Hoo-boy! Here we go again...
Kwok-Man Hui <kmhui at math.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.30.0101301026160.20443-100000 at tux2.math.duke.edu...
>> Hi, Everyone,
>> I usually don't want to spend time to talk something like that, but indeed
> people really don't understand the tremendous impact of the existence of
> telepathy on science.
What existence? It has never been shown to exist in any scientific
test. This is not an auspicious start.
>> Doing the experiment to confirm such an existence is not easy because it's
> very political, first of all. Second, hard to find the right candidate to
> do the test.
> Anyway, even with all these difficulties, it is still worthwile to conduct
> the test if you realize its impact on science.
It's been done. Countless times and by numerous investigators.
Telepathy has not been shown to exist.
>> Suppose two guys locked up in two different rooms, not too far away from
> each other. A guy with telepathic power sends out a description of a card
> and the other guy in another room is asked to pick up such a card. Repeat
> and repeat such trial. See the probability whether exceed pure chance.
>> If the test result is positive, I can see that it immediately poses
> tremendous explanation demand from neuroscience, condensed matter
> physics, physics, and psychology.
Indeed. That's why the tests were done. They came up empty; the
test results were *negative*.
[snip of pointless ramifications of the nonexistent positive result]
>> I think the most perplexing part is around the physics. i.e. what is the
> physical theory behind this factual phenomenon?
It is not factual. There is no positive result. You are making
leaps not warranted by logic. You have no case, yet you go on to
speculate about the consequences of your non-existent thing -- which
I have mercifully snipped.