From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:23:45 -0500, remove wrote:   
      
   > David Mitchell wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Y'now, somehow, I don't quite believe that.  I think it's probably more   
   likely _you_ who's misunderstood the philosophical consequenes.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I think it's perhaps more the case that objective reality exists, just   
   that it's a little stranger than we thought.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Doubt away.   
      
   > No "locality" thus no objective reality.   
      
   Disagree wildly with your interpretation of Bells Inequality.   
   If you assume decoherence, it all just... goes away.   
   Sure, entangled systems can somehow transfer information instantaneously,   
   so what?  We may not like it; but it can't be used to violate causality,   
   since you can't transfer information using it.   
      
   > The people you deride are much more in touch with the reality of the   
   > universe then you are.   
      
   In your opinion.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Why would you think that I'd learn only physics from before I was born?   
      
   > The universe is not made up of bricks.   
      
   Yes it is, it's just well-connected bricks.   
      
   > Your antiquated high school view of science is just flat out wrong.   
      
   When do you think I went to high school?   
      
   > Read the Tao of Physics.   
      
   I have.  It's light and fluffy; but contains no real meat.   
   "Mystics talk about 'spooky action at a distance', and so do physicists,   
   therefore the two must be the same thing".   
      
   Bleah.   
      
   I hope he's not your only source.   
      
   >   
   > I suggest you cut back on the strident and vocal disbelief of the   
   > possibility of leaving ones body.   
      
   I suggest you offer a reasonable explanation as to how QM lends any   
   credence to the idea.   
      
   > 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?????   
      
   Yes, I did know that.  Photons have no time, nothing else can go that   
   fast.  So everything else has time.   
      
   What's your point?   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)