science = determinism? (Schrodinger: algorithm or phenomena?)
kpaulc at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 30 05:38:29 EST 1999
i did. it's just that everyone prefers the the long-familiar view of physical
reality to the new one that i've laid at folks' feet. i've no doubt what the
eventual outcome will be. meanwhile, i agree with Lincoln that a man has not 'time'
enough for quarrels, so i use mine to just work.
forgive me, please. i wish not to 'offend'. it's just that i'm tired of reiterating
the same stuff over and over again, only to be Censored-more. ken
Peter da Silva wrote:
> In article <383FAD5A.5DA023B4 at earthlink.net>,
> kenneth Collins <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > they are engineered with the a priori presumption of 'particles', so they 'see
> > particles', when everything is continuous.
> You know, Einstein's Nobel Prize was for explaining an experiment that saw
> particles when everyone assumed everything was continuous. If you can come
> up with a better explanation of the photoelectric effect, or with some kind
> of experiment that would differentiate your energy soup universe from the
> one everyone else works with, you might be able to get somewhere.
> In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <peter at baileynm.com>
> `-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
> 'U` "And now, little kittens, we're going to run across red-hot
> motherboards, with our bare feet." -- Buzh.
More information about the Neur-sci