Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking. So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree with what you wrote above. John K Clark Then your conclusion strikes me as facile in that you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion. This is another item from your grab-bag of rhetorical tricks. There is no logical contradiction in my assertion. I neither agree with it nor disagree with it. I present it as an observation. You clearly saw a (negative) value in what I wrote because you have responded to what I wrote. If you saw no value in it then you would simply pass over it and ignore it. You are once again self-referentially incorrect (ie lying to yourself - something I never thought was actually possible but you demonstrate that it is possible to lie to yourself in this forum on virtually a daily basis.) In real thinking you can be wrong and as bloody-minded as often as you want as long as you are right in the end ie when the thinking process reaches its conclusion. Being right in the end means having an outcome that offers a value that everyone sees. That is not the same thing as winning an argument. Being wrong is creative. Many discussions here become bogged down in argument which is anything but creative. I don't do argument. Argument is based on the clash of opinion and values. Argument is rarely about what is ostensibly being argued because it is mainly powered by the values of those participating in the argument none of whom ever admit that this is really what is happening. That's not science. Science is about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and convictions to one side as the topic is examined from a variety of viewpoints. You do argument all the time because it is the only way you have ever learnt to do thinking amongst a group of people. You see a dialectic process as a kind of battle where the winner is the one who is the most stubborn and self-convinced. Look, John - you have a lot to offer, I will certainly give you that. But as many have pointed out by now in so many different ways, you are more interested in winning armchair arguments and launching ad hominems than doing real science. Didn't your mommy love you enough when you were young, Sunshine? That's the only explanation that sticks for this chest-beating profile you have built for yourself. It's very disappointing because if only you would cease the ego-struck nonsense I believe you would get on with people here a whole lot better. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Not everyone wants to be happy
According to Scientific American, not everyone aspires to what might be called a self-centred type of happiness. Eastern cultures prefer social harmony - getting on with others rather than bettering them. Of course happiness through competition is almost a national religion in New Zealand, one feature of our culture that I particularly dislike. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/not-everyone-wants-to-be-happy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking. So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree with what you wrote above. you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion I didn't just seek it I found it, and I can't imagine a better way of invalidating a assertion than finding a logical contradiction in it. There is no logical contradiction in my assertion. I neither agree with it nor disagree with it. If you don't agree with what you write how do you find the energy to push the keys on your keyboard? And if your writing is so inofensive, bland and information poor as to elicit no reaction of any sort from anyone why should they bother to read such pablum? I present it as an observation. A observation that you don't agree is valid. You clearly saw a (negative) value in what I wrote because you have responded to what I wrote. True, but I'm not the one who wrote agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking and In fact I disagree with your statement. Being wrong is creative. Okey dokey I don't do argument. Then why wasn't that the only sentence in your post? you are more interested in winning armchair arguments and launching ad hominems than doing real science. Didn't your mommy love you enough when you were young, Sunshine? That's the only explanation that sticks for this chest-beating profile you have built for yourself. And unlike me at least you don't stoop to launching ad hominems. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 30 Oct 2014, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote: On 10/30/2014 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2014, at 00:12, LizR wrote: you can delete your posts (I think?) That is not so easy when a post has been already sent, I think, unless quantum delayed erasing perhaps (grin), but as zibbsay observes, I was not so much quibbling when saying that modern set theories does provide a span of infinities. With ZF, above ZF + kappa exists (kappa a large cardinal), the model of ZF becomes citizen of a set theory extension. You get the same of course with PA + PA is consistent, somehow, and the arithmetical is known *inexhaustible*, like Turing studied for its PhD with Church, and is well described in Torkel Fraenkel book The inexhaustible. Torkel Franzen. Oops. Sorry. It is Torkel Franzen, of course. His two books are very good, except that his book on use and abuse of incompleteness, is concentrated on the misuses. He does not cite Judson Webb, nor of course my work. It does allude that, contrary of many miuse of Gödel $against* mechanism, the formal theories and machines involved seem to have pretyy deep introspection power, though. It is of course not the Fraenkel of ZF (= Zermelo-Fraenkel). Thanks, Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 29 Oct 2014, at 21:14, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks for thinking of me. You are welcome. In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable. I wish you good health, but (as I know myself) that is something we control very partially. You might search on cannabis, as I know only one health problem for which cannabis is not helping (and I got it!). Bruno Richard On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote: On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: But the span of infinity is outside spacetime. I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it will contain infinities even in a finite region, which would mean that it's a mathematical abstraction that happens to be realised in the physical universe. But I don't think anyone knows if that is true at present, and I believe most theories of quantum gravity attempt to make spacetime into something other than a continuum. It looks like the natural idea. To quantize gravitation, we need to quantize space-time. But is not string theory still using the continuum in the background? Richard? Does not some experiment refute some granularity prediction of the loop-theory (which tries to make space time a non continuum)? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 29 Oct 2014, at 21:53, LizR wrote: On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks for thinking of me. In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable. Apparently eating lots of chocolate can help stave off dementia and even senior moments. That and a bottle of red wine a day. I am not entirely sure of that, but I know that a bad medication can be more helpful than a good one, when you like the bad one and believe in it. Bruno (And hell, even if they can't) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy. Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type of non local hidden variable, which seems to me adding more mystery than solving one. Because of quantum theory the interaction energy may or may not exceed particle-creation level. If the creation level is exceeded by not very much all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state else no particle is created. For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the Born probabilities. Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded, all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one state. That must be quantum collapse logic QCL. I am not convinced, but don't mind to much. I think we have some agreement on what we disagree on. Of course, in the computationalist theory, strictly speaking this belongs to open problems. Just that Everett gives the closest physics to the one we have to derive from computationalism, if I am correct. Bruno Richard On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Oct 2014, at 13:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: What- a delayed post eraser suggesting self-interference is extant(;) Glad you see the problem. I knew I couldn't be the only one :) Well, if QM is really 100% correct, we can't delete anything anyway. We can just hide things for some period, but that asks for relative works and energy. In math forgetting is abstraction. Bruno On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: you can delete your posts (I think?) On 30 October 2014 12:07, zibb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: Well that WAS the point of my original post... : D On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;) 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz, that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense. Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :) Bruce I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler . sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not quibbling today. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 31 Oct 2014, at 01:34, LizR wrote: I believe David Deutsch says there are lots of photons but only one Photon. What would that mean precisely? It would entail that there are a lot of david deutsch, but only one David Deutsch, but I am not sure the david deutsch can be OK with this, especially after differentiation. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Not everyone wants to be happy
On 10/31/2014 2:55 AM, LizR wrote: According to Scientific American, not everyone aspires to what might be called a self-centred type of happiness. Eastern cultures prefer social harmony - getting on with others rather than bettering them. Of course happiness through competition is almost a national religion in New Zealand, one feature of our culture that I particularly dislike. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/not-everyone-wants-to-be-happy Seems rather muddled. I think they're saying personal pleasure makes Westerners happy, while social approval makes Asian's happy. But then they start to use happiness as a synonym for pleasure, and conclude happiness is not the goal. I think of happiness and pleasure as rather transient and the goal (if there is one) is better captured by satisfaction - which can come from success in competition and also social acceptance. Over the years I competed in motorcycle racing it was a pleasure to win, but I was also accepted by my fellow racers. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy. Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type of non local hidden variable, which seems to me adding more mystery than solving one. Because of quantum theory the interaction energy may or may not exceed particle-creation level. If the creation level is exceeded by not very much all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state else no particle is created. For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the Born probabilities. Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded, all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one state. That must be quantum collapse logic QCL. I am not convinced, but don't mind to much. I think we have some agreement on what we disagree on. Of course, in the computationalist theory, strictly speaking this belongs to open problems. Just that Everett gives the closest physics to the one we have to derive from computationalism, if I am correct. Bruno I don't think Everett explicitly considered quantum field theory, but it's not conceptually different. A particle can be created or not, it's a probabilistic event. So in MWI there are worlds where the particle is created and worlds where it isn't. There are no worlds where a half-particle is created. This is just another example in which everything *nomologically* possible happens; which is not the same as everything imaginable (logically consistent) happens. Quantum mechanics puts lots of constraints on what can happen. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Span of Infinity
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote: I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy. Why not particles? But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type of non local hidden variable, which seems to me adding more mystery than solving one. I base my thinking on double-slit experiments where a single photon is transmitted at any one time and the detectors are set to record photons having the original energy/frequency. The experimental results indicate that only one photon is detected per one incident photon. With enough single-photon detections the interference pattern can be discerned at the detector plane. Yet EM theory suggests that the photon energy is spread across the entire interference pattern. So never mind what might be happening in other worlds, what makes all of the photon energy suddenly appear at just one detector. I certainly reject the idea that human consciousness makes all waves collapse into one. But I have a different idea that may or may not make sense. My conjecture is that the EM fields (or in general the wave functions in any particle-particle interaction) are entangled as though they are BECs. Experiments demonstrate that entangled BECs transmit information instantly between isolated but entangled BECs. If so, even if the photon energy is spread out across the entire pattern, the information of where the photon energy should go is available to the entire EM field. That does not allow you to predict where any particular photon detection will occur. But the instantaneous transfer of information may allow for a single photon detection for each transmitted photon. The alternative in single-photon experiments would be no detections at all since the EM field on any particular detector is insufficient to create a detection. If anyone buys this, I can also speculate on how wave functions could be BECs or act like them. Richard Because of quantum theory the interaction energy may or may not exceed particle-creation level. If the creation level is exceeded by not very much all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state else no particle is created. For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the Born probabilities. Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded, all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one state. That must be quantum collapse logic QCL. I am not convinced, but don't mind to much. I think we have some agreement on what we disagree on. Of course, in the computationalist theory, strictly speaking this belongs to open problems. Just that Everett gives the closest physics to the one we have to derive from computationalism, if I am correct. Bruno I don't think Everett explicitly considered quantum field theory, but it's not conceptually different. A particle can be created or not, it's a probabilistic event. So in MWI there are worlds where the particle is created and worlds where it isn't. There are no worlds where a half-particle is created. This is just another example in which everything *nomologically* possible happens; which is not the same as everything imaginable (logically consistent) happens. Quantum mechanics puts lots of constraints on what can happen. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:06:39 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: wrote: Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking. So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree with what you wrote above. John K Clark Then your conclusion strikes me as facile in that you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion. This is another item from your grab-bag of rhetorical tricks. There is no logical contradiction in my assertion. I neither agree with it nor disagree with it. I present it as an observation. You clearly saw a (negative) value in what I wrote because you have responded to what I wrote. If you saw no value in it then you would simply pass over it and ignore it. You are once again self-referentially incorrect (ie lying to yourself - something I never thought was actually possible but you demonstrate that it is possible to lie to yourself in this forum on virtually a daily basis.) In real thinking you can be wrong and as bloody-minded as often as you want as long as you are right in the end ie when the thinking process reaches its conclusion. Being right in the end means having an outcome that offers a value that everyone sees. That is not the same thing as winning an argument. Being wrong is creative. Many discussions here become bogged down in argument which is anything but creative. I don't do argument. Argument is based on the clash of opinion and values. Argument is rarely about what is ostensibly being argued because it is mainly powered by the values of those participating in the argument none of whom ever admit that this is really what is happening. That's not science. Science is about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and convictions to one side as the topic is examined from a variety of viewpoints. You do argument all the time because it is the only way you have ever learnt to do thinking amongst a group of people. This is why I don't care to engage John anymore for time being. In the frame/level he forces you to engage in, I gladly loose, because we're not seeing eye to eye anyway, as competitive ego-bashing is nothing I care for: I want to gain perspectives from discussion, not defend old familiar stuff religiously. Conflict and difference in position, yes. But riding that out and obsessing over the same stuff, no. I'll pass. He is radical in his atheism to the extent that he obsesses and talks more about god than most Christians I know. Similar for his game with comp. It's also clear he believes in reputation/status along with assuming an obviousness and accessibility of truth to him. Therefore he doesn't believe in defamation, because if your true reputation (plus the prizes you have won which should belisted in Wikipedia/Google of course) and the obvious/decidable truth content of your posts hold, you may, as somebody on top of religiously fanatical hierarchy, shame others into correctness; which doesn't mean agree to disagree while we go our ways, but instead constant barrage (which is simply spam or bot behavior to many outside his theological outlook) and iteration of the attacks, insults, mocking, and irrational repetition of linguistic tricks and slights of hand, which he knew how to do since before he was twelve. So believing in impossibility of defamation, you can nitpick and insult repetitively forever. You're on a religious mission to disseminate truth. By now, it's so predictable how he will respond to the next answer of Bruno regarding step 3 (fumbling the pronouns cheap shot, or trivial beyond belief). He knows these lines of argument and understands them. Therefore it is difficult to extend good faith in difference of positions. Like religious radical he will continue to post this way with complete disregard of whether what he is writing is true or not. He must scream/insult louder and win. Even if this takes forever. I'm bored of this business. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't care to engage John anymore No NO, anything but that! I'm bored of this business. Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking. So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree with what you wrote above. you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion I didn't just seek it I found it You seek to find the contradiction because that is what you set out to do. That is your taste, your armchair sport. You always find what you seek because one always does, given that attitude. In other words, you approach every statement, every assertion with a view to exposing error. That's the mindset of a religious cleric tasked with outing heretics who do not respect the faith. Someone else might see more positive value in wondering in what sense it might be worthwhile considering that agreement and disagreement are not a part of thinking - given that it sounds pretty radical as an assertion, yes. Most people I imagine, would wonder a little about this statement, but you, in typical chest-beating fashion, immediately set out to kill anything that doesn't fit into your world view. Have you ever wondered about anything, John, or do you, like the religious clerics of the middle ages, know everything there is to know? and I can't imagine a better way of invalidating a assertion than finding a logical contradiction in it. Tee hee hee. That then, allows you to set up the pyre in the town square and light the fagot to burn the heretic alive. Any assertion whatsoever has value. The assertion aeroplanes should land upside down has extraordinary value despite it's apparent absurdity. The value is not in the assertion itself but in what it provokes or leads to in the mind of those hearing it. This is something you have to learn. The value of anything is something that exists in your head, not in the thing itself. It is up to the thinker to find the value. This is a function of your mind that you haven't yet found. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
I ass-hume that was platonic, unless I changed my world beliefs, the dude, said he would block me, I demurred and so he did, and so I did back. It's been a bit nicer for me. Absolutists are a bore and sometimes dangerous to freedom. Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. John K Clark -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 3:51 pm Subject: Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction? On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: I don't care to engage John anymore No NO, anything but that! I'm bored of this business. Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
On 31 October 2014 23:55, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: This is why I don't care to engage John anymore for time being. In the frame/level he forces you to engage in, I gladly loose, because we're not seeing eye to eye anyway, as competitive ego-bashing is nothing I care for: I want to gain perspectives from discussion, not defend old familiar stuff religiously. Conflict and difference in position, yes. But riding that out and obsessing over the same stuff, no. I'll pass. Nicely summarised. Not just true of John (probably true to an extent of everyone here, though at least some of us try to overcome it when we find ourselves doing it) - but he appears to be the current *bete noire*. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience
On 1 November 2014 04:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Oct 2014, at 01:34, LizR wrote: I believe David Deutsch says there are lots of photons but only one Photon. What would that mean precisely? It would entail that there are a lot of david deutsch, but only one David Deutsch, but I am not sure the david deutsch can be OK with this, especially after differentiation. I think it means DD (or dd) has reified the wave function. Hence a photon we detect is part of a larger object described by the wave function (with no probabilities involved). He calls the larger, more multiversal version a Photon. IIRC. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?
Actually I think discussion of John Clark and his faults is off topic. How about taking it off line. Brent On 10/31/2014 12:56 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking. So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree with what you wrote above. you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion I didn't just seek it I found it You seek to find the contradiction because that is what you set out to do. That is your taste, your armchair sport. You always find what you seek because one always does, given that attitude. In other words, you approach every statement, every assertion with a view to exposing error. That's the mindset of a religious cleric tasked with outing heretics who do not respect the faith. Someone else might see more positive value in wondering in what sense it might be worthwhile considering that agreement and disagreement are not a part of thinking - given that it sounds pretty radical as an assertion, yes. Most people I imagine, would wonder a little about this statement, but you, in typical chest-beating fashion, immediately set out to kill anything that doesn't fit into your world view. Have you ever wondered about anything, John, or do you, like the religious clerics of the middle ages, know everything there is to know? and I can't imagine a better way of invalidating a assertion than finding a logical contradiction in it. Tee hee hee. That then, allows you to set up the pyre in the town square and light the fagot to burn the heretic alive. Any assertion whatsoever has value. The assertion aeroplanes should land upside down has extraordinary value despite it's apparent absurdity. The value is not in the assertion itself but in what it provokes or leads to in the mind of those hearing it. This is something you have to learn. The value of anything is something that exists in your head, not in the thing itself. It is up to the thinker to find the value. This is a function of your mind that you haven't yet found. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel universes. In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard science.The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanicsQuantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and effect.As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.However, the Many-Interacting Worlds approach developed at Griffith University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957, says Professor Wiseman.In the well-known Many-Worlds Interpretation, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all. On this score, our Many Interacting Worlds approach is completely different, as its name implies.Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that: - The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different; - All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through time, and possess precisely defined properties; - All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more dissimilar. Dr Hall says the Many-Interacting Worlds theory may even create the extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics, he says.In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor quantum theory.We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit quantum phenomena.The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of worlds could have significant ramifications in molecular dynamics, which is important for understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs.Professor Bill Poirier, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas Tech University, has observed: These are great ideas, not only conceptually, but also with regard to the new numerical breakthroughs they are almost certain to engender. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Chris, let me reflect to '2' words. (I never studied QM, have some glimpse as a polymer chemist, so I do NOT argue against the theory) 1. *Parallel * In what sense are 'universes' compared to be deemed parallel? I presume in my agnostic views that there may be many more visions in which 2 systems may be deemed parallel (or: antiparallel?) They may diverge in time, spacial extension, forcefields, lifespan, etc. etc. In my narrative (I never called it a 'theory') the perfectly symmetrical and equilibrated Plenitude (imaginary vision of Everything in balance) there are inevitably items getting grouped together in a way that violates the perfect symmetrical distribution (complexities?) and I called those 'universes'. They re-dissipate into the perfect symmetry right as they formed (in our case: viewed from the INSIDE as a long long time in our Space-Time views). Such 'universes' have different compositions according to the items forming them, at least I did not project/propose any rules to their composition. We know nothing about the Plenitude (word taken from Plato). 2.a quote from the URL:* 'microscopic'* *(Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter.) * 'Microscopic to what? to our human sizes? to the sub-Planck, or the galaxy-size extensions? Again my agnostic views: who knows what worlds do exist in quite different orders of magnitude from our habituel rulers? Just tasting words John Mikes Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel universes. In a paper published in the prestigious journal *Physical Review X*, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard science. The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanics http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/ Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and effect. As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. However, the Many-Interacting Worlds approach developed at Griffith University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field. The idea of parallel universes http://phys.org/tags/parallel+universes/ in quantum mechanics has been around since 1957, says Professor Wiseman. In the well-known Many-Worlds Interpretation, each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese. But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all. On this score, our Many Interacting Worlds approach is completely different, as its name implies. Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that: - The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different; - All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through time, and possess precisely defined properties; - All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more dissimilar. Dr Hall says the Many-Interacting Worlds theory may even create the extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds. The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics, he says. In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor quantum theory http://phys.org/tags/quantum+theory/. We also believe that, in providing a new
Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I wonder if this provides any means to interact or make contact with these world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but the study kind of seems to direct the mind towards that possibility. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM Subject: RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact div id=AOLMsgPart_2_3d507391-d676-474e-977d-de8ab493868a div class=aolReplacedBody div style=color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:lucida console, sans-serif;font-size:16px div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071 div id=aolmail_yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_4545 div style=color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:lucida console, sans-serif;font-size:16px; id=aolmail_yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_4544 div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2808 dir=ltr span style=font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_3054Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics/span div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2808 span style=font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 /span /div div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2808 span style=font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2878br class=aolmail_yiv3786148071br class=aolmail_yiv3786148071span class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2864Read more at: /spana rel=nofollow target=_blank class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2857 style=color:rgb(49, 61, 87);outline-width:0px;background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255); href=http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp;http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp/a /span /div div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2808 /div div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2808 span style=font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2840Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel universes./span /div div id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2807 /div div style=padding-bottom:17px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.4; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2806 In a paper published in the prestigious journal i style=margin:0px;padding:0px; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2843Physical Review X/i, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard science. /div div style=padding-bottom:17px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.4; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2805 span style=background-color:rgb(253, 239, 43); id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_3053The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about a rel=nofollow target=_blank class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 style=color:rgb(49, 61, 87);outline-width:0px; id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2899 href=http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/;quantum mechanics/a/span /div div style=padding-bottom:17px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.4; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071 id=aolmail_yiv3786148071yui_3_16_0_1_1414788982153_2845 Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and effect. /div div style=padding-bottom:17px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.4; class=aolmail_yiv3786148071
Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail I do know that philosopher, Eric Steinhardt, has worked on the concept of parallel universes, and the notion of some kind of immortality, but I think at last post, Steinhardt believes that each universe is it's own world line and thus no information flows betwixt and between each parallel world. This is a bit different than the science paper just presented. -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 05:36 PM Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact div id=AOLMsgPart_2_4228ba53-7fca-478a-9995-973c5186a66f div class=aolReplacedBody div dir=ltr Chris, let me reflect to '2' words. (I never studied QM, have some glimpse as a polymer chemist, so I do NOT argue against the theory) div div 1. bParallel /b b /b In what sense are 'universes' compared to be deemed parallel? I presume in my agnostic views that there may be many more visions in which 2 systems may be deemed parallel (or: antiparallel?) They may diverge in time, spacial extension, forcefields, lifespan, etc. etc. In my narrative (I never called it a 'theory') the perfectly symmetrical and equilibrated Plenitude (imaginary vision of Everything in balance) there are inevitably items getting grouped together in a way that violates the perfect symmetrical distribution (complexities?) and I called those 'universes'. They re-dissipate into the perfect symmetry right as they formed (in our case: viewed from the INSIDE as a long long time in our Space-Time views). Such 'universes' have different compositions according to the items forming them, at least I did not project/propose any rules to their composition. We know nothing about the Plenitude (word taken from Plato). 2.a quote from the URL: b 'microscopic'/b span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxi(Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the umicroscopic/u scale, and is believed to apply to all matter.) /i/span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px'Microscopic to what? to our human sizes? to the sub-Planck, or the galaxy-size extensions? /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxAgain my agnostic views: who knows what worlds do exist in quite different orders of magnitude from our habituel rulers? /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxJust tasting words/span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxJohn Mikes/span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px /span span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxi /i/span br style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxRead more at: /span a style=color:rgb(49,61,87);outline:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px target=_blank href=http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp;http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp/a /div /div div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex div style=color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:lucida console,sans-serif;font-size:16px div div div style=color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:lucida console,sans-serif;font-size:16px div dir=ltr span style=font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14pxSounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics/span span style=font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:14px /span span
