Hi Ron In as far as we are aware of unrealised possibilities they are real but not actual I'd suggest, any other suggestion seems to me essentialist or dualistic. 'It's all real' is my motto.
David M > > > >> >> Ron: >> no room for any argument there. I guess I was saying that getting >> caught up in possibility/probability is indulging in memory/projection >> function rather than any sort of objective Quantitative science. > > > DM: Very very wrong I believe, as quantum thoery superimposes waves of > possibility/probability > to work out how systems are objectively behaving. Yet the mathematics is > > referring to & superimposing nothing > actual only possibilities. See Prigogine's discussion in his The End of > Certainty. > > > Ron; > I agree, If you read the post pervious to this I explain this comment, > They are mathematical equations to predict the trajectory of particles. > It is based on what we already know about water and sound. > But as scientists say, this only somewhat successfully predicts > What they are observing, it is unknown whether particles actually > Do behave as waves. > But it is important to realized it is a tool for understanding > And prediction. > I was stating that to get caught up in metaphysical conversations > About it one must realize that it is just that, a tool for understanding > Not the actual function of reality itself. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
