From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 01 May 2006 11:01:08 +0000, John D wrote:   
      
   > David, Thanks for the reply...   
      
   You're welcome.   
      
   >>> No. But since I've watched "What the bleep do we know?" I've started to   
   >>> wonder if this is a dream and all is not as it seems.   
   >>   
   >> You would have to stretch the meaning of "dream" way beyond the point at   
   >> which it snapped.   
      
   > Okay, by dream I mean that things are as they seem because that is how   
   > we are conditioned to believe they are. Perhaps if we believed we could   
   > physically move from one location to another using thought, we could.   
      
   Why should belief make any difference?   
   There are any number of people with deeply held beliefs which turned out   
   to be false.  If belief was all it took to change reality, things would be   
   a lot more fluid than they are.   
      
   >> The idea that "all this is an illusion" is at least as old as buddhism;   
   >> but, IMO, it doesn't really make sense as a philosophy, if only for the   
   >> reason that it makes no difference.  Whether you call it a dream, or   
   >> not it's completely real to those within it.   
   >>   
   > Completely real because that's what we believe...   
      
   See above ;-)   
      
   >   
   >> You could equally well assert that this is all a vast simulation in   
   >> some computer (which is actually quite likely, according to some   
   >> philosophers).   
   >>   
   >>> The idea that   
   >>> nothing is solid, everything is energy, the components that make up   
   >>> everything blink out of existence and then back in... where do they   
   >>> go?   
   >>   
   >> They don't.  It's true that "empty" space is full of "virtual"   
   >> particles, which flicker in and out of existence before the universe   
   >> really notices they are there, but your ordinary "solid" matter is just   
   >> that.  ("solid" here has the traditional meaning of "being mostly   
   >> empty" ;-)   
   >   
   > Years ago, scientists found that electrons are not always where they are   
   > supposed to be.   
      
   Are you talking about the fact that electrons are small enough that   
   their wave equation is bigger than they are, so that their location can   
   only be accurately described in terms of probability?   
      
   > Sometimes they are in the "wrong" valence, sometimes   
   > they are not in this dimension.   
      
   I'd like to see a cite for this, because it's not how I understand physics   
   at that scale.   
      
   What other "dimension" are you talking about, BTW?   
      
   > They blink out...   
      
   Again, I'd like to see a cite for this, since I don't think that they do.   
      
   > Now, they believe that   
   > the protron and neutron are not actually "solid" but energy that exibit   
   > the same properties as the electrons, blinking in and out of   
   > existance...   
      
   No they don't!   
      
   They believe (strongly) that protons and neutrons are made of quarks.  The   
   term "solid" (in the everyday sense) isn't really applicable here, neither   
   is "energy" really.   
      
   The best guess at the moment is that quarks are vibrating "things" in 11   
   dimensions.   
      
   > And by dimensions I meant parallel universes. I am aware the Unified   
   > String Theory.   
      
   What kind of parallel universes are you talking about?   
   If you're talking about the MW interpretation of QM, then, in theory   
   AFAIK, it's not possible to transfer anything from one universe to another   
   (if only because there are 10**100 of them splitting off per second, and   
   we'd notice :-)   
      
   If you're talking about the parallel universes which might exist along the   
   other 11 dimensions, well, AFAIK only gravity can cross from one to   
   another.   
      
   > David, you seem to fit the paradime that I'm questioning.   
      
   Not entirely sure what this means. (And it's "paradigm" ;-)   
      
   > Can we affect this existence by realizing that we can?   
      
   I don't think so.  Some do; but they have yet to provide good evidence for   
   those claims, IMO.   
      
   > What is the point of evolution?   
      
   There is none.  It's a process, and incapable of having a point.   
      
   > Where is it going?   
      
   Again, it's not "going" anywhere.  It just _is_.   
      
   > If you haven't seen the movie, try it... then get back to me.   
      
   It's not on DVD here yet.  From the reviews I've seen it's mainly students   
   at MIU talking nonsense.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = 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)