From: "@adelphia.com   
      
   David Mitchell wrote:   
   > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:53:53 -0500, remove wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>David Mitchell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:20:11 -0500, remove wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>Sorry, Quantum absolutely proves that the universe does not exist.   
   >>   
   >>Can't hide behind some misconception of a nonexistent interpretation as   
   >>an excuse to deny the math.  Might want to check into John Bell's theorem.   
   >   
   >   
   > I'd like to hear what _you_ think Bell's work proves, 'cause I don't think   
   > it's that "the universe doesn't exist."   
      
   What it says is as in the micro so in the macro.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>Take heart, you are in good company most physicists don't understand it   
   >>either. Who can deny the world exists when you are standing on it   
   >>........ROFLMAO   
   >   
   >   
   > Since you disagree with "most physicists" is there any reason why I should   
   > take seriously anything you say?   
      
   I don't care one bit if you believe anything I say or not.  I said most   
   physicists don't understand it.  Perhaps I should have said most   
   physicists don't understand the philosophical consequences of it.   
      
   You use science to belittle the views of people on this news group when   
   you really don't understand that the very science you hold in such   
   regard says that the world does not exist.  No objective reality exists.   
      
   Sorry that is what it says.  Yes it does.   
      
   Do you understand the dual nature of light?  Particle AND wave?  Do you   
   really understand the significance of what that really means?  Do you?   
    From your comments I doubt it very much.   
      
   Well Bells theory proved that any deterministic theory which preserved   
   "locality" would have certain consequences for measurements preformed at   
   a distance from one another.  Thus the correlation between the sets of   
   events is much stronger then any "local" deterministic theory could   
   allow.  Whats more, this stronger correlation is PRECISELY that which is   
   predicted by quantum physics.   
      
   You can not have the comfortable Newtonian world where everything that   
   happens is predictable and where one measurement site could not affect   
   another set of measurements being preformed light years away, at a   
   distance that a light-signal could not bridge.   
      
   No "locality" thus no objective reality.   
      
   The people you deride are much more in touch with the reality of the   
   universe then you are.  As I say they have stepped off of Albert   
   Einstein's "train world" and saw the rock drop in a different way.   
      
      
   You don't get, that you don't understand, that science does not agree   
   with what you think it says.  It has not for over sixty years.   
      
      
   The universe is not made up of bricks.   
      
   Your antiquated high school view of science is just flat out wrong.   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >>Good catch on the cartoon, really sharp.   
   >   
   >   
   > Thank you.  I'm a fan.   
   >   
   You seem very intelligent.  Clever enough to have caught the reference   
   to a cartoon not shown anymore due to it's political incorrectness.   
      
   Read the Tao of Physics.   
      
   I suggest you cut back on the strident and vocal disbelief of the   
   possibility of leaving ones body.   
      
   By the way you do realize that as you approach the speed of light time   
   goes to zero.  Therefore light can not experience time.  No time?   
   Hummm?????   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)