I don't know how my other response was so obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:
"Anonymous wrote:
"Here's a new theory on the universe and how events might be largely predetermined..."

I don't mean to be a defender of the status quo, but I don't see any support for assuming the validity or universality of this analogy (which "anonymous" posed")comparing:
1) the behavior of electron streams in a double slit experiment to
2) the complex interactions of brain, body, and external world involving our abstract and physical experiences

Anonymous wrote:
What some see as meaningless 'electrons' flying in all directions over time, is actually a quite specific pattern that emerges.

What is mean by "meaningless," and "in all directions?" I suspect 'nothing.'

Anonymous wrote:
"The question then becomes, what part of the 'wall' is our life going to strike. The most intense part of the wave pattern, or the area closest to darkness part of the wave."

I like this kind of thinking. Let us remember that sometimes the right answer is not what we thought it should be.

Thanks, Anonymous, for playing.

• quantum entanglement - tkorrovi - October 27, 2003 - 02:03 UTC
  • Okay, I have visited your site. - carefuluniverse - October 27, 2003 - 07:18 UTC
    • at least they cannot say "nobody proposed any mechanisms yet" - tkorrovi - October 28, 2003 - 21:50 UTC
      • give them time...to read and so on - carefuluniverse - October 29, 2003 - 06:09 UTC
        • any comments - tkorrovi - October 29, 2003 - 14:06 UTC
        • give time - tkorrovi - October 29, 2003 - 19:51 UTC
          • or computable but non-computable with equations - tkorrovi - October 31, 2003 - 13:26 UTC
            • The difference between computable & non-computable w/ equations - carefuluniverse - October 31, 2003 - 19:04 UTC