[MD] Reifying carrots
MarshaV
valkyr at att.net
Sat Sep 18 10:15:34 PDT 2010
Adrie,
Please note that the address to the full text for both book reviews and
response were available for further research. I was misleading no one.
Marsha
On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:51 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> so what i meant to say , marsha, is that your article lead is leading people
> to things like this
> We really need to stay in tune with all off this material , Marsha, i really
> think we need to pay attention.
> If whe start stepping over details, we have no case, we cannot go to the
> forrest if there are no trees.
>
>
> Quote ANT PIRSIG,
> Ant:
> Yes, I think it is, though I’m not too sure about the “illusion” part;
> “appearance” might be a better word. Anyway (in the context of the
> SODV paper), this is what Pirsig wrote to me about space:
> “I have thought about Bell’s theorem and what it might mean for
> the MOQ and so far have concluded that this theorem is just more of
> the same subject/object mess. ‘Local’ and ‘non-local’ presume a
> physical space. Physical space is a subjective intellectual pattern,
> which is presumed to correspond to an objective inorganic pattern.
> These patterns are so entrenched they are some of the last to disappear
> during the enlightenment process, but before pure Dynamic Quality is
> understood they must go. The ‘nothingness’ of Buddhism has nothing
> to do with the ‘nothingness’ of physical space. That’s one of the
> advantages in calling it ‘Quality’ instead of ‘nothingness.’ It reduces
> the confusion.” (Letter to Ant, June 1st 1996)
>
>
>
> shit , i forgot to EXALT it a little bit
>
>
> 2010/9/18 ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
>
>> EMPHASED!!
>>
>> 2010/9/18 ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>
>>
>> "Exalt , well , no, i emhased it virtually to show the point that article's
>>> like this contain
>>> falsifications 'an sich' embedded or by association with occult science.
>>>
>>> -concider it or don't, well, leads like this are taking other people
>>> towards the article without pointing out
>>> towards the conflicting matters. probably you were not aware of this , and
>>> probably people following the lead
>>> are not , but leaving a part out of its contexts in this way is dangerous
>>> and arose my suspicion.
>>>
>>> And of course , no , i am not a physician, i never said i was , i work in
>>> a car factory,with my hands.
>>> But i'm better than a shitload of them.I was studying all the books you
>>> see, and i think its a good idea
>>> for you to do so, this is encouraging.
>>> Its not a very good idea to jump over the material.
>>>
>>> Like the Bell's theoreme,one has to be aware of all this kind of
>>> contamination.
>>>
>>> Greetz, the log lady, Burps!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/9/18 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrie,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've posted a lot of stuff. Consider it or don't. Maybe the book
>>>> will arrive today, and I will have more to post.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, are you a physicist? And why you exalt what
>>>> you point out? I don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:13 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But you forgot the rest of the article Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>> I isolated a part from the article further on as i am very good in
>>>> Nonlocal
>>>>> &local reality's.
>>>>>
>>>>> comment on isolated part
>>>>>
>>>>> Their treatment of two-slit interference ranks right up there with (but
>>>>> differs interestingly from) Feynman’s famous “comes in lumps” approach,
>>>> and
>>>>> their nontechnical description of Bell’s theorem is one of the best
>>>> I’ve
>>>>> seen, and by far the least mathematical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 problems
>>>>> trying to ridicule Feynman is not a very good idea, this is adressed at
>>>> the
>>>>> autor.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bell theorem.
>>>>> The theorem is specifically rejected by most of the scientifical
>>>>> world,because its a limp home formula.
>>>>> it is under controverse since it was stated.Its rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> MR PIRSIG, specifically rejects the theoreme, in one of his annotations
>>>> on
>>>>> LILA'S CHILD,in a earlier stage of history.
>>>>> He recognised very early that it was crap, and i happen to agree with
>>>> him
>>>>> and 99% of science.
>>>>> PIRSIG rejects it for a reason, this is very easy to find back.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nb, i was already pointing out in a conversation with Mr Buchanan, some
>>>> time
>>>>> ago, that PIRSIG rejects the theoreme
>>>>> It is still to be found back in the archives, or in the
>>>> annotations
>>>>> made upon LILA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this is only 1 leech to kill, there are more in the article...
>>>>> sincerely yours , Pontius PILATUS, landlord of judea, the man on the
>>>>> mountain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/9/18 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from American Journal of Physics Review of Quantum Enigma:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take space-time, for example. We organize our perceptions into events,
>>>> and
>>>>>> for many purposes it is illuminating to represent those events as
>>>> points in
>>>>>> an abstract four-dimensional continuum. This is so useful that most of
>>>> us
>>>>>> reify this abstract scheme, believing that we inhabit a world that is
>>>> such a
>>>>>> four- (or, for a few of us, ten-) dimensional continuum. The
>>>> reification of
>>>>>> abstract time and space goes so far back in human history that it’s
>>>> easy to
>>>>>> miss the intellectual sleight of hand. The reification of electric and
>>>>>> magnetic fields is more recent but also came to be taken for granted,
>>>> until
>>>>>> it started to unravel (for some of us) with the arrival of quantum
>>>>>> electrodynamics. The strongest hints of how we have been fooling
>>>> ourselves
>>>>>> emerge when we try to reify quantum states, and thereby run into “the
>>>>>> measurement problem” and “quantum nonlocality.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://quantumenigma.com/reviews-our-responses/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>>>> Archives:
>>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> parser
>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>>> Archives:
>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> parser
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> parser
>>
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
___
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list