--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is it about QP and consciousness that gets people > > > > > annoyed? For me it's the idea that there isn't a world > > > > > outside of my perception of it. > > > > > > > > Or, as another physicist working on fundamental theories > > > > of nature put it: "If consciousness isn't the only thing > > > > to collapse quantum waveforms (which it isn't) why should > > > > anyone think it's the *only* thing that collapses them?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hagelin's vedic definition of consciousness boils down to the QM > > > definition > > > when you look at it closely. As I said, there's no controversy in the > > > claim at > > > its most basic level because consciousness noting its own existence is no > > > different > > > than self interactions between the fundamental elementary thingie > > > (superstring?) > > > that is the basis of QM. Only if you insist that there is no fundamental > > > thingie > > > do you run into problems when making the comparison at that level. > > > > > > > > > The question arises: does analysis at this level yield anything > > > useful/insightful/ > > > significant? Hagelin claims it does. > > > > Good for him. I actually admire the string theory > > pioneers. Where would we be if everyone stayed with > > the herd and never tried new ideas? We'd probably > > still be sitting in caves and throwing rocks at each > > other. > > > > The trouble with JH is that he claims to have actually > > *achieved* Einsteins goal of grand unification. Which is > > nonsense, obviously. Why doesn't he just say "I've got > > an idea about this......"? > > > > I don't know, maybe he's happier being a big fish in a > > small pond. > > > > > Ego + need to fulfill (or to appear to fullfill) his guru's expectations, > I suspect.
Ooh, Bad science! L. > > >
