Hans Heymans

@BigBrainPhiloso The solutions are simple but unpopular: 1. Consistency: an omniscient entity is a contradiction, just like the set of all sets. 2. Compatibility: there is no problem with freedom if you regard the "physical cause" of an event as part of the event's free nature.

Anthony Kenny on the philosophical problem that has puzzled thinkers for over 2,000 years and why it still matters today. In a 1987 conversation with Bryan Magee on the Great Philosophers series, philosopher Anthony Kenny unpacks one of the most enduring tensions in the history of human thought: can God know the future and humans still be free? He frames the problem simply: "The philosophical problem was the problem of reconciling Divine foreknowledge and human freedom." The logic of the dilemma is almost elegant in its difficulty. If God is all-knowing as ancient, medieval, and Islamic philosophers widely accepted, then He already knows what you will do tomorrow. But if He already knows what you will do tomorrow, how can your choice today be genuinely free? Kenny explains: "If God already knows what you and I are doing tomorrow, how can we be free to decide that today?" Kenny points out that thinkers across traditions: ancient philosophers, medieval theologians, and Islamic scholars all grappled with it. And the medieval period in particular produced patient, rigorous attempts to show that the two ideas are not, in fact, contradictory. What makes this especially striking is what Kenny observes next: "The patient work which was done by the theologians and philosophers in the Middle Ages to try to show that the two can be reconciled. These are replicated, often in ignorance, today by people who are not interested in God at all but are interested in determinism." In other words, the same philosophical puzzle lives on just wearing different clothes. Replace "Divine foreknowledge" with "the laws of physics" or "neuroscience," and you have the modern free will vs. determinism debate. The question hasn't changed. Only the vocabulary has.

@vitrupo Flirting with pseudoscience. The life-cycle of a cell or animal is heavily influenced by its functionality within its domain. Why do brain cells live much longer? It's a practical issue. If you crack this, you can fabricate bored people living for thousands of years.

Michael Levin says aging may not just be a biology or physics problem. It’s a cognitive one. Almost like a boredom theory of aging. What happens when a system has nothing left to do?

New open access release from @MITPress How does the concept of a "pattern" bridge the gap between information science, biological evolution, and the deep questions of philosophy? Real Patterns—the first book dedicated to the roadmap laid out by Daniel Dennett—is out now. Read it for free here: direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edite… #OpenAccess #AI #Philosophy #DanielDennett #PhilosophyOfScience #InformationTheory #CognitiveScience #MachineLearning #MITPress h/t @PhilipLaughlin

@PhilosophyOfPhy On social media, we’re bombarded with “deep” statements from famous physicists that go beyond their expertise. I suppose real philosophers’ ideas are too difficult to sell to a wide audience, but it doesn’t hurt to try.

“Philosophy is dead. Scientists have taken over the questions about existence.” Stephen Hawking made this provocative claim to emphasize the growing role of science in tackling questions once reserved for philosophy. He argued that modern physics, especially cosmology, is now better equipped to explore the origins and nature of the universe. The statement sparked debate because it challenges centuries of philosophical thought, raising a deeper question: can science alone answer the ultimate “why,” or does philosophy still have a place in understanding existence?

@InterstellarUAP Trying to prevent an imaginary kidnapping by casting an imaginary spell might actually work.

🚨 Over 400 ALIEN abductions halted instantly by calling on the name of Jesus Christ 👽🛸😱 "The instant His name was called, it stopped." "Why do these aliens respond to Jesus? Exactly." "What is it about Jesus that these aliens don't like?" This changes everything about UFOs. Are they spiritual? Demons in disguise? Have you heard testimonies like this before? Would you call on Jesus in that moment? What do YOU think is really going on? 👇

AI at war: Five things to know about Project Maven techxplore.com/news/2026-04-a… via @techxplore_com

@mysteriouskat Life has infinitely many virtual points, called "attractors"—mathematical forms. Processes tend to evolve toward these points. However, if you regard the Platonic world of points as self-sufficient, life becomes a mystery.

What's the point of life?

@KateXGate Recoherence is the reversal of decoherence—a reappearance of interference between branches—and, although typically negligible, its occurrence would complicate the Many-Worlds interpretation.

@haanzon I think he used the term decoherence to describe this.

Reality doesn’t collapse. It branches. In 1957, Hugh Everett III proposed that every quantum event doesn’t select a single outcome— it generates all of them instantaneously. Multiple realities. All continuing. Not metaphorically. Literally. ⸻ Somewhere, every version of you exists: • The one who hesitated • The one who acted • The one who became exactly who you imagined But here—in this branch—you are the one doing the choosing. Not to eliminate other paths… but to inhabit one. And all of them continue— just not here.

@davidchalmers42 Playing (a role) is highly sophisticated. Many animals seem to have an implicit grasp that “it’s just a game.”

i agree. claude doesn't role-play the assistant, it realizes the assistant. role-playing and realization are quite distinct phenomena, even at the level of behavior and function. i've written something about this and will post it shortly.

@InterstellarUAP Are there creatures so powerful that we would tend to regard them as gods? Very likely—though they would resemble the Greek gods more than an all‑powerful deity. Yet just as there is no set of all sets, there is no creature at the top of the hierarchy.

🚨 Ricky Gervais on God & Why The Universe Exists - "Why is there SOMETHING rather than Nothing" “I’m an agnostic atheist. Technically everyone’s agnostic… no one knows whether there’s a God. We don’t know." "An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t know there’s a God or not, as no one does. So you’re not convicted of your atheism?” Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s simply rejecting the claim that there is a God. Are you an agnostic atheist too? Or do you believe? What’s your take? Drop it below 👇

@BigBrainPhiloso Searle begins by opposing reality and appearance. Then he introduces another kind of existent: consciousness, whose reality is appearance. In effect, he simply repeats appearance, and his concept of reality amounts to "appearance to a fully informed creature" in disguise.

John Searle: consciousness cannot be an illusion and here's the argument that makes it undeniable Science has a long track record of overturning our intuitions. The table looks solid, it isn't. The sun appears to set, it doesn't. We've learned to accept that appearances deceive us, and that reality lies beneath. But philosopher John Searle argues there is exactly one domain where this move simply cannot be made: consciousness itself. "Where consciousness is concerned, you can't make the standard appearance/reality distinction that we make for the rest of the world." His logic is simple. When a scientist tells you the table isn't really solid and that it's a cloud of micro-particles, you can accept that. The appearance (solidity) and the reality (particles) are two different things, and you can hold them apart. Same with the sunset. It looks like the sun moves. It doesn't. The rotation of the Earth creates an illusion. Appearance and reality come apart and you understand the gap. Now try applying that same logic to your conscious experience. Someone claims your pain isn't really there, that your awareness is just an illusion. But here, Searle says, the distinction collapses entirely: "Where the existence of consciousness is concerned, the appearance is the reality. There's no way that some guy can come to me and convince me I'm not conscious if I think I'm conscious, I am conscious." This is a structural point about what consciousness fundamentally is. For every other phenomenon, the appearance can be explained away by pointing to what's "really" happening underneath. But consciousness is the very medium in which all appearances occur. There is no "underneath" to retreat to. To say consciousness is an illusion, you would first need to be conscious of the illusion. The argument defeats itself on contact.

@InterstellarUAP Donald Davidson offered the most reasonable response to this conundrum: we cannot be wrong about everything, because if we were, we wouldn't 'have' a world. The argument is similar to Descartes', but without the naive idea of consciousness as an inner screen.

🚨 What if NONE of this is real… what if it’s all just a weird dream? Ricky Gervais just broke reality with Descartes: “How do I know this is real? How do I know I’m even alive? What if this is like a weird dream?” Then the mic drop: “I think, therefore I am… I’m thinking, therefore I must exist.” Consciousness = your awareness of being alive. That’s it. And the closer that hits different: “At least I’m saying it like I know what I’m talking about… and that’s all that matters these days.” What is the TRUTH? 🤯 Is reality an illusion or does your own thinking prove you exist? Are we all just dreaming this right now? Drop your wildest take below. What do YOU believe? 👇

What if it's easier to learn to talk to objects instead of forcing them into mechanisms—respecting their internal makeup? Quantum reservoir computing might confirm this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir… phys.org/news/2026-04-s…

Do you like the story of Hansel and Gretel? Chemists say they’ve found a way to turn breadcrumbs into hydrogen. livescience.com/chemistry/chem…

@elonmusk In the end, every nerd likes gothic girls.

@leecronin How could it be Turing‑complete without an infinite tape and with its structures always subject to decay? Clearly, nature has produced computers, but they only approximate their Platonic counterparts.

Today I’m trying to write the framework that explains why biology is not Turing complete.

@vitrupo The social-media way to express that humans want to live forever. I prefer Larry Niven's "Pak Protectors." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Prote…

Nick Bostrom says we may have “100% infant mortality.” We develop for a few decades, then stagnate, then die. If full human maturity takes thousands of years, we’ve never seen a fully developed human.

@BigBrainPhiloso Spinoza "solved" the mind–body problem by proposing a single fundamental reality. This reality has infinitely many attributes, of which we know only two: mind and matter. If we regard reality through material (mental) lenses, the whole is Nature (God).

Spinoza's wildest idea: God isn't separate from the universe. God is the universe. If God is truly infinite, there can be nothing outside of Him.

@AshtonForbes You can't have both. Selling bullshit can attract many followers and may be profitable. Serious people will criticize you, which can be framed as proof that they're afraid of your "truth." I challenged Mr. McGregor, but I suppose Conor is too afraid to fight me.

If I push pseudoscience to nearly half a million people then PhD physicists have a moral obligation to stop me in the name of science. Yet I've challenged every PhD physicist to debate me on zero point energy, including extracting it for use, and none will. Either they're cowards, too afraid of their ideas being challenged, or I'm right and they know they can't win in a free exchange of ideas. @DanielWhiteson @skdh @DrBrianKeating @EricRWeinstein