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 <[email protected] <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 <[email protected]<javascript:> >> > wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes <[email protected] <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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
