The Deep End... by Iremisst

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The Deep End...

POSTED BY: IREMISST
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 16:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4701
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:45 PM

I have several questions that have been rattling around for the last year or so about space, the human mind, and the nature of our actual 'verse- and since this is the ONLY kinda social site I visit ('cause people creep me the hell out!) here's where I'm askin'.

I'm askin' ya keep yer answers to somethin' less than a novel's length and please, no feedin' the Troll-ies which I'm sure will be along shortly!

First Question(s) of the Week-

Psychic Abilities? Do they really exist? Are you psychic or have you ever experienced anything? Is life just sooo mathmatically predictable that people guess what will probably happen and call themselves psychic? Do you have an innate fear of men with blue hands?

Welcome to The Deep End...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:28 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

First off, I just love the design of The Deep End's solarium. Perfect for looking at the stars while we contemplate the universe.

I have a twin sister(obviously not identical); I don't usually do the sales pitch(Mom: "They're twins!"). So, every once in a while, it appears we have some sort of psychic connection.

For example: just last week, I thought I might randomly put "Achoo tac tac"(C3PO says something like this in the Return of the Jedi when talking to the Ewoks) in the TAG box. Didn't actually get around to tagging it, but 3 hours later my sister texts that to me(only with a different spelling - like anybody knows how spell it - I can't even Google it!). FYI we live 50 miles apart.

I know next to nothing about brainwaves; frequency, range, intensity. But what if that "achoo tac tac" thing is stored in the same place in both brains. Or...oh hell, I'm outta my league.

Does anybody know ANYTHING about brainwaves? Preferably in Captain Dummy talk.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:34 PM

MANGOLO

My whole post has been quoted by SIGMANUNKI. No need for duplicates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:47 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Look into hot and cold reading and you'll have your answer.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 12:28 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

I went to college to become an astrophysicist. What I realized was that humans don't have near the infrastructure as far as their own senses to conceive of even a rough representation of how the universe works.

Then explain Quantum Mechanics. Or do you think that our senses are good enough to see that small? Seriously, that stuff is very very accurate and most certainly is a 'rough representation of how' that part of 'the universe works.' Similarly, for the other fields of Physics and the Hard Sciences in general.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

We now can use 3D modeling to express our theories about energies and matter, but dolphins have 3D modeling hard wired in their brains due to the sonar imaging they can do. They can overlay that image on the rest of the sensory input they share with humans.

Humans can learn echo location too. In fact, I recall running across a training seminar at one point. I can see, so I didn't look into it. But, it can be done.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

Just with their basic biology they can conceive of possibilities that we wouldn't

And you're basing that on what? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

because true spacial information is not tied to any of senses.

And? Do you think that the dolphins sonar isn't a sense for them? Do you think that sonar gives them any more accurate information that would be someone looking around? Seriously...

Btw, when the full sentence above is read, it's pretty much nonsense. I mean, you have X implies Y. But, X and Y are not even remotely related.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

We only perceive depth and distance when information arrives at our fixed location.

Sonar works the exact same way, except slower. Light, you know, traveling faster than sound.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

Scientists correct this lack with radio telemetry, sonar, lasers, etc, but they weren't born with a way to process that information so they set up constructs based on experimental data with its limited scope.

You're not making any sense. You start at, a human can't do sonar (which they actually can learn to do), and from there jump to, experiments are limited therefore so are the theories extrapolated from it. But, the fact of the matter is that any way one gets the data, through technology or biology, there are limitations to the data. One isn't necessarily better than the other (though tech tends to be more sensitive, at least once the tech has developed), and it doesn't really make a difference who interprets it. In fact, there's tonnes of stuff that we wouldn't have found out without tech and that's including things that our senses can sense. So, tech is kinda winning out on that front.

ASIDE: One can't say that in Science, theory comes from Experiment nor the other way around. Sometimes it happens one way, sometimes it happens the other and other times it's a combined effort. There is no one definitive way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

What I'm sayin' is there's a whole lotta things about the universe that our puny little brains plugged into our virtually running blind bodies cannot possibly see.

And the same is true for the dolphins; for any other organism for that matter. Essentially, what you've stated here is quite meaningless.

Hey look! The Sun is bright!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

So, I became an artist and farmer. I draw and grow stuff.

Ya, I can tell. You know, from your (near) complete lack of understanding of how Science, etc works.

Please stick to what you're good at instead of spreading FUD and attempting to lend credence to said FUD by citing 'some college education.' You might have taken a couple classes, but a couple classes does not understanding make.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 1:22 AM

MANGOLO

Hmm. Do you understand Quantum mechanics?

Let's start with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

How deep down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

What about the work of Schrödinger?

Or Feynman?

Do you follow Sir Michael Berry's premise that there is no quantum chaos?

Or do you think that quantum mechanics should extend into random matrix theory?

Do you believe that the results from traditional spectroscopy can ever produce an exact result or will we always have to live with approximation schemes like Freeman Dyson derived?

That stuff you refer to is not accurate at all. At its heart, quantum mechanics and the supporting mathematical structures are ways of approximating results.

Look. I wasn't looking for a pissing contest. I just was supporting the folks here with a personal philosophy. If you differ that's fine, but if you want to challenge my understanding Quantum mechanics, you better start throwing down some math and set in a context of mathematical belief systems- because that's what these great mathematicians are offering- belief systems that allow you to find patterns that most closely mimic the results of experimentation.

Once we get on the same base about Quantum mechanics we can move on to some of the other valid points you raised.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 3:52 AM

IREMISST

Interesting Rah(don't know if you know this but Rah is a slang word some Brits use to describe a young snob-type person)lMaclaren

Are both you and your sister big Star wars fans? Had you had conversations about that particular phrase before? I like the idea about both of you storing the idea in the same place, it sounds logical enough. Then again maybe she was just trying to relate to you on that level. Also I like your line on another post about "they didn't teach me that in shop class". FYI- I am a gal and I took 3 years of shop class and loved it.

Also Sigmanunki and Mangolo, I have a ruler- would you all like to remove your brains so we can measure them and settle the deal now?

Have some personal issues to resolve maybe?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 3:54 AM

FREEBROWNCOAT

Heisenberg allows for an awful lot of things. So called psychic stuff can be possible though I don't have any idea exactly how the observer sees into events not yet occurring. Mostly I think we process a huge amount of information without our "conscious" mind aware of it. When it seems to be prescient we attribute it to psychic ability rather than accept the fact that we are simply not aware, or capable of being aware, of all the information we process.

Awareness can be a weird thing. Hubris can lead us down even weirder paths. IMHO

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 4:01 AM

IREMISST

I agree Free

I myself have had dozens of experiences where I have predicted something to happen and I believe there are parts of my brain that are way ahead of the rest of it... The hard part is actually listening to the little voice and then acting upon it to effect change, at least I find...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 4:35 AM

CYBERSNARK

I've been doing some woolgathering on the subject (as part of my writerly hobby of trying to come up with truly alien life forms that aren't just humans with rubber foreheads).

I definitely think telepathy is possible. The human body produces an electrical field (which could easily account for the "auras" some people perceive --it's been demonstrated by numerous sources that emotional states can affect biochemistry, which would logically affect this bioelectric field as well). Human brains also function through electrochemical means --it is theoretically possible to sense the pattern of electrical activity in another being's brain and "map" that (in a vague sense) to one's own brain (yes, each individual mass of neurons is as unique as a fingerprint, but the same general areas correspond).

It's possible that "telepathy" is actually several distinct phenomena just working in concert (bioelectrical sensitivity, observation, intuition, etc --perhaps Early, the Operative, and River are more alike than they realize).

As for perceiving auras as "visible" phenomena; that could just be a matter of our brains interpreting "raw" data in terms of our five senses --some might see auras around a person, others might detect the "scent of death," others might hear "whispering voices."

It's a known fact that some animals do have non-human senses (migratory animals can often sense magnetic fields, pit vipers have thermal vision, etc.)

(Also, sonar does give information that eyesight doesn't; soundwaves can pass through stuff that light can't [thus the principle behind ultrasound scans in hospitals] --cetaceans effectively have x-ray vision. They can see your skeleton inside your jelly-like innards and rubbery hide. Logically, a sufficiently trained dolphin might even be useful in detecting internal maladies like tumours, injuries, or surgical scars. Also, sonar is self-generated. Humans can't produce our own light [without technological aid].)

As for precognizance, we have to dip into quantum theory. Humans are four-dimensional (3D of space and 1D of time). Theorists posit that the universe may contain many more "quantum" dimensions that we can't perceive (think of a Flatlander [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland], having only length and width, trying to comprehend height).

If I touch my fingertip to "flatland," I create a circle (the perfect shape --I am clearly some sort of divine being or Ascended Master). If I touch multiple fingertips, I create multiple circles which share one mind ("I am Legion"). If I flatten my hand to the surface, these five entities suddenly seem to merge into one "amorphous" blob-like creature. If I were to push my arm through the surface, it would again become a circle (as my wrist submerges). If I raise my hand free, I have disappeared as though I never existed!

These are usually modelled as being dimensions of space, but why can't the same apply to time?

The ancient Greeks had two words for time: "kronos," which describes linear time (which can be measured by a chronometre), with which we are all familiar. They also had "kairos," which described time as "a pool of water," in which all moments were linked to all other moments.

Kronos, perhaps, is akin to "length" --a single dimensional orientation (past->present->future). If so, then what would the equivalent of "width" be? Perhaps alternate timelines (not "mirror universes," since these timelines would be part of our own universe). This would enable Schroedinger's model; the same particles could exist in multiple quantum states (the cat is both dead and alive, depending on one's perspective). Perhaps an outside observer (one occupying a different temporal dimension) would see both states, and laugh at us poor "timeliners" for our limited perceptions. (Of course, this also suggests that the opposite of kronos [past->present->future] is "antikronos" [past<-present<-future].)

Of course, what might this look like from a linear perspective? Being linear, we wouldn't perceive Them perceiving kairos. All we would see is. . . someone who seems to know every possible future (including the ones that "don't happen" --they do happen, just not "here"). And perhaps someone who could "step out" of time, as easily as we can disappear from the Flatlanders' world.

Perhaps prophets are people who have somehow manifested this ability naturally --yet (raised as linear beings in a linear world) do not comprehend it, and can only offer the glimpses they get as dreams and visions (which are either recognized after-the-fact or dismissed entirely when they "fail" to happen).

Perhaps the angels, demons, and gods that are said to have visited us in the "past" (whatever that word means) are simply beings who naturally exist/existed/will exist in that state.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 6:23 AM

BYTEMITE

I don't think psychic abilities exist. I think people convince themselves that they have them. Then, they remember every coincidental "confirmation," and forget the contradictions.

I pretend like I might have psychic ability sometimes. A flickering light, out of body experiences, guessing ten dice throws in a row, predictions made months before that come true, even seeing something happen five to ten seconds before it happens. But if I'm honest to myself, even if the event seemed uncanny and even startled me, I'm not psychic. With me, I know that it's coincidence and a high innate ability with pattern recognition. Hallucination may also play a role, I'm not entirely certain. My brain is weird.

I find the echolocation training highly dubious. Human ears aren't very sensitive, and as I understand it, the return sounds that these people are supposed to be detecting are their own unamplified voices. Humans can hear an echo if there's, well, an ECHO, but other times...? Just the very quiet bouncing back of sound off of walls in open air, with no audible echo effect? Hmm. And don't animals like dolphins and bats have special centers for interpreting bounced signals that evolved over tens of thousands of years? You might be able to sense something directly in front of you, but mapping your environment in your head without seeing it, using sound, as in true echolocation?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 10:18 AM

MANGOLO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I find the echolocation training highly dubious. Human ears aren't very sensitive, and as I understand it, the return sounds that these people are supposed to be detecting are their own unamplified voices. Humans can hear an echo if there's, well, an ECHO, but other times...? Just the very quiet bouncing back of sound off of walls in open air, with no audible echo effect? Hmm. And don't animals like dolphins and bats have special centers for interpreting bounced signals that evolved over tens of thousands of years? You might be able to sense something directly in front of you, but mapping your environment in your head without seeing it, using sound, as in true echolocation?

You are absolutely right- even millions of years of evolution for this one trait. I did see a doc about a blind woman who could used her voice to help her sense objects, but she was blind since birth. It wasn't true echolocation like dolphins, but it did help her get around. The scientists were saying she was using the part of her brain that most people used for vision which makes it more interesting though.

Dolphins can even see into objects with their echolocation. Sense density changes akin to a sonogram or ultrasound.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86085840444

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 10:45 AM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Actually it's Rahl as in:
Richard Rahl (also known as Richard Cypher) is the protagonist in The Sword of Truth
fantasy series by Terry Goodkind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rahl
Also the surname Rahl means wolf in Norse, I think. (That fits, since I seem to be a lone wolf by default)
www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Rahl
And MacLaren is like the car McLaren, but with an extra 'a'.

I hale from the Magical Land of Missouri (pronounced- "mizery"), which is near Penguin's
Mythical Land of Iowa.
(I should probably put this stuff in my profile just to beat back confusion(And...done))

Back when we got the Original Star Wars Trilogy in THX on VHS in the mid-90's, we
were obsessed much like with Firefly now. So of course, we have all the dialog, English
and most of the non-English, etched into our DNA.

"Sorry I can't help. We never covered this in shop class."
I totally ripped this line from Michael McKean's character Dalboz from the game Zork
Grand Inquisistor.

Edited to fix stuff and add: That was very informative Cybersnark, and I didn't even have to break out the dictionary. I'll have to ponder....
[returns to starring up at the sky]

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 3:41 PM

IREMISST

I realize that the slang term Rah really doesn't have anything to do with your handle, I'm just passing on useless bits of info for really no good reason... I do that. At least I'm not cussing and hurling about things- well, not today anyway!

Passed on the wolf information to my other half- he likes wolves, but you kinda have to when they are always (figuratively) one step behind you... Wait, I think I hear the wolv-I mean my wonderful in laws now... who also hail from the great state of Mizery BTW.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 4:10 PM

BYTEMITE

Why would anyone name a state "Missouri?"

It's like naming a kid Wayne Kerr.

No offense to anyone living in Missouri. Or anyone named... Actually, no, if you're named that, I'm going to call it "justifiable homocide." Go ahead, society owes you one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 5:12 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/history.asp

Quote:
Missouri gets its name from a tribe of Sioux Indians of the state called the Missouris. The word "Missouri" often has been construed to mean "muddy water" but the Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology has stated it means "town of the large canoes," and authorities have said the Indian syllables from which the word comes mean "wooden canoe people" or "he of the big canoe."

I don't think you wanna mess with the Sioux.

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 28, 2009 6:11 PM

IREMISST

Why does "he of the big canoe" sound so kinky right now?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:28 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Iremisst:
I have several questions that have been rattling around for the last year or so about space, the human mind, and the nature of our actual 'verse- and since this is the ONLY kinda social site I visit ('cause people creep me the hell out!) here's where I'm askin'.

I'm askin' ya keep yer answers to somethin' less than a novel's length and please, no feedin' the Troll-ies which I'm sure will be along shortly!

First Question(s) of the Week-

Psychic Abilities? Do they really exist?

Yes.
Quote:

Are you psychic
No
Quote:
or have you ever experienced anything?
Yes, but not anymore
Quote:
Is life just sooo mathmatically predictable that people guess what will probably happen and call themselves psychic?

This is a seperate train of questioning, right?
Many genuine psychics do not have intimate familiarity with mathematics, and a large number have a very loose grasp on the concept. Most psychics' use of numbers is limited to their value as guideposts, markers, targeting points for their searches, as images, and not for their numerical value or implications.
Quote:
Do you have an innate fear of men with blue hands?
No.

Quote:

Welcome to The Deep End...

Beat you to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 31, 2009 4:36 PM

SIGMANUNKI

I wasn't even going to read your response. But, I got curious. At any rate, you're probably going to take this the wrong way, so I'm not going to try hard to put things in a "proper" manner. You know, because it's likely that you'll misinterpret regardless (you seem quite pissed in that response).

Quote:
Originally posted by Mangolo:

Look. I wasn't looking for a pissing contest.

Well, neither was I. But, your conclusions don't follow from your "evidence" and that is what I pointed out. Which you are currently attempting to avoid. But, I should point out that this response of yours is certainly the start of a pissing contest. Wait to take things out of context. And btw, you're *way* off topic here. This thread is about psychic stuff. QM was brought up as an example of just how badly you don't know what you're talking about (which you seem to still not get).

Point of fact just because something is an approximation, doesn't mean that it isn't accurate (if you want to get technical, the integral itself is an approximation, etc). And I didn't solely use the term accurate. I used the same term that you did, 'rough representation' along with 'very accurate' which are both *very* different from 'absolutely accurate' or 'the complete truth' or similar which you seem to be interpreting my response as (god knows how, I was quite specific in my wording). Very very different. But, those are just details now aren't they...

In other words, if you don't want someone to come along and point out crackpottery that you post, then don't post it.

Oh, and if you really think that I'm going to start talking PHILOSOPHY of QM then you are sadly mistaken. No serious Scientist/Mathematician would start to argue about current/future research like they know exactly every detail and exactly where things will go. Very smart people, smarter than either of us, are currently writing *very* long papers on the smallest detail regarding this stuff and they don't have an idea of what's going on. So, what do you really think will be accomplished from a couple equations written on this web forum. Oh, and nice (equivalent to) name dropping. Or did you think that I wouldn't notice you talking about *very* old stuff? Seriously, pop science books are no substitute for proper (advanced) education.

All I have to say is this to your line of questioning here: strawman. Try again. Fail.

I should also point out that I know that it sucks when people point out that you don't know what you're talking about. I've been on the receiving end of that numerous times and I have every confidence that it'll happen again. However, it is one's personal choice how to deal with it. One can either attack back or take it as a learning experience. Looks like you've made your decision.

To the overall notion of this thread trying to use Science to explain psychic abilities, it's nothing but pseudo-science; application of real science where it aught not be applied. There are very specific limitations of these theories that need to be respected for extensions to hold. And that's exactly what's not going on here e.g. we don't actually know that the brain works solely by electrochemical means and in fact there are counter-examples to that (how psychiatric drugs work).

Bytemite is right about the coincidence thing. I watch a news show (US news), years ago where this guy guessed with high accuracy who was calling him. The conclusion was that he had this uncanny ability and weird things go on. The problem is that that little experiment isn't Science. What would be Science is reproducing it over and over hundreds and thousands of times using other people, etc. Btw, they did this and guess what, FAIL. That didn't make the news though. Shocking...

At any rate, I quite done with this thread. Nothing but pseudo-science. When it comes to actual Science, there's no evidence to date to support this (not for lack of trying though). And that's the only fact that can be said about this stuff. Anything else is pure conjecture. Have fun with that if you want to. But, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this stuff is actually real when it's more than just likely that it isn't.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 31, 2009 11:38 PM

MANGOLO

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
did you think that I wouldn't notice you talking about *very* old stuff? Seriously, pop science books are no substitute for proper (advanced) education.

See, this is what I don't understand. You choose to aim for a put down, rather than engage in a discussion. Where do you think I studied mathematics and physics? Where do you think I was doing 3D modeling of mathematical equations?

BTW You are correct. Quantum Mechanics IS old stuff. It started in the 1800s and my work with chaos theory ended when I stopped plugging equations at the San Diego Supercomputer Center in the 1980s. So, yes, I'm not up on the latest math, but QM hasn't changed since that time. Physicists have moved on to more exotic things. But, I'd appreciate you to lay off the personal attacks- because I did have a proper advanced education - you know those fancy texture maps you see on all the 3D objects from Avatar to World of Warcraft? That is an off shoot of the math we were doing there-didn't exist before we worked it out. 3D mapping the human genome? Also, another project we worked on.

Some of my professors:
Marshall Rosenbluth (aka the Pope of Plasma Physics)
Geoffrey Burbidge
and
Zachary Fisk (a condensed matter physicist who ironically was married to one of my later art history professors whom I did field work with)

Actually, the math is worth talking about BECAUSE it leads to the philosophical discussion about the implications of QM. And if you could indulge me- though it was not my intent- it does have a link to the psychic discussion.

Bryce DeWitt formulated the MWI (multi-worlds interpretation) in the late 60s from his studies of QM. Are you sure you aren't interested in discussing the implications of determinism in the context of quantum entanglement? (A re-expression of the idea of non-locality in an event - hence its psychic implications)

BUT that was not the point of my original post. You actually summed up the intent of my original post: "Very smart people, smarter than either of us, are currently writing *very* long papers on the smallest detail regarding this stuff and they don't have an idea of what's going on." That was the point of my original post.

AND ALL discussion of quantum mechanics end up as discussions of philosophical views beginning with the Bohr–Einstein debates. My professors in QM did discuss it as a series of belief systems. I appreciated their candor.

I haven't bashed a single thing you've written. I affirmed that QM is old, I concurred with your point that some of the smartest people in the world don't have a clue where all this is leading and I have linked quantum entanglement to the discussion (though that wasn't my original intention). The only thing I took issue with is your presumption that I didn't have a proper science education which I hope I've laid to rest.

Peace.

Some shots of me swimming with dolphins to ease out of the vibe we have created here:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 1, 2009 4:17 PM

IREMISST

Music plays and I can't help it-*So long and thanks for all the fish*

Ohh space dolphins, are they distant cousins of space monkeys?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE