Speaking as someone with an academic background in physics, I don't think the group as a whole as anti-MWI as you seem to imply. It was taught at my university as part of the standard quantum sequence, and many of my professors were many-worlders... What isn't taught and what should be taught is how MWI is in fact the simpler theory, requiring fewer assumptions, and not just an interesting-to-consider alternative interpretation. But yes, as others have mentioned physicists as a whole are waiting until we have the technology to test which theory is correct. We're a very empirical bunch.

I've been thinking... How is it that we can meaningfully even think about full semantics second order logic of physics is computable?

What I mean is... if we think we're talking about or thinking about full semantics? That is, if no explicit rule following computable thingy can encode rules/etc that pin down full semantics uniquely, what are our brains doing when we think we mean something when we mean "every" subset?

I'm worried that it might be one of those things that feels/seems meaningful, but isn't. That our brains cannot explicitly "pin down" that model. So... what are we actually thinking we're thinking about when we're thinking we're thinking about full semantics/"every possible subset"?

(Does what I'm asking make sense to anyone? And if so... any answers?)

I am left-handed and suffer from depression and anxiety. Perhaps this is due in my case to the dominance of the right hemisphere, which processes more negative emotions, instead of the usual left side, which seems to process positive ones. As odd as it sounds, when I apply ice water to my right ear my symptoms are temporarily alleviated and I feel a positive mood lift.

The only way to lose weight is to spend more energy than you consume.

Liposuction.

The laws of thermodynamics don't require a fat cell to release lipids because you're hungry or exercising; the fat cells can just physically not react until your muscles run out of glucose or your brain overrules your attempt to starve yourself to death. Similarly, there's no rule that fat cells can't die or shrink and the waste be dumped out through urine.

Thermodynamics is not any more useful than quantum mechanics in understanding obesity. It is moralizing disguised as an invocation of natural law.

Oh, incidentally, just commenting that's a good date, it's the anniversary of a certain One Small Step. :)

I intend to attend.

Flashlights could be a bunch of portable methods and heuristics that can help on a wide range of problems, not just under one streetlight. Polya's book is an example, as are some of the methods of statistical learning and Feynman's "visualize a hairy green sphere" trick.

Nobody's mentioned electoral reform yet? The current incentive structures for the US two-party system are laughably bad right now.

I've been wondering whether it's worthwhile to try and get people in Silicon Valley behind a local electoral reform (alternative vote or proportional representation or whatever, at the municipal level), on the theory that this is the only way to get momentum for larger-scale reform. Plus, there are plenty of things that seriously need reforming on the local level, but are dominated by the cartel of the few folks who currently vote in municipal elections. (Zoning being an obvious example; NIMBYism toward housing development in the Bay Area takes a staggering toll on everyone but homeowners.)

I meant that everyone I've discussed the subject with believes that self-interest exists as a motivating force, so maybe "additional" would have been a better descriptor than "new."

I guess I don't see the problem with the trivializing gambit. If it explains altruism without needing to invent a new kind of motivation why not use it?