this has to be Liar42 in another manifestation.........
"Greg Neill" <gneill at netcom.REMOVE.ca> wrote in message
news:oKCd6.7936$dm1.132337 at weber.videotron.net...
> 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
> > 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
> > very political, first of all. Second, hard to find the right candidate
> > do the test.
> > Anyway, even with all these difficulties, it is still worthwile to
> > 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
> > and the other guy in another room is asked to pick up such a card.
> > 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.