[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[118]

Hi Andrie,
A comment below,
Cheers,
Mark

[Andrie]
According to quantum physiks,you cannot "just" observe something.
That is , quantum physiks recognizes that to make an observation,
you must interact with the object you are observing.

For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense,we shine a light on
it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it.
But shinig even a dim light on a tiny particle-
That is, shooting photons at it-does have an appreciable effect, and
experiments show that it changes the result of an experiment in just the way
that quantum physiks describes.
END-


So, reading your comment on Dan, i have to say, it sounds pretty arrogant to
take a position based upon some home-brew.

reading your interactions with Andre and Dan, i think i can honestly say,
Mark, that i'm under the strong impression that you are
fast cycling, ..are you getting bored with progress?
are you a fast cycler?
I don't really want an answer on this question, i already know it.

greetz, Adrie

[Mark]
Hi Andrie.  Arrogant?  OK, guilty.  Fast cycling?  Well I haven't seen more
fast cycling than what is going on in the forum, so:  All Guilty.

Now, Home Brew?
As you know, the measurement issue arrises out of foundational problems in
quantum mechanics.  As such it does not point to anything but such
foundational problems.  There are attempts at rectifying such problems
(google it).  These foundations were laid in the 1920s by a number of
physicists.  Einstein continued to work on other foundations, but was unable
to solve the problem.  This does not mean that such a solution does not
exist.

So, my admonition to Dan, and I guess now to You Andrie, is when you use
physics to somehow support a notion in Quality, you should be careful and
not say that such a thing has been SHOWN, because that is misleading.

When you state your opinion above in terms of a pumpkin, yes, you are using
a theory in quantum mechanics, and such interaction falls directly out of
the Schrodinger equation.  Does that show that such a thing has been proven?
 If so, you would bring up the notion of quantum vector collapse and its
implications to Quality, but I haven't heard that from you yet, maybe that
is coming, but I'm not sure how good your physics is.  So the Home Brew is
yours and not mine.  You are mixing in a few theories here, a few there, a
pinch of quality, some fantasy, a little Hawking, and poof, the stew is
done.  Please read carefully what I write next time before reacting.

Thanks,
Mark