On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:37:54AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Given this, I cannot see how you cannot grant that my viewpoint, at > the very least, is wrong.
Yawn. Wake me when you have a falsifiable prediction that is a consequence of your viewpoint. > I talked to Wigner personally about this, for example, and he affirmed > that I understood the problem posed by Bell-Wigner. I talked to the creator of the universe personally, and he affirmed that I understood the situation quite well. (Of course, he's dead now so you'll have to take my word for it.) > After 75 years of attempts to reconcile that statement with > experimental results, we are left with interpretations like MWI or TI. Who cares? Speaking of accomplishing a lot or a little, how much has been accomplished as a result of all this 75 years of mental masturbation? Why must there be an intuitively satisfying explanation for experimental results? > Let me ask a very simple question: what is the spin of an electron > in a direction other than the one in which a measurement was most > recently made? Let me give a very simple answer: whatever the most recent measurement finds that it is. > >You made the statement that scientists who only worry about reality > >get little done, which is ridiculous. > > But, its backed up by history. But, no it isn't. > Reality is a philosophical question, not a scientific one Reality is an experimental question. > However, I will feel free to point out when you make philosophical > statements that cannot be verified by experimentation. Free country, free list. Knock yourself out. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
