Since Dick is away, I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a different kind of discussion on his work. It's not like we can talk about anything else here anyway.

I am in no position to evaluate his work. I think some of the stuff he says makes a lot of sense, but the truth of the matter really lies in the math, and I have neither the training nor the interest to evaluate it closer than I already have. For the most part, I think the greatest value in his work is to force people to think, and I can probably say he's been quite successful at that.

On a more practical side, and as far as my meager knowledge of physics allows me to see, I think his paper points the way to solve one specific dilemma in modern physics, even though Dick himself didn't solve it. That would be the conflict between quantum mechanics and relativity. I think one has to be too silly to believe the universe behaves differently depending on how you choose to describe it. To me that makes no sense at all. More likely, someone blundered.

That someone, I believe, was Einstein. Einstein was quite smart and his achievement cannot be lightly dismissed (inconsequential remarks aside), but he was no god. Most problematic with Einstein's work are his ideas about time, which not only are totally counterintuitive but can actually be demonstrated to be self-contradictory. Even I can understand that!

I think it's quite possible that the reason relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics is simply because relativy is wrong. Not blatantly wrong, and certainly not wrong according to its own premises, only inconsisten with some basic premises of the rest of physics.

As far as I can tell, and despite all the noise and outrageous claims, I think Dick is absolutely right in demanding that physicists be as rigorous with their definitions as they possibly can. I think he's far from being alone in that regard.

The rest of his claims, well, I found them more fun than relevant, and I have a hunch that so does he.

I just thought I'd make my position clear.

• Name one theory that is completely right - harvey1 - April 4, 2002 - 20:05 UTC
  • That was beside the point - aurino - April 4, 2002 - 21:20 UTC
    • How about 'none of the above'? - harvey1 - April 4, 2002 - 21:49 UTC
      • Two cents - dolphin - April 5, 2002 - 06:41 UTC
        • Your change - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 14:28 UTC
          • Escaping the word-jungle - dolphin - April 6, 2002 - 08:20 UTC
        • Understanding the nature of truth - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 15:32 UTC
          • Just some quick comments! - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 19:26 UTC
            • Truth and reality - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 20:13 UTC
              • Sorry, I won't comment on this! - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 21:02 UTC
                • I like that response - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 21:18 UTC
      • Amen, professor - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 14:38 UTC
        • Reference frames - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 15:15 UTC
          • "Forever and a day" and other nonsense - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 16:23 UTC
            • I never thought you were in third grade - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 16:59 UTC
              • I know you don't - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 18:08 UTC
                • I'm an eternalist - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 18:57 UTC
                  • Boo! - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 19:25 UTC
                    • Hmm... - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 19:49 UTC
                      • Playing the shrink now? - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 20:38 UTC
                        • Not exactly - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 21:30 UTC
                          • In the end... - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 22:12 UTC
                            • Aurino - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 22:30 UTC
                              • Hey, no worries; you were all babies once - dolphin - April 6, 2002 - 08:28 UTC
                              • Who's telling the nuclear power guys anything? - aurino - April 6, 2002 - 14:31 UTC
                            • I won't belabor the point - harvey1 - April 6, 2002 - 21:16 UTC
                          • Alan, that makes no sense - harvey1 - April 6, 2002 - 14:06 UTC
                            • I agree Harv, with something - dolphin - April 11, 2002 - 08:13 UTC
                  • Are we talking about phlogiston again? - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 20:55 UTC
                    • You mean the stuff that science dispelled - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 21:52 UTC
                      • Phlogiston was popular among Harv scientists in its day - carefuluniverse - April 10, 2002 - 02:06 UTC
                        • That's funny! - harvey1 - April 10, 2002 - 12:14 UTC
                          • Thank you - carefuluniverse - April 10, 2002 - 17:21 UTC
                      • I am humble also! - doctordick - April 10, 2002 - 17:00 UTC
                    • "Are we talking about phlogiston again" - dolphin - April 11, 2002 - 09:05 UTC
• But I have solved it! - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 16:37 UTC
  • I knew you would say that - aurino - April 9, 2002 - 16:58 UTC
    • How so? - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 19:15 UTC
      • Oops - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 19:17 UTC
      • :-) - aurino - April 9, 2002 - 20:59 UTC
        • Cool - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 21:24 UTC
    • Time and Space, confounded! - doctordick - April 10, 2002 - 16:40 UTC
      • Making good definitions and other challenges to science - harvey1 - April 10, 2002 - 18:43 UTC
        • beginning to sound like you read my earlier posts - spazcon - April 11, 2002 - 01:28 UTC
      • That makes a lot of sense - aurino - April 10, 2002 - 19:36 UTC
      • Carpenter's level am it ravity compass? - carefuluniverse - April 11, 2002 - 01:21 UTC