How about contaminated by the scientist's minds? Groupthink? Using instruments built for the sole purpose of creating the proof? Ignoring anomalies? The list is long, and I'm sure you know it. But, regardless, I think it is all very exciting.
"creating the proof" prediction , calculation,observation. there is an incredible difference between,.."creating the proof" or, "triggering the predicted event", making it visible. "groupthinking", what do we do in this very list of the moq-adepts , we think, observe , and sometimes we learn, we are evolving in our thinking. "ingnoring anomalies" take gravity for example , we do only understand 0.5 percent of what "gravity" means. Take time for example,... do we understand what time is , really?or empty space?. Einstein wrote it all out, in a mathematical way, without completely understanding it. But can we , therefore , ignore time, gravity space , or deny them? It is impossible to deny things as "existence" , just argumenting we do not understand them. Nobody can deny the working principle of an atomic bomb, but do we understand how it works? Exists? You don't mean as an independent entity? Okay, it conventionally exists. strangely as it seems , both values can be thrue, ...and at the same time , yes. a neutrino is an independant entity, until it interacts with the observer, then it conventionally exists. Greetzz, Adrie. 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/md/archives.html
