Re: How did he get his information?

Le 03-juil.-05, à 06:55, Stephen Paul King a écrit : Charlatan, maybe... I have discovered that *many* scientist can be serious in a field and very bad or even charlatan in another field. It is certainly a reason to be skeptic of all authoritative arguments. Bruno

Re: joining.

Le 03-juil.-05, à 05:17, chris peck a écrit : The idea that the earth is an orb is not counter intuitive even though the earth is flat locally. It counters no logical principles. The idea that particles can be in more than one place at the same time is not counter intuitive because it is a

Re: How did he get his information?

Bruno, Stathis et al, What you say is clearly true. It's as though expertise in one field convinces some people, often those in charge surrounded by sycophants, that anything they say must be true. This is deplorable because these aberrant statements undermine all the true statements

where do copies come from?

My initial purpose in discussing copies on this list was as an analogy for the copies of an observer in other branches of the multiverse, to make a point about the significance of absolute versus relative measure in the QTI. However, the discussion has obviously taken off in a different

RE: More is Better (anesthetic)

Stathis writes [Lee wrote] I'm glad that even the appearance of pain in an unconscious patient is disturbing to physicians. That's very good. For the body to be experiencing pain---and presumably sending pain signals to the brain ---too closely resembles pain being experienced but with

Re: How did he get his information?

Hi Bruno, I agree. It is as if being very skilled in one field leads a person to the belief that they are infallible in any other. I have seen books that discuss this... Most of all, your point about arguments from authority must not be missed! ;-) Stephen - Original Message -

Re: Duplicates Are Selves

On Jul 4, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:You think that person A ought (in the ethical sense) to have a strong  desire for the future existence of person B - no less, in fact, than  for the future existence of person A.  You imply this when you say  the subject is selfish.  I see your point,

QM formalist wanted

hi all. I am posting a want ad for a QM formalist who is very conversant in the mathematical formalism. here is the proposal: over the last few years I have developed an ad hoc theory that I believe comes very close to the QM formalism. this theory is classical local. it is very easily