Brent:
why should I accept opinions of (even respected!) scientists? I asked YOUR
opinion.
Old (ancient) savants based their conclusions on a much smaller cognitive
inventory of the world than what epistemy provided up-to-date. Furthermore
the
basic worldview they think 'in' is mostly different from the one I use
(accept).
Don't forget that IMO chemistry (after my 38 patents in it) is a
*figment*based on
the 'physical worldview' - the explanational attempts of poorly understood
phenomena
- mostly on mathematical basis (which makes it a bit lopsided at best).
I consider 'Quantum science' as an 'extension' (?) of physics, less
pragmatic and less
clear - with more (scientific) fantasy included. A segment in the
'totality'-view, what
 I would like to attain as an interrelated complexity of them all (known and
unknown).

Axioms? artifacts derived to make our (conventional) sciences valid. With
different
logic (worldview?) different axioms may be necessary.

And to the view that so many people accept Q-Sci I think of times when
almost ALL of
the scientifically thinking people on Earth believed the Flat Earth (and
other oldie
systems as well, during the development of our cultural history).
Science is not a democratic voting occasion.

Respectfully

John M


On 3/11/10, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> My apologies.  I forgot that Lawrence National Laboratories no longer
> hosted the physics archive.  I should have cited:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
>
> The Free Will Theorem
> Authors: John 
> Conway<http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Conway_J/0/1/0/all/0/1>,
> Simon Kochen <http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Kochen_S/0/1/0/all/0/1>
> (Submitted on 11 Apr 2006)
>
> Abstract: On the basis of three physical axioms, we prove that if the
> choice of a particular type of spin 1 experiment is not a function of the
> information accessible to the experimenters, then its outcome is equally not
> a function of the information accessible to the particles. We show that this
> result is robust, and deduce that neither hidden variable theories nor
> mechanisms of the GRW type for wave function collapse can be made
> relativistic. We also establish the consistency of our axioms and discuss
> the philosophical implications.
>
>
>
> And here's a later, stronger version that uses some weaker premises.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 3/11/2010 2:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent, nice statement:
>
>      *  "But it's certainly not a deterministic universe" *
> **
> I have to take your word, because the reference you gave said:  * "NOT
> FOUND"*
> So what kind of a 'universe' is it? bootstrap, self reflecting autodidacta?
> Creator-made?
> John M
> **
> **
> On 3/11/10, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/11/2010 1:26 PM, m.a. wrote:
>>
>> *Bruno and John,*
>> *                           The confusion is my fault. I copied the URL
>> from a Kurzweil page heading when I should have gone to the article itself,
>> so the wrong feature appeared. This is the one I requested comments about:
>> *
>>
>>
>> *http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html*<http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html>
>>
>> (Excerpts)
>> *PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the concept
>> of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new ground. At least as
>> far back as the ancient Greeks, people have wondered how humans seem to have
>> the ability to make their own personal decisions in a manner lacking any
>> causal component other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore,
>> Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many
>> biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea
>> that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a
>> combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces.*
>> **
>> *To put it simply, free will just doesn’t fit with how the physical world
>> works. Cashmore compares a belief in free will to an earlier belief in
>> vitalism - the belief that there are forces governing the biological world
>> that are distinct from those governing the physical world. Vitalism was
>> discarded more than 100 years ago, being replaced with evidence that
>> biological systems obey the laws of chemistry and physics, not special
>> biological laws for living things.“I would like to convince biologists that
>> a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism
>> (or, as I say, a belief in magic),” Cashmore told PhysOrg.com. *
>> **
>> *There seems to be an evolutionary rightness and inevitability to the
>> idea that free will is taking its place as just another illusion like
>> vitalism, religion, aether, absolute time and space, geocentric universe,
>> single-galaxy universe and so on. But I think people will have an even
>> tougher time dealing with the implications of strict determinism. It's an
>> idea that could tear through the entire fabric of society even though
>> acceptance needn't change one's behavior in the slightest respect.     marty
>> a.*
>>
>>
>>
>> But it's certainly not a deterministic universe.
>>
>>
>> _http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0604/0604079.pdf_
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to