[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> if you were here with me, I am 100% certain that we would agree.   
   >   
   > Of course.  There's no point in even questioning that for too long.  We   
   > have so many other important questions to work on.  For instance, is   
   > there anything bothering any bit of your days?  How could we give you a   
   > better life?   
      
   Amen! A very important question that should be asked from time to time. I am   
   tomorrow leaving for a 2 month vacation. First 1 month in spain, then a weekend   
   in Lyon, and then a month in sweden. I am already looking forward to a lot of   
   good food in spain and 20+ C weather!   
      
   I am not looking forward to travel. Modern travel I find dehumanizing. It is   
   all   
   built around controlling the masses, and treating them as badly as possible,   
   while still taking their money.   
      
   If I had infinite amounts of money, I would travel by private jet. If I had an   
   infinitely compassionate wife I would not travel at all. I would be perfectly   
   content to spend the rest of my life in my house, deep in the forest, fishing.   
      
   I feel I have done enough for the world. I feel like I can retire to fishing   
   with a perfectly clear conscience. =D   
      
   >>> I'm quite okay with the keeping ``truth'' undefined.  I may have some   
   >>   
   >> Even if your life depends on it?   
   >   
   > My life would never depend on such intellectual matters.  Life depends   
   > on food, shelter and relationships.  We could easily argue here that   
   > you're likely valuing the intellect more than you should.  The intellect   
   > has to be kept on the leash.   
      
   What ever we make into an obsession, tends to control our lives. I prefer to be   
   in control, so it's always good not to get too focused and one sided about   
   things.   
      
   >>> Our senses also do make mistakes.  And some things can't come directly   
   >>> from the senses---what we see in a microscope, for example.   
   >>   
   >> True, but just because we sometimes make mistakes I do not think is   
   >> enough of an argument to refute completely the idea that what we can   
   >> confirm with our senses is not the truth.   
   >>   
   >> When it comes to the microscope, it is true, but at the end of the   
   >> day, we do use our senses to look into the microscope.   
   >   
   > Totally right.  When it comes to information, it has to come through the   
   > senses at least indirectly.   
      
   Amen!   
      
   >> My theory, conincidence, selective memory, and priming your psychological   
   >> filter.   
   >>   
   >> 1. Yes, sometimes it is just conincidence.   
   >>   
   >> 2. You think a lot of things, and forget a lot as well. If you think about   
   an   
   >> event x, and x never happens, you would have forgotten about it. If you   
   >> envounter event x, after first thinking about x, you'll say to yourself,   
   Oh, I   
   >> did think about x, how strange that I know encountered x.   
   >>   
   >> 3. When thinking about a thing deeply, you are in a way telling your   
   >> subconscious mind to be on the lookout for that. So when you filter your   
   1000s   
   >> of daily sense impressions, your usbconscious mind has been programmed to   
   >> "trigger" based on what you thought about.   
   >>   
   >> Those are my 3 theories around why that happens.   
   >   
   > My theory is that it's not that much of an improbable thing.  The reason   
   > I imagine this specific person is likely because she's a pretty likely   
   > one, in fact.  My imagination is never quite towards fantasy---it's   
   > always towards making sense of things and making things reasonable.  I   
   > probably choose to imagine the person that actually had some reasonable   
   > probability of coming over.  But what I find very funny is that I guess   
   > I was right.  And it didn't take very long for it to happen.   
      
   That's nice. =)   
      
   > Now, I certainly maximized the occurrence of the event because I'm   
   > always at the beach.  Nevertheless, though, it could be that somehow   
   > that's not the whole story.   
      
   Let's see tomorrow!   
      
   >> True! No hocus pocus at all! =)   
   >   
   > You see, we have this preference for destroying mystery.  Other people   
   > prefer the mystic.  We are more warranted in our preference than the   
   > others are in theirs, but we should do it very carefully because   
   > otherwise we're doing the same silly thing other people do.   
      
   It is dangerous to argue against peoples beliefs. That wakes up the worst in   
   people.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Well, from that point of view, we are lucky to have had a good education! I   
   just   
   look at the students I have today, and get depressed. =(   
      
   Last friday I had a meeting with the management of the school, and they forbade   
   me to have dead lines for assignments out of fear that fewer students will pass   
   the courses.   
      
   That's complete b.s. And I told them that they are prioritizing profit over   
   quality of education.   
      
   They smiled and said that no, they would like both profit _and_ education.   
      
   I said that that is unrealistic especially if they remove all demands, and want   
   courses to be easier. Then I asked them to imagine how their children would be   
   if they said yes to their every wish. Would that be how they raise their   
   children or do they teach them to respect dead lines, boundaries and work hard?   
      
   They said, well, you do have a point. But we are your customer, and we pay, so   
   we decide the rules.   
      
   And I had to agree with that, sadly. But at least I told them what will happen,   
   so now they cannot blame me when the credibility of their students degrees drop   
   in the market!   
      
   At least I won a small victory. Apparently they could possibly consider a dead   
   line in _one_ course, if the task is changed from lab to project. But probably   
   only in one course.   
      
   Very sad state of affairs. If this is a global trend, we are getting closer to   
   the end of civilization! =(   
      
   >>> 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   
      
   Hmm, sorry, I must have slipped on the keyboard. I actually have no idea what I   
   meant to say! =/   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   I feel perfectly content keeping the QM models separate from the   
   interpretations. If the models work for generating testable predictions, that's   
   fine by me. I feel no need for half baked interpretations. =) A simple way to   
   go   
   through life and to avoid a lot of useless metaphysical speculation! =D   
      
   >> 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.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)