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 · _intake0.939

   > blah and they never need to worry about constraints from I don't know electric weak Precision tests or big bang nuclear synthesis or whatever because they're not even in that regime

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/big-bang/001-blah-and-they-never-need-to-worry-about-constraints-from-i-d.md

2. 02 · _intake0.749

   - [`001-blah-and-they-never-need-to-worry-about-constraints-from-i-d`](big-bang/001-blah-and-they-never-need-to-worry-about-constraints-from-i-d.md) — score=7 `03:46:23.760` — blah and they never need to worry about constraints from I don't know electric weak Precision tests or big bang nuclear - [`002-that-book-has-absolutely-never-been-seen-before-in-any-relat`](big-bang/002-that-book-has-absolutely-never-been-seen-before-in-any-relat.md) — score=7 `00:34:21.920` — that book has absolutely never been seen before in any relativity textbooks. It's a book that is designed to try to teac - [`003…

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/INDEX.md

3. 03 · yt0.714

   Because most simplifications,  you may throw away the essential physics,   or you may not even be capturing correct physics,  but Oppenheimer and Snyder succeeded in this. Brian: And I guess part of their- Kip: In retrospect. Brian: Right. And part   of their assumption, I guess, was they  assumed there wasn't undue pressure within- Kip: Yes. So for   simplicity, they just assumed this was dust,  so there's no pressure at all. And of course,   skeptics then immediately said,  well, that's not how things work   in the re…

   yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt

4. 04 · yt0.686

   And they were then, they were not standing out as starkly against what you call the zeitgeist, as they would have been, if they had insisted on normal physics. - Yeah, it kind of reminds me of that famous quote attributed to Steven Weinberg. I think it's actually accurate, where he said something along the lines of, "It's not that we take our mathematical theories..." How did he say it? He's basically saying, "We don't take our mathematical theories seriously enough." It's not that we take them too seriously, it's that we don't take them seriously enough, right? So if you apply that to quantum…

   yt/Af5LICjFIBc-what-is-quantum-mechanics-really-telling-us-world-science-fe/transcript.txt

5. 05 · blog0.680

   However, it would be a major task—which we do not intend to pursue here—to determine whether there really are any good reasons for taking these worries seriously. 2.3 The Mathematical Objection Some people have supposed that certain fundamental results in mathematical logic that were discovered during the 1930s—by Gödel (first incompleteness theorem) and Turing (the halting problem)—have important consequences for questions about digital computation and intelligent thought. (See, for example, Lucas (1961) and Penrose (1989); see, too, Hodges (1983:414) who mentions Polanyi’s discussions with T…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/the-turing-test.md

6. 06 · yt0.680

   They said, "Well, there must be a much bigger spread so that there's no no radiation." And they calculated this the smear factor, quite literally they called it the smear factor R zero would have to be on the order of an angstrom, five orders of magnitude bigger than what we had said. And that's for the nucleus, which makes the the atom bigger than the almost as big as a cell, you know, bigger than the the protein for sure. It'd be a micron. So, that didn't make any sense, but but that that made them happy because then they they could account for the lack of radiation. And but then they kind o…

   yt/OoDi856wLPM-sir-roger-penrose-stuart-hameroff-collapsing-a-theory-of-qua/transcript.txt

7. 07 · blog0.676

   For a more realistic example, consider the 1887 Michelson-Morely experiment. After a null result failing to detect any significant difference between the speed of light in the prevailing direction of the presumed aether wind, and the speed at right angles to the wind, physicists turned against the aether theory. If the physicists validated Conditionalization then, before the experiments, they must have believed that either there is no luminiferous aether, or the aether wind blows quickly enough to be detected by their equipment. But why should they have been so confident that the aether wind i…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/formal-representations-of-belief.md

8. 08 · _intake0.674

   > idea that's the truth and the reason why they don't have an earthly idea that's the truth is because w a price didn't know it why because when he wrote the book quantum mechanics was still being

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/quantum-mech/008-idea-that-s-the-truth-and-the-reason-why-they-don-t-have-an-.md

9. 09 · yt0.673

   Or Stephen Wolfram saying, maybe  this all comes out of a very simple cellular rule.   And I don't think that any of those have actually  gotten to the point where they can make the claim   that that's a logical train of development. So  to me, that would be one way of answering the   question. Another way of answering it is how much  do you care about the actual particles of matter   that make up everything? Like, do you care about  the up quark, down quark, electron, tau particle?   Do you care about the symmetries of…

   yt/ILlhFKuu3NQ-geometric-unity-unifying-all-forces-generations-eric-weinste/transcript.txt

10. 10 · blog0.672

    (Canfield & Lehrer 1961, 205) The envisaged prediction (‘\(Bx\)’) no longer holds if a magnet neutralizes the effect of the weight (‘\(Mx\)’). This can be accounted for if the absence of the magnet is explicitly mentioned in the law. The problem is that the law must be complete with respect to all such factors that might prevent the breaking of the thread. The completeness condition requires that there are no further disturbing factors—i.e., it requires an exclusive cp-clause (see section 3) Canfield and Lehrer also present an argument for why these cp-clauses cannot be defined away, namely th…

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/ceteris-paribus-laws.md