On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:07:55 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John 
> Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts 
> whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal' 
> randomness: the marvels are well fictionized to show such. 
> Even thinking in proper(?) conventional science terms: RANDOM occurrences 
> would eliminate the possibility of sci. prediction and proper conclusions. 
> Agnostic, or not.
>
> To John (Clark)'s PRIVATE(?) question: I stuck my nose into astrology 60+ 
> years ago, for a short while. Numerology was always one of my favorite 
> sources of laughter. 
>
 
I would recommend 
http://www.amazon.com/Numerology-Complete-Guide-Matthew-Goodwin/dp/1564148599#reader_1564148599
 
for Numerology. I don't know that it's especially funny, but it is very 
thorough and concise.

Craig

 

> My agnosticism is leaning on my successful 38 patents in conventional 
> polymer technology. I developed questions.
> I did not inform you about these facts to trigger more of your time for my 
> thoughts. 
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM, John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com <javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> John Clark:
>> the reason I 'post' is to get argumentation BEYOND the general negative 
>> you submit. Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale based on assumptions upon 
>> presumptions believed to be 'true'. Like: the 'physical world' in 
>> conventional science. 
>> I would love to learn from you (and others) if your post is reasonable 
>> and meaningful. No 'feelings', please. 
>>
>> Bell's inequality is within the EPR assumption (pardon me: thought 
>> experiment). The consequences are well thought of. Math-phys predictions 
>> and conclusions ditto. Conventional science is a useful practicality 
>> (almost true, that almost works well with some mishaps and some later 
>> corrections).
>> After 1/2 century successfully working within it I arrived at my agnostic 
>> stance. Believe it, or not, we still hve novelties to get by and they may 
>> change our as-(pre-)sumptions. 
>>
>> John  Mikes
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com<javascript:>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013  John Mikes <jam...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  > there is no random decay or anything else
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the 
>>> experimental evidence strongly indicates that  you are wrong about that.  
>>>  
>>> > only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation. 
>>>>
>>>  
>>> And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact 
>>> that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local 
>>> reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because 
>>> a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the 
>>> Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.  
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>  
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>>> To post to this group, send email to 
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>
>>
>

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


Reply via email to