Live talks and videos, featuring our visiting fellows and range of unique and engaging experts!
Hosted by the Center for Philosophy of Science and University of Pittsburgh.
The Center for Philosophy of Science fosters the emergence of the best, new work in philosophy of science. We hope to share the unique insight and experience of experts with a wider audience.
For the love of f#cking clarity *talk INTO the microphone NOT AROUND IT* You can hear where the microphone is located in this moment, starting from quite a distance a lot of reverb and loss of top frequencies at 18:41 and the word canalisation where you get nice tops and clarity.... Just stay there next time... Pretty basic... but it works
Thank you to the photons David colaco and Joshua eisenthal and Justin Pastrick for that wonderful clarification. 👍💙💚♥️Many blessings to you and the Vienna circle 🇨🇭🔴
Dr Ehimare on RU-vid have a permanent cure for (Al's) motor neuron disease and other sickness like FiBROID,HPV,H PYLORI,HERPES.!!! He reverse my husband from Al's naturally with herbal medicine, Contact Dr Ehimare on on RU-vid channel for more details call or Whatsap +2349027349748.
OK, we have a computer simulation which does a numerical integration of a big system of differential equations, and we have a random number generator. Can we find a use for an RNG in our simulation? Does anyone else have any ideas? One of the catches is that modification, explicit or implicit, of the Schroedinger equation is forbidden.
A final report on the project discussed in this video is posted on a European Commission website. Go to cordis.europa.eu and enter "Epistemology of Data-Intensive Science" in the search box. (The "Data Journeys" book is an edited volume based on earlier research.)
From a computer simulator's point of view there is no orthodox theory of quantum mechanics, but two rival theories. One is the Schroedinger theory, and the other models quantum mechanics as a Hamiltonian system with a bit of added Brownian motion on the scale of Planck's constant. This second theory, based on Reinhold Furth, has no arrow of time issue, and is the correct theory for objects heavier than the Planck mass like grand pianos and Black Holes. It is also the correct theory for potential wells which are dimples in heavier objects. The Schroedinger theory is good at quantum statics and at the destructive interference of probability distributions. It is rubbish at quantum dynamics and the arrow of time question. The alternative theory is rubbish at wavelike phenomena but that doesn't matter when the Compton wavelength is less than the Planck length. A combined theory will be one for computer simulation. Let's begin by imagining how something can be both a wave and a particle. It is in tachyonic Brownian motion which is orthogonal to an oscillation in the other way to travel faster than light. This means in practice that in our simulations we make a random choice between a timelike and a spacelike integration of the Dirac equation, and a co-ordinated choice for the electromagnetic field so we can deal with nonlocal phenomena. This is still to do.
We still use classical mechanics to build spacecraft and computers (even most parts of quantum computers), so why do scholars keep saying it has failed, or has been proven wrong? Einstein and Heisenberg didn't prove them wrong, they gave us new physics for new frontiers, at different scales and conditions.
I always like to remember the days I spent in Mr Gähde's lecture on epistemology he gave at the University of Hamburg a few years ago. He is a brilliant lecturer.
