here's a nice lecture by Carlo Rovelli on his development of Spin Foams
with Lee Smolin. Great to see the intro to his lecture by Penrose:
https://livestream.com/oxuni/rovelli/videos/199493556
At time 41:33, you can check out how space is defined as the volume around
a vertex. Steve Smith and
Very cool. I'd (incompetently, obviously) guess the difference would be that
Wolfram's trying to construct the universe, whereas Baez was trying to describe
it. Both involve time/iteration. But my lunch period is over and I have to
work. 8^(
On 4/15/20 1:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905087
On 4/15/20, 1:46 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" wrote:
Can you point to what you think Baez was doing that seems similar to what
Wolfram's doing?
On 4/15/20 11:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Wasn’t John Baez doing this stuff in the late
Can you point to what you think Baez was doing that seems similar to what
Wolfram's doing?
On 4/15/20 11:38 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Wasn’t John Baez doing this stuff in the late 90s?
--
☣ uǝlƃ
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
. ...
FRIAM
Not Steve, but when it comes to Quantum Physics the relationship is "Shut up
and calculate."
davew
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 12:38 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> S, Steve. What IS the role of philosophy in physics?
>
> N
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Of course, hacking is in fact #5.
On 4/15/20, 1:34 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West"
wrote:
True, it does advance an argument for a rational process (i.e. guidelines).
But it also states that such a process can never be other than an idealization
(as you note).
There
True, it does advance an argument for a rational process (i.e. guidelines). But
it also states that such a process can never be other than an idealization (as
you note).
There could be value in after-the-fact faking of a rational process, if the
fake was used to inform and "improve" the
I don't know, possibly. What Stephen and his team seem to be doing is to take
some form of graph or hypergraph, and then they apply transformations to it in
an iterative loop. The result gets more and more complex.We know that some IFSs
and L-Systems produce beautiful results through repeated
I know John Baez. John Baez is a friend of mine.
See if anyone recognizes that allusion.
Seriously, Hywel White, Barry MacKichan, Jon Zingale and I read Baez's
book "Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity" a year or two ago. He begins in the
first section by showing why one forms (and higher order
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:53 AM Prof David West
wrote:
> ...
> 2) There are always ways to ameliorate the Absolute Law. Those ways differ
> by culture. Edward Hall compared how and where amelioration differs between
> US and Mexican cultures. In the US the cop has latitude as to when and with
>
Wasn’t John Baez doing this stuff in the late 90s?
From: Friam on behalf of Jochen Fromm
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 11:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The fundamental theory of
What do you think of Stephen Wolfram's latest findings? It is always
interesting to see what he is doing
IMHOhttps://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/-J..-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -..
S, Steve. What IS the role of philosophy in physics?
N
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday,
That paper:
https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/education/SE-Intro/fakeit.pdf
argues *for* guidelines for software development. So, it validates my point in
the most direct sense. It *also* argues against inferring from Nick's idea that
there might be such a thing as Laws of Software
Jochen,
Thank you for introducing a fascinating concept.
What you describe is triggering all kinds of echos in the material I have been
reading the past year at the Ritman Library in Amsterdam. This material
includes works on Hermetic (Alchemical) philosophy, Jung, Gurdjieff, etc. etc.
Those
On 4/15/20 8:52 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> 1) We do fetishize the law in the sense that if you run the red light and the
> cop gives you a ticket there is no possible defense - you ARE guilty. In the
> medical case, if you prescribe off-label and get sued, you will lose.
> (Unless, of
Frank,
The last class I taught at the University of St. Thomas was "Philosophical
Foundations of Computer Science." It was standing room only and 20 plus years
later I still get emails from students lauding the class and thanking me for
the experience.
BTW, at the time St. Thomas had the
Yes, Richatd Dawkin's memes ("The Selfish Gene") are a nice idea, but they are
not like genes at all. They are like viruses. If we consider the memes that are
generated by "meme generators" and shared in social media, then they can at
best be described in terms of viruses. For example a post
Two points:
1) We do fetishize the law in the sense that if you run the red light and the
cop gives you a ticket there is no possible defense - you ARE guilty. In the
medical case, if you prescribe off-label and get sued, you will lose. (Unless,
of course, the Judge Interprets the law , or the
Steve,
Are you the exception or the rule?
Of the 350 engineering and science students in my freshman year at Carnegie
nobody got a 4.0 average; the highest was 3.57 and the average was about
1.8. But I'm older than you and grade inflation started in the meantime.
Thanks for your account of
Frank -
> I may have mentioned this before but physicists, chemists, engineers
> etc. rarely talk about philosophy of science. Social scientists,
> particularly.psychologists, do much more. Some mathematicians do
> because they believe they are dealing with God.
My undergrad career in Physics
glen wrote:
"We don't write software that way."
A contrarian position: David Parnas, "The Rational Design Process: How and Why
to Fake It."
davew
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 8:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a
> singular scientific method.
I may have mentioned this before but physicists, chemists, engineers etc.
rarely talk about philosophy of science. Social scientists,
particularly.psychologists, do much more. Some mathematicians do because
they believe they are dealing with God.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa
And, by the way, Renee's son-in-law has lupus. So this fear-based shortage is
directly threatening lives ... just in case you might wonder a little more
about the consequences to individuals, apparently reserved for "good times".
On 4/15/20 6:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> There are no "laws of
There are no "laws of scientific procedure". There's not even a singular
scientific method. What we have are heuristics and best practices driven by
repeatability and reproducibility. So, in order to build guidelines for *who*
to give hydroxychloroquine to, how much to give them, and when to
31 matches
Mail list logo
