i: Fascinating, but also very reaching. The author uses the mathematical models of quantum physics to explain the nature of uncertainty, and at the end of the article, criticizes the Mathematics that scientists adhere to.
M: You say the author does that but can you be specific as to how he uses discredited math to later support math or whatever it is you see?
i: He attacks the traditional concepts of time & space. Concepts, that, still today are in revision. While he makes salient points that grant purchase to his skepticism of our current understanding of these entities, he does little to bolster his own view other than coaxing the reader to suspend disbelief, if only for a moment and imagine that the world is contigent on his or her perception of it.
M: How so. I am not really somebody who just takes people's word for things. For example, I might say, he doesn't either and while you might be right, somebody who likes my name better might agree with me.
i: And yet fact remains that stray bullets can kill a man, whether the shot was heard, seen, imagined, or perceived. Perception does indeed affect outcomes, as the author clearly stated, but it does so according to physical laws, however indeterministic, not whim; not fancy.
M: This is a distinction with a difference? If consciousness creates the universe it does so according to law and not whim, no?
Again, the brave are overwhelmed.[/quote]
Facebook
Twitter