Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (8244)	3/13/2001 12:48:46 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Feynman said, "A positron is an electron moving backward in time." Would that hold for anything bigger than a lepton, e.g. a proton and anti-proton or something? Meanwhile, on the further fringes of physics, this showed up today: Even Without Evidence, String Theory Gains Influence nytimes.com I find this 10-11 dimensional stuff a trifle obscure on the anthropic reality level. As an old usenet reader, though, you might be amused to see John Baez quoted in this article.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (8244)	3/13/2001 1:43:14 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If you do all the math I thought Godel already did that?!... From Russel: It can be shown that a mathematical web of some kind can be woven about any universe containing several objects. The fact that our universe lends itself to mathematical treatment is not a fact of any great philosophical significance. True Reality just doesn't mesh very well with our notions of anthropic reality! Did YOU say True REALITY?! :) Now...you are placing the argument within a commonly held concept of time. By doing this you are closing the door on the intuitive argument. For instance, the "10 minutes ago" might have been in a parallel universe. Furthermore, a "logical possibility" in philosophy is independent of fact in science or mathematics. Once again, Godel showed that mathematics was unreliable, and he showed it by (arbitrarily) relying on philosophical logic as a higher order. Logic may or may not be reliable, but he used it to trump the certainty of mathematics. Having said that, I have no problem with: "time simply is a memory of probability relationships. Past relationships (states becoming less likely) are being compared with other states (becoming more probable)". However, my ideas are behind QM, so how can you possibly see and critique them?! :) And what do you mean, (I am) "...trying to be "God""?!! :) I believe you deceive yourself: Then I have succeeded. You are trying to be "God", but the fabric of the universe doesn't permit such manipulations - Where is your brother? What have you done? I made it clear that the task of recreation was an impossible one. It is impossible for you to physically eat the moon (probably, but I've never met you); But it is logically possible and therefore can be used in an argument. I want you to slaughter a huge ram and soak your big toe in the blood; Also put some blood on your pinky and your left ear and spatter the rest in a 4 square cubit area. Make it real messy. Tomorrow I'll teach you how to crochet doilies!