Talk:David Deutsch

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

‹See TfM›

Physics: Biographies Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.

Criterion for explanation

The criterion (more correctly: proposal) is hardly new, it was the topic of a (posthumously published) essay by Popper called The Search For Invariants, where he traced its origins to parminedes.

Furthemore, Hard to Vary is a variation on the methodological proposal to not make ad hoc adjustments to theories in the face of counter-instances. To say it is a property of explanations is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.92.67.44 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

homepage 404

david's site on qubit.org is 404, not sure if this is temporary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.76.84 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I have moved the previous discussion to Fabric of Reality in line with user:stevertigo's (undiscussed)restructuring.1Z 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ray Kurzweil, David Deutsch is another thinker who is valuable even when wrong. I have a family connection to a rival interpretation of quantum mechanics and I disagee with his particular brand of unschooling (& probably a lot of his politics), but the Deutsch entry really needs to be expanded and elaborated. (Though not by me.) KC Pleasantville 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article's importance. As the founder of quantum computing, I think this is justified.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Deutsch

I was reading a back issue of New Scientist this morning, and saw a claim that David Deutsch was manipulating NASA press releases for George Bush. First I was shocked, then I realized that this must be another David Deutsch, so I came here. It took a bit of googling before I realized that New Scientist had made a little mistake, and arrived at George Deutsch. I have seldom seen two more contrasting characters ;-) --Slashme (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These remarks involve the obvious danger of a libel action.

No, they don't.--FeralOink (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:David Deutsch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Hi Wikipedia,

I was somewhat suprised that your article on David Deutsch did not mention the famous Deutsch algorithm, a quantum computing algorithm using the concept of fourier transforms. While the article does mention quantum computing briefly, it seems reasonable to include the algorithm in the discussion, due to its impact on the field. This algorithm is important, one of the few meaningful results in QC. I'd like to see it at least mentioned (though it deserves an article of its own), along with it's extension, the Deutsch-Josza algorithm. It's only moderately well-documented in one of the standard textbooks on the subject (Nielsen & Chuang "Quantum Computing and Quantum Information" Cambridge University Press, 2000).

   Thank you for providing this space for comments.

Daniel Austin

71.84.248.187 06:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 06:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Snori (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Deutsch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209230404/http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk:80/al/prizes.htm to http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/al/prizes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Díez et al. 2013

About a month ago Ancheta Wis added to the "Invariants" section a mention of a 2013 paper by José Díez, Kareem Khalifa and Bert Leuridan that argued that "there is no good reason to believe that substantive and domain-invariant constraints on explanatory information exist".^[1] I removed this paper since the paper does not seem to be addressing the same issue as the section. The issue in Díez et al. 2013 is "that there can be no general, domain-invariant theory of explanation, i.e. no theory that covers explanation in the different sciences and in mathematics and in ethics, etc." (p. 380). The issue in the "Invariants" section of this article is different: it is that invariance is a criterion for a (domain-specific) scientific explanation. There is no claim in the section that the criterion is domain-general, i.e. that all explanations require invariance, even in the humanities. So Díez et al. 2013 would be off-topic here. Biogeographist (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Díez, José; Khalifa, Kareem; Leuridan, Bert (February 2013). "General theories of explanation: buyer beware". Synthese. 190 (3): 379–396. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-0020-8. JSTOR 23324633. The article by Díez et al. is a critical review of: Nickel, Bernhard (June 2010). "How general do theories of explanation need to be?" (PDF). Noûs. 44 (2): 305–328. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.405.1630. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00741.x. JSTOR 40660516.

Emergentist....

Why weakly or (weakly)?

What is the orginal source? Kartasto (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too many cites to subject

I'm tagging the article as needing better sourcing because over half the references are to his own works. FeralOink (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[critiqueNickel2010-1] Díez, José; Khalifa, Kareem; Leuridan, Bert (February 2013). "General theories of explanation: buyer beware". Synthese. 190 (3): 379–396. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-0020-8. JSTOR 23324633. The article by Díez et al. is a critical review of: Nickel, Bernhard (June 2010). "How general do theories of explanation need to be?" (PDF). Noûs. 44 (2): 305–328. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.405.1630. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00741.x. JSTOR 40660516.

[1]