I took a class under one of the authors with "sets, logic, computation". I found this textbook to be incredibly good for both reading and as a reference. It presents things very straightforwardly (the language is simple) and clearly (makes good use of tables and diagrams to give the full info needed to understand something). The chapters are short and digestible. I forget if the text includes exercises, but I found the exercises in that class very good as well. I was actually looking for this text again, so that I could use it as a reference while learning Homotopy Type Theory, and here it is!
- the brain predicts what its upcoming input will be,
- quantum biologists ask if the human eye is sensitive to quantum effects, and
- measuring quantum information under different bases result in a different quantum state of not only the measurer, but of the world being measured.
I wonder if it is possible that the brain uses its predictive power to change the basis under which the eye measures photons, resulting in different perceptions as well as a different reality. A bit of a crazy idea but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the case other than if it is shown that biological sensory organs are simply not that precise.
The author's argues that the 50-50 model of chess is less true and a dead-end.
If this is a matter of which model to use then fair enough, you may wish to use a more exact model than the 50-50 model; but the author is not arguing about which model to use, they are arguing about which model to pursue building upon.
Building upon any model of interest is not a dead end (because it is being built upon!). Even if the underlying principles of the model of interest need to be changed to accomplish something else in the future, it is still useful to develop the model. Approximate truths can also have deep meaning and are sometimes even more generalizable to multiple areas of reality than exact answers. Approximations are no less true than trying to be exact, they are just saying a different thing. Neither is inferior to the other, or at least if exactness really is better than approximation, this is not a good argument for it.
Another commenter pointed out that some models need to be thrown out in order to make room for the new (e.g. the earth-centric view of the solar system had to go at some point), and I think that's valid and hard to argue against; and it seems to align with what the author is saying. But the work done upon the old models was certainly not worth nothing. For one thing, the work done upon the old models is what made the new work possible. I think perhaps the author's issue is that they do not acknowledge that the 50-50 model of chess has value.
p.s. to the author if they read the comments: I actually enjoyed reading your thoughts even if I disagree with them.