The Omega Point and The Phemonena of Man Explained, ...

These women have it all sorted out, ...

My comment:

Wow, that's probably the best 2 minutes 19 seconds of life [I] will ever have! Thank You!!! 😂❤💓💞

If you're viewing this on a PC without colour UTF8 (?!) that black heart was supposed to be red:

On the Android app, the reply doesn't show:

Pity:

Subscribe to Elle Cordova.

Richard Feynman is said to have said something like "Scientists need philosophers of science like birds need ornithologists" but that is disputable. Maybe it was Steven Weinberg: Quote Origin: The Philosophy of Science Is As Useful To Scientists As Ornithology Is To Birds. He is also known for having said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." (see this skeptics.stackexchange discussion for references). Hence my comment in the video description:

The moral being, I think, that it's good to understand an argument, but understanding an argument doesn't necessarily mean you understand the phenomena. This applies to equally to the quantum mechanical speed of light as it does to metric spaces in general and The Phenomenon of Man and Holism and Evolution in particular.

Mithuna Yoganathan's video on Feynman's speed of light argument (Part 1 is here):

Subscribe to Looking Glass Universe.

And here is another psychedelically inspired take on personality:

Subscribe to Superpositioned Psyche.

See The Phenomenon of Man and Holism and Evolution (comes with a white supremacist health warning, of course!)

Chrome on Android:

Chrome on Microsoft Windows 10:

Blogger editor in Chrome on Windows 10:

Blogger editor in Chrome on Android:

I have a psychedelic experience of colour blindness that I related once, ... I doubt I'll be able to find the video though, ... I made it in the Plaza in Tecate, Mexico.

So I went for a walk a bit later than usual, and it was dark:

On the way up the hill I was thinking about Peter Landshoff and the book Essential Quantum Physics he wrote with Allen Metherell. I had a copy of this and I found the 1937 version, called Simple Quantum Physics in The Internet Archive which has pretty much the same material in Chapter One, including some of the exercises (1.2) and (1.4) in particular since they are part of the text. See the Wikipedia page on Compton scattering.

It also reminded me of Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory where he mentions Fizeau's 1850 experiments in Chapter 13: Theorem of the Addition of Velocities. The Experiment of Fizeau.

The Fizeau experiment was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water. Fizeau used a special interferometer arrangement to measure the effect of movement of a medium upon the speed of light.

According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected. When he repeated the experiment with air in place of water he observed no effect. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists. Over half a century passed before a satisfactory explanation of Fizeau's unexpected measurement was developed with the advent of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein later pointed out the importance of the experiment for special relativity, in which it corresponds to the relativistic velocity-addition formula when restricted to small velocities.

At the time I was pretty taken with the idea that Einstein's theory of Special Relativity was little more than coordinate geometry and didn't need any calculus as such to understand: it is pretty much just high-school algebra. This is a far cry from the full QED and all the Renormalization Group and Gauge Theory needed to understand it. I really liked Feynman's book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter but I knew that the real maths behind it was way beyond my level then (and it still is now).

The point I'm trying to make, if you can call it a point at all, is that what constitutes an explanation depends upon the theory in terms of which you are trying to explain it. This is beautifully explained (example of a child's toy at 19:45) by Hilary Putnam in his 1973 lecture on Philosophy and Our Mental Life.

This is about the argument Putmnam makes at 41:25 that if we are not simulatable by Turing machines at some discrete level then arbitrarily small differences in initial conditions can result in different measurements at the macroscopic level of description: e.g. saying "yes" rather than "no": See also Sabine Hossenfelder on Quantum Chaos.

This is about Papert's assertion at 44:00 "AI is just one damned thing after another" and my rant Genesis about engineering, language and creativity and about Blanca.

At 47:30 About proving Wilson's Theorem with a computer. I got it all arse-about-face in this. I should have said union where I said intersection and vice versa. There are some good examples of this in https://prooftoys.org/: see Talking About Computation.

This is about the main problem 30,000 years ago. I think it would have been at least partly political. The problem as to how to get a piece of rock to coincide with the head of a deer was solved long before that. The problem of how to organise a successful hunt amongst populations living on possibly overlapping territories sems to have produced some spectacular art. See e.g. Chauvet Cave: