On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > I did not say the physics was unknown. I said that it must exist. The > physics is already known.Empirically and theoretically. It's just not > recognised in-situ and by the appropriate people. It's an implication of the > quantum non-locality underpinning electrodynamics. Extensions of the physics > model to include the necessary effects are not part of the discussion and > change nothing. This does not alter the argument, which is empirical. Please > accept and critique it on this basis. I am planning an experiment as a > post-doc to validate the basic principle as it applies in a neural context. > It's under development now. It involves electronics and lasers and all the > usual experimental dross. > > BTW I don't do non-science. Otherwise I'd just be able to sit back and > declare my world view complete and authoritative, regardless of the > evidence, wouldn't I? That is so not me. I am an engineer.... If I can't > build it then I know I don't understand it. Nothing is sacred. At no point > ever will I entertain any fictional/untestable/magical solutions. Like > assuming an unproven conjecture is true. Nor will I idolise the 'received > view' as having all the answers and force the natural world to fit my > prejudices in respect of what 'explanation' entails. Especially when major > mysteries persist in the face of all explanatory attempts. That's the worst > non-science you can have... so I'm rather more radically empirical and dry, > evidenced based but realistic in expectations of our skills as explorers of > the natural world ...than it might appear. In being this way I hope to be > part of the solution, not part of the problem. >
You can understand a scene when you watch animated movies on TV, for pete's sake! There is no physics in reductionist universe that would know how to patch information about a scene that is thousands of miles away, years ago, and only ever existed virtually. You can't adapt known physics to do THAT. You'd need an intelligent meddler. And you can't escape flaws in your reasoning by wearing a lab coat. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
