Colin Hales wrote:
>  >From the "everything list" ....FYI
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the 
>> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories 
>> represents the current state of QM.
>> Brent Meeker
> Jesse Maser wrote:
> The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about 
> QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the 
> Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality 
> that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as 
> these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any 
> new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists 
> often discuss them nevertheless.
> -----------------------------------------
> There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to 
> know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to 
> give you the red pill.
> Name any collection of QM physicist you any XYZ 
> interpretation, ABC interpretations....Blah interpretations... So what? 
> You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not 
> see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled 
> 'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?"  Read 
> Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is 
> programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's 
> some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like 
> this then I'll get listened to"....
> /and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./ 
> This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that 
> fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a 
> club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even 
> plainer with set theory:
> <ASPECT 1> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}

How do you know the Standard model, for example, is not descriptive of 
underlying reality.  If it's not, there sure are some amazing incidents of 

> <ASPECT 2> =  { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, 
> including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social 
> science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}

What's the difference between an "empirical law" and a "descriptive law"?  Are 
empirical laws not descriptive?

> <ASPECT 1:>  = {Null}

See above.

> <ASPECT 2>  = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor 
> do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who 
> has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}

People said the same thing about life and postulated an elan vital.  Maybe it's 
just that you don't have a clue as to what an explanation would look like.

"They laughed at Bozo the Clown too."

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to