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 · _intake0.949

   > find the right thing here. Oh, no. That's that's not Maxwell yet. That's that's William Thompson. I was going to show you because I once I when I figured out um how I think the second law works,

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/maxwell/002-find-the-right-thing-here.md

2. 02 · yt0.808

   I was going to show you because I once I when I figured out um how I think the second law works, I got curious why had people not figured this out before. And so, I tried to trace the history of the second law. And uh old Jamie Clerk Maxwell was a big figure in the history of the second law. And I really do would like to show you just a few things from his work. Let's see whether I can find these. Um, now that's a that's fun. That's from uh Kelvin from uh 1870s trying to figure out uh motion. Hold on a second. Let's see if I can find this. Sorry, I was not uh quite prepared for this. I think t…

   yt/OWyugUdBups-stephen-wolfram-computation-at-the-foundations-of-everything/transcript.txt

3. 03 · blog0.735

   Andy’s house is very difficult to find, so he hires Judy to stand at a crossroads and direct people towards the house (Judy’s job is to tell people that the party is at the house down the left road). Unbeknownst to me, Andy doesn’t want Michael to go to the party, so he also tells Judy that if she sees Michael she should tell him the same thing she tells everybody else (that the party is at the house down the left road), but she should immediately phone Andy so that the party can be moved to Adam’s house, which is down the right road. I seriously consider disguising myself as Michael, but at t…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/skepticism.md

4. 04 · yt0.734

   You you set these are the rules that we are we adopt to prove things. Then you what Gödel shows is an amazing thing. I always thought it was amazing. There is a statement which you by virtue of your trust in these rules, you can see that it's true. Yet, you can't prove it by the rules. Now, I found this absolutely amazing because it means you're you don't use the rules to to understand things because how do you know this thing is true? Well, you know it's true but because you trust the rules. Well, it's you're you're if you're using the rules, then how do you know that using the rules only giv…

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

5. 05 · yt0.733

   Um, well, it's a curious word you used there, which was explain. Ah, because Yes. Yeah. I I should take that back, right? Yes. You know, because the the right I mean, I don't think this was exactly Boore's attitude. The common attitude is calculate. Predict tell me what the numbers will be, and if the numbers are right, that's all I want. Absolutely. Boore was actually trying to make a much more profound argument which was that a certain sort of explanation which had been provided by classical physics was no longer available. Just could not could not be found. There wasn't that nature didn't p…

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

6. 06 · _intake0.732

   > it right. He didn't figure out the second law. As we now know, sort of the paradigmatic ideas that you need to figure out the second law come from ideas about computation and so on, which were another close to 100 years in the future, so to speak. But it's sort of interesting that he was applying those kinds of philosophical thinking ideas. And it was a misfire in thermodynamics. It was a hit in relativity, in the photoelectric effect, and the existence of photons, and also

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/photoelectric/003-it-right.md

7. 07 · yt0.728

   My guess is that he not that he wouldn't have believed my theorem, he would have thought, "Oh, well, that just shows you general relativity is wrong." Curiously, the reaction I got from certain people. I know Bob Dicke in in when I visited Princeton after this, he slapped me on the back and said, "You've done it. You've showed general relativity is wrong." And what what I thought I was doing, you see. But I mean, you see, these things are there wasn't anything definitive in these experiments. You just sort of eventually have enough evidence to push the majority of people in a certain direction…

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

8. 08 · yt0.725

   Dissecting free will. If you hit Apple shift P, I believe to start the thing. No. Oh, maybe it's does someone know how to start? I can start it if you if you need See, if you ever wonder why your computer never cooperates, it's because of free will. Or free won't. Yeah. Sometimes if you show them a hammer. Do we want to change the order? I could talk cuz I don't need to. Oh, yeah. Maybe we should switch and let you go ahead. Yeah. While they're doing that. How about that? Yeah. Okay. So now I'm on stage. Um, so I want to tie my um remarks not only to what's just been said but uh also to what w…

   yt/v73S4BkItrc-panel-quantum-theory-and-free-will-chris-fields-henry-stapp-/transcript.txt

9. 09 · blog0.723

   To think it likely that \({\sim}A\) is to think it likely that a sufficient condition for the truth of “\(A \supset B\)” obtains. Take someone who thinks that the Republicans won’t win the election \(({\sim}R)\), and who rejects the thought that if they do win, they will double income tax \((D)\). According to Hook, this person has grossly inconsistent opinions. For if she thinks it’s likely that \({\sim}R\), she must think it likely that at least one of the propositions, \(\{{\sim}R, D\}\) is true. But that is just to think it likely that \(R \supset D\). (Put the other way round, to reject \…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/indicative-conditionals.md

10. 10 · blog0.722

    Likewise, presumably, for many propositional attitudes: for the deductivist, what we might ordinarily describe as wondering whether 569 is prime should be understood as wondering whether the axioms deductively imply that 569 is prime; what we might ordinarily describe as doubting that 569 is prime should be understood as doubting that the axioms deductively imply that 569 is prime; and so on. A tentative suggestion might then be that the deductivist should take “\(Ax \vdash\)” to have narrow scope over force operators (asserting, wondering, doubting, etc.). Neither of these tasks—providing a w…

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/deductivism-in-the-philosophy-of-mathematics.md