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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
