Adrie, Please note that the address to the full text for both book reviews and response were available for further research. I was misleading no one.
Marsha On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:51 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > so what i meant to say , marsha, is that your article lead is leading people > to things like this > We really need to stay in tune with all off this material , Marsha, i really > think we need to pay attention. > If whe start stepping over details, we have no case, we cannot go to the > forrest if there are no trees. > > > Quote ANT PIRSIG, > Ant: > Yes, I think it is, though I’m not too sure about the “illusion” part; > “appearance” might be a better word. Anyway (in the context of the > SODV paper), this is what Pirsig wrote to me about space: > “I have thought about Bell’s theorem and what it might mean for > the MOQ and so far have concluded that this theorem is just more of > the same subject/object mess. ‘Local’ and ‘non-local’ presume a > physical space. Physical space is a subjective intellectual pattern, > which is presumed to correspond to an objective inorganic pattern. > These patterns are so entrenched they are some of the last to disappear > during the enlightenment process, but before pure Dynamic Quality is > understood they must go. The ‘nothingness’ of Buddhism has nothing > to do with the ‘nothingness’ of physical space. That’s one of the > advantages in calling it ‘Quality’ instead of ‘nothingness.’ It reduces > the confusion.” (Letter to Ant, June 1st 1996) > > > > shit , i forgot to EXALT it a little bit > > > 2010/9/18 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> > >> EMPHASED!! >> >> 2010/9/18 ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> >> >> "Exalt , well , no, i emhased it virtually to show the point that article's >>> like this contain >>> falsifications 'an sich' embedded or by association with occult science. >>> >>> -concider it or don't, well, leads like this are taking other people >>> towards the article without pointing out >>> towards the conflicting matters. probably you were not aware of this , and >>> probably people following the lead >>> are not , but leaving a part out of its contexts in this way is dangerous >>> and arose my suspicion. >>> >>> And of course , no , i am not a physician, i never said i was , i work in >>> a car factory,with my hands. >>> But i'm better than a shitload of them.I was studying all the books you >>> see, and i think its a good idea >>> for you to do so, this is encouraging. >>> Its not a very good idea to jump over the material. >>> >>> Like the Bell's theoreme,one has to be aware of all this kind of >>> contamination. >>> >>> Greetz, the log lady, Burps! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2010/9/18 MarshaV <[email protected]> >>> >>>> >>>> Adrie, >>>> >>>> >>>> I've posted a lot of stuff. Consider it or don't. Maybe the book >>>> will arrive today, and I will have more to post. >>>> >>>> By the way, are you a physicist? And why you exalt what >>>> you point out? I don't. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:13 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: >>>> >>>>> But you forgot the rest of the article Marsha >>>>> >>>>> I isolated a part from the article further on as i am very good in >>>> Nonlocal >>>>> &local reality's. >>>>> >>>>> comment on isolated part >>>>> >>>>> Their treatment of two-slit interference ranks right up there with (but >>>>> differs interestingly from) Feynman’s famous “comes in lumps” approach, >>>> and >>>>> their nontechnical description of Bell’s theorem is one of the best >>>> I’ve >>>>> seen, and by far the least mathematical. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3 problems >>>>> trying to ridicule Feynman is not a very good idea, this is adressed at >>>> the >>>>> autor. >>>>> >>>>> The Bell theorem. >>>>> The theorem is specifically rejected by most of the scientifical >>>>> world,because its a limp home formula. >>>>> it is under controverse since it was stated.Its rubbish. >>>>> >>>>> MR PIRSIG, specifically rejects the theoreme, in one of his annotations >>>> on >>>>> LILA'S CHILD,in a earlier stage of history. >>>>> He recognised very early that it was crap, and i happen to agree with >>>> him >>>>> and 99% of science. >>>>> PIRSIG rejects it for a reason, this is very easy to find back. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nb, i was already pointing out in a conversation with Mr Buchanan, some >>>> time >>>>> ago, that PIRSIG rejects the theoreme >>>>> It is still to be found back in the archives, or in the >>>> annotations >>>>> made upon LILA. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> this is only 1 leech to kill, there are more in the article... >>>>> sincerely yours , Pontius PILATUS, landlord of judea, the man on the >>>>> mountain. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2010/9/18 MarshaV <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> from American Journal of Physics Review of Quantum Enigma: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Take space-time, for example. We organize our perceptions into events, >>>> and >>>>>> for many purposes it is illuminating to represent those events as >>>> points in >>>>>> an abstract four-dimensional continuum. This is so useful that most of >>>> us >>>>>> reify this abstract scheme, believing that we inhabit a world that is >>>> such a >>>>>> four- (or, for a few of us, ten-) dimensional continuum. The >>>> reification of >>>>>> abstract time and space goes so far back in human history that it’s >>>> easy to >>>>>> miss the intellectual sleight of hand. The reification of electric and >>>>>> magnetic fields is more recent but also came to be taken for granted, >>>> until >>>>>> it started to unravel (for some of us) with the arrival of quantum >>>>>> electrodynamics. The strongest hints of how we have been fooling >>>> ourselves >>>>>> emerge when we try to reify quantum states, and thereby run into “the >>>>>> measurement problem” and “quantum nonlocality.” >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://quantumenigma.com/reviews-our-responses/ >>>>>> >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> parser >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> parser >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> parser >> > > > > -- > parser > 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 ___ 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
