From: "@adelphia.com   
      
   David Mitchell wrote:   
   > 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?   
   >   
   But information can, go faster then the speed of light.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)