If you like non fiction, I recommend Cartoon History of Time (note: NOT Larry Gonick). I also thought One, Two, Three, Infinity was a great read.
If we believe that Von Neumann interpretation is correct, and that metaphysical materialism is indeed false, what will be the alternative research program? As far as i can see you'd still need to try to build a conscious machine and fail to prove that the assumptions were true.
But i don't agree that metaphysical materialism has been repeatedly demonstrated to be logically false. As for quantum mechanics, i find Lee Smolin's argument that there must be deterministic and computable theory behind it, very compelling https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Unfinished-Revolution-Search-Quantum/dp/1594206198.
> Why on earth do you think scientists are only interested in consciousness in order to make conscious machines??
What other method do you know to understand and use something? Science always builds models of things it is studying.
Maybe? The author certainly has biases (hates the CI interpretation) but I remember the historical exploration to be good. Just have to watch out for his opinions and not construe them as facts.
The speed of light does depend on the motion of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and incompatible with the constant speed of light (c'=c):
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
This is great- thanks for sharing! Feel like this book is very fitting https://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-First-Examination-Second/dp/9811220433
I used it in class and it was really helpful.
Now you've completely changed the experiment. If you stop the timers at the destination, you haven't measured light.
Dude, I'm not coming in to correct you on this comment chain. You don't know what you're talking about at all, even a little bit. You are just ad hoc adding things to an experiment that does not at all address the problem.
I'm going to recommend this book to you: https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Explained-Classics-Science-Mathematics/dp/0486293157