So this is what this thread is about (how Kathy just explained it). I once read
in a book (on love trying to explain love, soul mates, etc) and it said that
when two people meet or cross paths they are connected by their energies
forever. If it's a strong energy, such as love, then that is why one can pick
up on another's thoughts of that person or feelings. This was explained as part
of quantum theory and I've always wondered about that. Is it part of quantum
theory when I think of a close friend the phone rings and that is them on the
Have a Good Day!
Antoinette Arsic (03)
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxx>
> Pat did NOT say we can choose our science to justify our views of the
> world! Quite the contrary. He said there are several different
> observationally equivalent interpretations of quantum theory. That is
> a very different thing.
> The empirical predictions of quantum theory have, as Pat pointed out,
> been confirmed to extremely high precision. Any theory that does
> *not* make identical predictions for experiments conducted to date
> would not qualify as science. That is a very severe constraint. We
> can't just take any old worldview and make up a science to justify
> it. It is *hard* to come up with a worldview that conforms to the
> predictions of quantum theory.
> As Pat pointed out, an interpretation of quantum theory is a story to
> make sense of the mathematics. In each of these stories, the
> experimental set-up and the experimental results observed by
> scientists are *identical*. They must be, if the storyteller is a
> legitimate scientist. Where they differ is in what purportedly
> happens "behind the scenes" -- the part of Nature that the scientists
> cannot observe directly.
> One way of looking at this is it's just a storytelling exercise. You
> tell your story, and I tell mine. Neither of us can be proven right
> or wrong. Indeed, it's more likely (IMHO) that we're all wrong. Our
> imaginations are, after all, rather limited in comparison with what
> Nature is capable of doing. So this storytelling thing is just a
> meaningless game. To my understanding, that was what Bohr tried to
> do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Use quantum theory as a set
> of mathematical rules to predict the results of experiments, but
> don't even try to figure out what Nature is "really doing."
> Input-output rules are all we're going to get.
> Another way of looking at it is that it is a good thing to have
> multiple stories, each with its passionate adherents -- because this
> is the way science progresses. Each scientist loves her favorite
> story, and tries to devise experiments that would support it and
> knock holes in the others. Eventually, someone comes up with a story
> -- and math to go with it -- that agrees with the well-validated
> experimental evidence and predicts things the other stories don't.
> That's real progress. We are not there yet with quantum theory, but
> it's not for want of trying. Nevertheless, it has been less than a
> century -- so perhaps it's just a matter of time.
> At 8:45 AM +0100 12/9/07, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
> >Christopher Menzel wrote:
> >> On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:59 AM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
> >>> In this account, there is no 'collapse', so its a hard stretch to
> >>> posit that consciousness causes or results from it.
> >>> luckily we can all have our favourite choice of science to justify
> >>> our views of the world
> >> So, let's see, we have our worldview and then we choose the science
> >> that fits. Great! I choose Young Earth Creationism. Man, that was
> >> easy!
> >provided that YEC is science...
> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)