User Profile

star0
description4
message19

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Philosophical theory with an empirical prediction

2y
2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
9

Trying to find a short story

2y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
5

Reflexive self-processing is literally infinitely simpler than a many world interpretation

3y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
16

Facing the Intelligence Explosion

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
0

Recent Comments

I'm not really convinced that it's unlikely. Just because we can construct systems that are strongly deterministic at the macro level doesn't mean that the quantum behavior we can't yet explain isn't based in some way on the higher-level organization of the fundamental particles involved.

I understand your point, but I'd be interested to see this proven (or dis-proven) bottom-up from first principles... observing that something in particular (chlorophyll, photosynthesis, etc) reduces from the top down like this leaves too many holes for it to really disprove the idea (e.g. maybe this...(read more)

> So there is no conclusive proof either way.

This is what I suspected. But is there anyone studying quantum physics from this perspective? I'd like to see a theory of quantum physics based on this idea, but it's not my field at all. I'm wondering if anyone has looked into it from this perspective ...(read more)

Basically the evidence is the opposite of what you hope it will be.

Can you please substantiate this claim?

This is it! Wow. Thank you so much!

It's not a book, it's a short story

doesn't gravity act at a distance? how is that "non-locality"?

it seems very philosophically appealing for many reasons, but I can't judge its merit as a theory of physics.

if you need everything to calculate anything, that's terrible

why?

having forces with infinite range doesnt imply nonlocality

isn't that what i'm saying? so why did you say no?