The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]
effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au
Wed Dec 24 09:24:42 EST 2003
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%85Gb.10836$wL6.115 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Thank you for continuing.
> "Alex Green" <dralexgreen at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42c8441.0312230944.676e60ca at posting.google.com...
> > The energy density at an instantaneous point
> > in 3D space is a weird thing, remember Heisenberg?
> Honestly, I just cannot see any "uncertainty".
It is a weird thing because instantaneous points dont physically exist!
Everything is moving or changing (BTW, time IS correlations of changes
against a relatively regularly changing entropy increasing gradient - as Ken
might put it.
If Alex wants to 'justify' the Uncertainty Principle (which by the way does
not need any justification), why fight against it?
This since 1. You presumably want to have your theory seen as a theory that
explains much about neurology and behaviour, and, most importantly, to have
2. Presumably, you know that virtual particles and vacuum energy, and the
"Casimir effect" thus created, all *do* exist - no matter how strangely so;
3. That most people are not aware of , or are legitimately still uncertain,
about the string theoretical approach in fundamental physics.
[The mathematical "strings"-concept seems (to the few who know) to be a
better approach to solve equations and explain things of relevance in
fundamental physics, than to try to solve the same things by way of
mathematics based on the "point"-concept.]
Don't waste your energy to answer this post, Ken. Instead concentrate on
Lastly , *please* stop writing "keeping *tract*"!!! The word to use is
More information about the Neur-sci