Artificial Intelligence Cosmology Intelligent Design Philosophy Physics

Sabine Hossenfelder explains why she thinks that the computer sim universe is pseudoscience

Hossenfelder: You can approximate the laws that we know with a computer simulation – we do this all the time – but if that was how nature actually worked, we could see the difference. Indeed, physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step by step, like in a computer code, but their search has come up empty handed.

Cosmology Intelligent Design Multiverse Physics

At Quanta: Are we looking at the end of physics?

Ah yes, the problem of dead-endedness that Sabine Hossenfelder often writes about. As does Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, on the subject of string theory. But surely much of the nonsense around string theory and the multiverse is in part due to a practical failure—the inability to find even a single particle of dark matter or similar evidence for dark energy.

Geology Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

Sabine Hossenfelder: Flat Earthers are wrong but not stupid

Hossenfelder: It is not possible for each and every one of us to redo all experiments in the history of science. It therefore becomes increasingly important that scientists provide evidence for how science works, so that people who cannot follow the research itself can instead rely on evidence that the system produces correct and useful descriptions of nature.

Intelligent Design Mind Naturalism

A Universal Mind is a reasonable idea, says Bernardo Kastrup

One reason that science media are respectful of cosmopsychism may be growing awareness of the problems with strict materialism, naturalism, or physicalism: As Michael Egnor has noted, “How can you have a proposition that the mind doesn’t exist? That means propositions don’t exist and that means that you don’t have a proposition.”

Climate change Intelligent Design Philosophy Science

Sabine Hossenfelder says predictions are overrated; Rob Sheldon responds

Sheldon: … ironically, most of Sabine’s blogs are about the poor predictive power in particle theory, but in this blog she feels she has to reverse herself to defend the good name of global warming. My advice to her is to stick with what she has first-hand knowledge of, because 2nd-hand knowledge always suffers from authoritarian bias.