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 · _intake0.918

   > idea of Newtonian physics right that there is cause and effect and we want to keep you there because that's the gold standard if we can keep you focused on RNA and DNA you'll never get to the

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/newton/002-idea-of-newtonian-physics-right-that-there-is-cause-and-effe.md

2. 02 · _intake0.808

   > why is there no cause and effect this will be the most mindblowing thing I tell you to have a cause and effect in reality requires you have to use Newtonian physics meaning that time has

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/newton/003-why-is-there-no-cause-and-effect-this-will-be-the-most-mindb.md

3. 03 · blog0.782

   Our physical theories, according to this view, describe an arbitrarily complex and appropriately objective causal web, yet in any given explanatory context only an extremely small subset of the web’s nodes is singled out as pragmatically salient causes. Within the descriptive project the reply would have to argue that our commonsense concept of cause is multidimensional in this sense. Within the functional project, the reply could concede that focusing on a small set of causal factors fulfills certain pragmatic and context dependent roles yet maintain that these are not the only functions of c…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/causation-in-physics.md

4. 04 · blog0.780

   Newton argued, for instance that the ratio of space to volume occupied by particles was seventeen times greater in water than in gold on the grounds that gold is seventeen times more dense. The fact that thin gold films transmit light convinced Newton that the particles of gold already contains enough space to permit the transmission of light particles. The preponderance of space between the particles of matter, however bulky or solid they might appear at the observational and experimental level, became a characteristic feature of Newtonian atomism (Thackray 1968; Shapiro 2004, 245–249). The p…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/atomism-from-the-17th-to-the-20th-century.md

5. 05 · blog0.778

   Newton was unable to fashion an unambiguous view on the ontological status of gravity, a force manifest at the level of observation and experiment, let alone forces operative at the atomic level. It is true that, in the case of gravity, Newton had a plausible pragmatic response. He argued that, whatever the underlying status of the force of gravity might be, he had given a precise specification of that force with his law of gravitation and had employed the force to explain a range of phenomena at the astronomical and terrestrial level, explanations that had been confirmed by observation and ex…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/atomism-from-the-17th-to-the-20th-century.md

6. 06 · blog0.775

   John Norton is a non-fundamentalist who appears to be endorsing the former view, arguing that while causal fundamentalism is false “in appropriately restricted circumstances our science entails that nature will conform to one or other form of our causal expectations” (Norton 2003: 13). Yet Norton also seems to have some sympathies for causal eliminativism, since he likens causal concepts to the concept of caloric—a concept that no longer is accepted as playing a legitimate role in science. Within the descriptive project we can distinguish two different ways of engaging with the fit-with-physic…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/causation-in-physics.md

7. 07 · yt0.774

   So science is perfectly okay to not explain the what and the wise in terms of what things are and why they do what they do. That's not for science. Science is about what will happen next. What are we going to see next? That's what the method the science scientific method allows us to do. Um so it's legitimate that science doesn't say what things are. It doesn't need to. It it it can't and it's there is that's not what its value is all about. Its value is about predicting behavior. But materialism is not science. Materialism is a metaphysics and as such it is a statement about what things are. …

   yt/DrMEL20o5KE-why-materialism-is-complete-nonsense-bernardo-kastrup/transcript.txt

8. 08 · yt0.773

   Because to Einstein, it was very obvious that nature would not design a system in which mechanical laws are the same but laws of electricity are different. So, he postulated that all phenomena, whatever be their nature, will be unaffected by going to a frame at constant velocity relative to the initial one. That's a very brave postulate because it even applies to biological phenomena about which I'm sure Einstein knew very little. But he believed that natural phenomena will just follow either the principle of relativity or they won't. And that is something you should think about. Because that …

   yt/pHfFSQ6pLGU-12-introduction-to-relativity/transcript.txt

9. 09 · yt0.771

   There's reasons why things exist, reasons why things happen. And this was elevated to a principle called the principle of sufficient reason. The principle of sufficient reason is literally the bumper sticker you see that says everything happens for a reason. Okay, there's a technical way of saying it that linenets uh the guy on the right said Spinosa is in the middle. All three of these philosophers promagated this principle and the way that Linus put it was the sake for which something happens is the final cause. Sorry, the principle sufficient reason is nothing is without a ground or reason …

   yt/rqezWO5Yba8-sean-carrol-the-big-picture-on-the-origins-of-life-meaning-a/transcript.txt

10. 10 · blog0.767

    After all, Locke himself diagnosed the difficulty: Body as far as we can conceive being able only to strike and affect body; and Motion, according to the utmost reach of our Ideas , being able to produce nothing but Motion, so that when we allow it to produce pleasure or pain, or the Idea of a Colour, or Sound, we are fain to quit our Reason, go beyond our Ideas , and attribute it wholly to the good Pleasure of our Maker. (Locke 1975, 541; Essay 4.3.6) And, when Descartes was pressed by Elizabeth as to how mind and body interact, [ 4 ] she rightly regarded his answers as unsatisfactory. The ba…

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/george-berkeley.md