No posts to display.
Marshall, I would keep in mind that good intentions are not sufficient for getting your comments up-voted. They need to contribute to the discussion. Since your account was deleted, we can't to judge one way or the other.
I think there is some truth to Marshall's critique and that the situation could be easily improved by making it clear (either on the "about" page or in some other high-visibility note) what the guidelines for voting are. That means guidelines would have to be agreed upon. Until that happens, I sus...(read more)
It seems like the only criterion for the rating of comment/post be the degree to which it contributes to healthy discussion (well-explained, on-topic, not completely stupid). However, there is an strong tendency for people to vote comments based on whether they disagree with them or not, which is *...(read more)
I'm confused. What is the relationship between Alcor and the Cryonics Institute? Is it either-or? What is the purpose of yearly fees to them if you can just take out insurance which will cover all the costs in the event of your death?
Eliezer, I believe that your belittling tone is conducive to neither a healthy debate nor a readable blog post. I suspect that your attitude is borne out of just frustration, not contempt, but I would still strongly encourage you to write more civilly. It's not just a matter of being nice; rudenes...(read more)
Günther: Of course my comments about Barbour were (partially) ad hominem. The point was not to criticize his work, but to criticize this post. Very few people are qualified to assess the merit of Barbour's work. This includes, with respect, Eliezer. In the absence of expertise, the rational thin...(read more)
You've drawn many vague conclusions (read: words, not equations or experimental predictions) about the nature of reality from a vague idea promoted by a non-academic. It smacks strongly of pseudo-science.
Julian Barbour's work is unconventional. Many of his papers border on philosophy and most ar...(read more)
I definitely agree that there is truth to Max Planck's assertion. And indeed, the Copenhagen interpretation was untenable as soon as it was put forth. However, Everett's initial theory was also very unsatisfying. It only became (somewhat) attractive with the much later development of decoherence ...(read more)
Psy-Kosh: Oh, I almost forgot to answer your questions. Experimental results are still several years distant. The basic idea is to fabricate a tiny cantilever with an even tinier mirror attached to its end. Then, you position that mirror at one end of a photon cavity (the other end being a regul...(read more)
Psy-Kosh: It <i>is</i> an awesome experiment. Here are links to <a href="http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~quopt/bouwmeester.html">Bouwmeester's home page</a> , the <a href="http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~quopt/tow.pdf">original proposal</a>, and the latest update on <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/...(read more)