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 like....name 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 
prediction.

> <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?

> 
> FACT
> <ASPECT 1:>  = {Null}

See above.

> FACT
> <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.

Brent
"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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to