Thanks for that compliment !
BTW Did you ever manage to tackle Bohm or Kuhn following our discussion here?.....
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=95519&highlight=
Yes I 'tackled' Bohm 25 years ago. That particular thread is why I said you have your own "view"of QM, that is different tham mine. But, alas, I had to learn it the way that I did in order to get my degree. My profs, never having heard of you, stuck with the old fashioned scientific/mathematical approach rather than the "philisohphical" approach to science.
If they ever got to A2K I'm sure that they would be embarrassed that they took the low road of following Borh, Feynmann, et all rather than the Fresco school of physics.
For exapmle, they saw the Copenhagen Interpretation as a wholly epistimological conclusion rather than a philisophical one. Thier flimsy reasoning was that those conferences were called to stricktly demarcate the epistimological issues of science that QM posed. So you can see what kind of irrational scientist I was dealing with to get my degree.
Then again they didn't take the tack that it equaled Borh's complimentarity, and just because Borh himself didn't suggest that the two were one and that interpretation came only decades later and usually from the casual non science audience, i.e. the philosophers.
So I think we can both agree that Co, Spendi, Real, et al are more on your intellectual plain than I. Don't worry I'll get over it.
The Correct Response: I don't think I've ever made your acquaintance before on A2K, but I can say that you're certainly a breath of fresh air here. Welcome aboard!
Nice to meet you Joe; yes I have come to the conclusion that I am not your average A2K bear. Sorry but my client just sent me the material I needed so back to work I go.
P.S. please don't tell them that I don't have a clue about science, as they are paying me rather well for all those things that I don't know anything about. Go figure!
TheCorrect Response,
This is a philosophy thread, I believe, so the agenda is by definition wider than the beliefs and practices of scientists. However, in that respect the "fresco school of physics" should perhaps more appropriately be called the "Capra school of physics", but thankyou for the thought !
BTW Kuhn had a lot to say about "towing the line"...its worth a a look.
TheCorrectResponse, I am in awe of your superiority and the irony with which you proclaim it.
Yea, right. I am the one with thousands or tens of thousands of posts on EVERY subject under the sun; who is never wrong about anything, even when my responses go against well know knowledge. I am the one who asks myriad questions just for the chance to tell responders how stupid they are for not accepting everything I say as fact, no matter how ridiculous, or contrary to accepted scientific principles my statements are. I am the one who repeatedly denigrates the standard scientific models of hosts of brilliant people who took years to refine them.
Or is the problem that I know what I know and what my limitations are? That I've been big, mean, and ugly all my life so I've never learned to be intimidated face-to-face let alone anonymously across the web? Or that I don't suffer fools gladly and am willing to point out when big words and convoluted sentences contain no meaning? Or is the biggest problem that I won't play the usual A2K game and that this is about the biggest rise you can get out of me without stuffing my butt full of brewers yeast?
Well I'll let the usual A2K suspects ponder these questions, as they are beyond my poor capabilities, and my clients are finally straggling into work for our meeting. Have a good one!
