[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.   
   >>>> That's when thought escapes from the leash.   
   >>>   
   >>> Agreed! That is why I do not care much for interpretations of quantum   
   >>> theory as well. Plenty of thoughts escaping from the leash there, and   
   >>> plenty of useless (in my opinion) speculation.   
   >>   
   >> The case of quantum mechanics is a necessary one, though.  Yeah, surely   
   >> there's a lot of imagination there, but I think that's part of science.   
   >   
   > Oh yes... I am not against imagination and speculation, if that serves   
   > to motivate a person, or inspire him, or help him advance theories. My   
   > main beef is when people confuse speculation and theorizing, with what   
   > we can or cannot prove. Mistaking the map for the real world so to   
   > say.   
      
   Most people hardly have an education.  They don't know what a theory is   
   and what speculation is very well.  Unfortunately.   
      
   >> Quantum mechanics is giving us great philosophical problems.  It's a   
   >   
   > Yes!   
   >   
   >> very hard read, but to see them all you could skim a quantum theory book   
   >> by descant.   
      
   Lol---what?!  By descant?  Lol.  That's a spurious end of sentence.  I   
   was totally offline, unable to look anything up, but I wanted to make a   
   reference to the book   
      
     ``On Physics and Philosophy'', Bernard d'Espagnat   
      Princeton University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0-691-15806-8   
      
   Not recommended reading.  It's very difficult.   
      
   >> Interpretation of quantum mechanics force us to make up our minds   
   >> about how we want to see the world.  The fun thing is no   
   >   
   > I think we are never forced to make up our minds. I am happily   
   > agnostic about the interpretations of QM and I live my life just   
   > fine. I am just content to note that some interpretations are absurd,   
   > some impossible (in my opinion) some meaningless, and some I do not   
   > understand.   
      
   It's a real puzzle.  It's not about choosing axioms one would prefer.   
   Any choice is problematic.  That's the fun.  Reading d'Espagnat would   
   clarify how puzzling it is, but reading it would also be a problem in   
   itself.   
      
   >>>> Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help   
   >>>> you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really   
   >>>> would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that   
   >>>> nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.   
   >>>   
   >>> I find the Dodo effect quite facsinating. It says that it is not the   
   >>> school of psychology that makes a difference in therapy, but only the   
   >>> person.   
   >>   
   >> I had never heard of it and I can't look up anything right now, but it   
   >> makes perfect sense to me.  The inner is the outer.  What a person lives   
   >> in the outside is a reflection of you'd find on the inside.  A   
   >> therapist, like any intelligent person, can be of help, but you can't   
   >> put your life in order if you are not able to find order where you   
   >> should be looking.   
   >   
   > Like the buddha said somewhere... he cannot do the work for you. You   
   > have to do the work (meditate, live a good life) yourself if you want   
   > peace. Buddha can facilitate, point in the right direction, but you   
   > have to do the work to experience the result.   
      
   Yeah.  No royal road---a beautiful law of nature.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)