Well my motive is a belief in the impossibility of the contrary.
If some things can be made out of other things, it seems pretty reasonable that the behavior of the one things would also be somehow made out of the behavior of the others.
Sure, but let me give an example based on an analogy: when you have a group of soldiers formed into a fighting platoon, they behave very differently than when you have a group of soldiers formed into a search and rescue party. Both groups have very different behavior despite being constituted by the same units.
For this reaso...
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 isn't a physical function that changes depending on higher-level organization).
I think the way to check this is that someone would have to come up with a specific theory that explains the currently-poorly-understood low-level behavior of fundamental particles based on the idea that the rules of their behavior depend on their higher-level organization.
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 before.
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?
Not to my knowledge, but they should have! PM me..
You need to be thoroughly convinced that what you want to do is the right thing to want. Then you just treat your other impulses like an irrational addiction that you must overcome.
If you get your mind right you should be able to go cold turkey.
The site is broken - english keeps redirecting to german.
fish antibiotics
gasoline
I expect to need to solve the value-loading problem via indirect normativity rather than direct specification (see Bostrom 2014).
What does this mean?
I find it odd that 66.2% of LWers are "liberal" or "socialist" but only 13.8% of LWers consider themselves affiliated with the Democrat party. Can anybody explain this?
First reason: by European standards, I imagine the Democrat party is still quite conservative. Median voter theorem and all that. Second reason: "affiliated" probably implies more endorsement than "it's not quite as bad as the other party". It could also be both of these together.
Purchased; thanks!
I would be very much interested in this!
Was this ever created?
Update: this paper lends some credibility to my philosophical position (neutral monism)
https://psyarxiv.com/bq7ne/