bucket foundation — inverse omegabucket.foundation

becker

those two are electrons but you need to understand that story that perturbed you from Becker's book when you went back and reread it and said hm let me explain something to you because you said it
Concept
becker
Score
4 · must · because
Status
candidate — not yet promoted to canon

Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

  1. 01 · _intake0.775

    How we evolved and what we ate is of little relevance when you understand how the smallest of things in our universe dictates biology on the inner mitochondrial membrane. Those things are electrons. In my view, both authors are not aware of this. I found the book was really bad because he gets the right idea, but due to flawed reasoning. This is why I can’t advocate the book. Just because the outcome is correct does not mean we should accept the logic.

    _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/tilted-quilt-random-musings-4.md

  2. 02 · yt0.768

    All right, so this is the story. So now comes the French physicist, de Broglie, and he argued as follows - you'll find his argument quite persuasive, and this is what he did for his PhD. He said, "If light, which I thought was a particle-- I'm sorry, which I thought was a wave, is actually made up of particles, perhaps things which I always thought of as particles, like electrons, have a wave associated with them." And he said, "Let me postulate that electrons also have a wave associated with them and that the wavelength associated with an electron of momentum p will be 2pℏ /p; and that this w

    yt/uK2eFv7ne_Q-19-quantum-mechanics-i-the-key-experiments-and-wave-particle/transcript.txt

  3. 03 · yt0.766

    so what's the difference 14 electrons on 14 electrons you go from Plants  to animals in other words complex Life Works   basically on 14 electrons and to answer your  question and we breathe we breathe in oxygen   and give off CO2 they breathe off CO2 and give  us that's that's the simplest way I can explain   the circle also we eat animals animals eat grasses  animals digest the grass in a way that we can't we   get to get the the uh in the grass right through  eating the animal correct yeah we see the circle   of life

    yt/zs82rGFo6qg-jack-kruse-andrew-huberman-rick-rubin-tetragrammaton-podcast/transcript.txt

  4. 04 · yt0.759

    So you can't just say, "Oh, these are just two ways of talking about the same account of the world." They're clearly contradictory accounts of the world. Absolutely. And and where did the word, if you happen to know, interpretation in quantum mechanics first get in? And and the reason I ask is in classical physics there are of course distinct formulations of classical mechanics. You can write down Newton's equations in a straightforward differential form. you can write down a Hamiltonian approach to it. Uh I mean often we don't call those different interpretations. We call them maybe different

    yt/VbXEc9vpeIM-what-we-ve-gotten-wrong-about-quantum-physics-world-science-/transcript.txt

  5. 05 · yt0.759

    You know the difference is? In the middle of it, you got an iron atom. Iron has a different atomic number. It It has um a few more electrons than magnesium. Why is this a big deal? Cuz the same thing that happens in chlorophyll happens in Joe. Happens in Jack. And and here's the irony. Go back to that guy we talked about earlier, Einstein. He won a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect. You know what that means? The only way you can deliver light to different tissues in that tree or me is through the electrons that you collect. So, what's the difference between a tree and us fundamentally f

    yt/jtMu-KFyKxM-bitcoin-is-a-time-machine-with-dr-jack-kruse/transcript.txt

  6. 06 · yt0.752

    [Music] is it okay if I read something oh please um um I think this is a passage that I also read in our last conversation with Tim but I think it captures you know like I say who the hell really knows what bore had in mind um um but here's the penultimate paragraph or excuse me the next to last paragraph of B's famous response to the epr the Einstein podowski Rosen paper which is one of the few places where he's thought to have tried to take some care to spell himself out explicitly B says this necessity the one I was just referring to this necessity in each experimental um excuse me this nec

    yt/u-5VVt0kGa8-david-albert-on-niels-bohr-and-the-epr-paper/transcript.txt

  7. 07 · yt0.750

    Gadamer is willing to sacrifice because of his belief in the inescapability of preconception. He's willing to sacrifice historical or cultural exactitude of meaning. He's willing to acknowledge that there's always something of me in my interpretation, but it's a good something because after all I am mindful of the horizon of otherness. I am not just saying "plastic" means "polymer," right, but nevertheless there's something of me in the interpretation. Hirsch is saying, "There's nothing of me in the interpretation. Therefore, I am able to arrive accurately and objectively at the meaning of the

    yt/iWnA7nZO4EY-3-ways-in-and-out-of-the-hermeneutic-circle/transcript.txt

  8. 08 · yt0.749

    And we bring that prejudice to bear on our interpretation of the line, then that is a constructive way into the circle according to Heidegger and Gadamer. The bad prejudice is when we leap to the conclusion, without thinking for a moment that there might be some other historical horizon, that we know what plastic means. The reason we can tell the difference, by the way, is that if we invoke the eighteenth-century meaning of plastic, we immediately see that the line makes perfect sense, that it's perfectly reasonable and not even particularly notable; but if we bring our own meaning to bear-- t

    yt/iWnA7nZO4EY-3-ways-in-and-out-of-the-hermeneutic-circle/transcript.txt

  9. 09 · blog0.748

    As Strevens puts it: claims of the form c was a cause of e …do not assert the existence of a raw metaphysical relation between two events c and e ; rather, they are causal-explanatory claims that assert that c is a part of the causal explanation for e . (2008: 4) (See also Davidson 1967, 1970; Strawson 1985.) On a view like this, we can maintain that, while causation relates coarse-grained entities like regions of spacetime, causal explanation relates more fine-grained entities like propositions, or events under-a-description. Secondly, we could claim that “…causes…” is an intensional context,

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/the-metaphysics-of-causation.md

  10. 10 · archive0.746

    WHEN, forty years ago, I first expressed the ideas explained in this book, they found small sympathy, and indeed were often contradicted. Only a few friends, especially Josef Popper the engineer, were actively interested in these thoughts and encouraged the author. When, two years later, Kirchhoff published his well-known and often- quoted dictum, which even to-day is hardly correctly interpreted by the majority of physicists, people liked to think that the author of the present work had misunderstood Kirchhoff. I must decline with thanks this, as it were, prophetical misunderstand ing as not

    archive/sciemechacritica00machrich/sciemechacritica00machrich_djvu.txt

Curation checklist

  • ☐ Verify excerpt against source recording
  • ☐ Tag tier (axiom · law · principle · primary derivation · observation)
  • ☐ Cross-cite to ≥1 primary source (PubMed / arXiv / archive.org)
  • ☐ Promote to bucket-canon/05-biophysics/